Submit Your Candidates for November Screwballs of the Month

[jpholding]

Sheila says, make 'em good. :thumb:

[themuzicman]

Sheila says, make 'em good. :thumb:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=64543

LW proposes that a family of four be GIVEN $25,000 tax free by the government, whereas the family of four making $39,000 has to pay a 35.5% tax rate, and the top 1/5th of wage earners would take about a 20% hit on their income. :ahem:

What's wrong with this picture?

[Sparko]

Squeakybro is back!

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1253086#post1253086

[jpholding]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=64543

LW proposes that a family of four be GIVEN $25,000 tax free by the government, whereas the family of four making $39,000 has to pay a 35.5% tax rate, and the top 1/5th of wage earners would take about a 20% hit on their income. :ahem:

What's wrong with this picture?

I need to submit that to Brent Hardaway....

[Bill the Cat]

I need to submit that to Brent Hardaway....
John Smith:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1252991&postcount=1

Why you ask? It is Johnny Skeptic reborn....again....:digup:

[Sparko]

John Smith:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1252991&postcount=1

Why you ask? It is Johnny Skeptic reborn....again....:digup:

I don't know why Johnny isn't a Christian, yet. He obviously believes in resurrection..after resurrection...after resurrection....

[Cynic Sage]

Athiestman9, an oldie-but-a-goodie from May 2004:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=26532


If there is a god, how can you explain the recent discovery of a brother of Jesus? The Bible clearly says the 'only son of god?' The answer? The bible was not written by 'god' or jesus. It was written by jesus' best friends. If you asked your best friend to write several books about how you've done 'miracles', the book would be vagrantly biased and if not you really need better friends. And if the book is biased, how can we base our decisions in life on it? We can't. That takes care of the New Testament. As for the old testament, according to biblical scholars, the old testament was a group of very old stories carried down by word of mouth. How believable is anything carried down by word of mouth? Here's an example: anyone ever played Telephone? You know, everyone sits in a circle and someone whispers a secret in the person next to them's ear and the secret goes around the circle by whispering. If after only 20 people one sentence can go from "Billy is a fast runner" to "I want to run to Phillidelphia", how can so many people trust in, basically, an attempt to write a guide to life through a 100 year game of telephone? They can't. I'm done. Edited by a moderator.


However did we miss this guy? :lmbo:

[Sparko]

Athiestman9, an oldie-but-a-goodie from May 2004:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=26532



However did we miss this guy? :lmbo:

Probably cuz he only made one post and that was it.

I think we should stick to current screwballs and not old one.

See my signature for thebluetriangle's latest... wait I will reproduce it here in case I change my sig later...


Sparko and wfaber...

Sparko (o) = 80 = Beelzebub (o)

wfaber (o) = 55 = Satan (o)

Now I see why you're being so...adversarial.

BT

from:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1253330&postcount=125

(he is the bible code guy. Johnny EC suggested I nominate him. At first I was not going to since I nominated him last month but he is too funny to pass up this month.)

[BronzeArcher]

Uh, some wierdness... (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19553053&postcount=79)

The point is, do not make a claim about Jesus and then say it must be true because it says so in the Gospel. The Gospels, by themselves, are not an objective source of actual history. I am not make a statement about whether I believe the Gospels or whether I think the teachings therein are valid. I'm merely stating that in order to prove the historical accuracy of a document, ANY document, you must go to outside sources for corraboration.

At any rate, the burden of proof in this case is not on those that have certain doubts about different aspects of the Bible, but on those that insist that it is true. . . Did a historical Jesus Christ exist? Ok, prove it. And, although it might seem unfair, prove it without using as evidence the source of the claim that you're trying to make.

Think about it like this. I go out partying one night and don't come home until the next morning. My wife is up waiting for me, so I tell her my story. Car broke down, cell phone died, I had to rescue a kitten from a burning building, whatever. Oh yeah? She says, prove it. Is it sufficient for me to say "well, I just told you what happened, there's your proof"? No, it's not. I better produce a dead cell phone, a car repair bill, and a sooty kitten. Better yet, let's hope channel 2 news was on the scene of the fire and got me on tape running into the burning building. The Gospels are the claim, the story that need to be proved. Now, how are you going to prove them?

Oh horrors. He also says,

First, we have the Gospels. I've already stated one reason I don't like to use the Bible as "proof" of anything...of course it's going to tell the reader that it's true. Wouldn't be much of a religious text if it didn't. I'm inclined to discount the Gospels, therefore, as proof that Jesus actually existed.

Riiiiight.

[Sparko]

I caught Pythagoras posting a forged quote from Irenaeus. So I posted his version and the real version and called him on it.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1253586&postcount=182

His reaction:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1253753&postcount=183

Stop getting excited and learn to read English Quasimodo. Two different translations;

The first :" though the Son actually performed the creation act, because the Father willed and empowered him to do it"

The second :"
the creation of any state, or of any work, is referred to him who prepared materials for the accomplishment of those results which were afterwards brought about."

But the gist of the Irenaeus's argument is the same.

They are not even remotely CLOSE to the same! He just digs his hole deeper.
He probably found his version on some anti-trinitarian web site and didn't bother to check it out, or worse, he changed it himself.

[BronzeArcher]

dunkel continues his trash (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19598551&postcount=83)

lol, throwing out a few big words, hoping to confuse some people into thinking you're right?

The point of my analogy, which was, apparently, too complicated for you, was that when you tell a story, you can't then depend on that story to validate itself. Any story, whether it's in a history book or I'm just trying to get myself out of hot water with my wife. Yes, there are other writings about Jesus, the creeds, all that good stuff...and all based on...the original story. A few obscure references to Christians, as a group, here or there, but again, that has never been in doubt. A few more references to Christ himself, but none by anyone that actually claims to have met him and no sense of the ultimate source of these references (what sources were available?). And the primary 3rd party source (Josephus) is considered so spurious that the debate is no longer that parts of it were made up but only WHICH parts.

BTW, if I was able to get four friends together to back up my story, but they were as full of holes and contradictions as the four Gospels apparently are, you can bet I'd be sleeping on the couch for a month. So, you went bowling, huh? Who went with you...Frank and Joe? Well, your other friend said it was Jimmy and his girlfriend...which is it?

I used "Hellenized", "encomiastic", "socio-historical anthropology", and something that's apparently new for his vocab, "biblical scholar". :rofl:

To "And, although it might seem unfair, prove it without using as evidence the source of the claim that you're trying to make." In reply I pointed out that under this, one could not use the Agricola as evidence that Agricola existed. Ignored!

[Cynic Sage]

Clutch Cargo goes a bit nuts in Locker Room about a thread of his that was moved:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=64538

:argh:

Sparko just killed my thread over under: Wiccan, etc...

Neo-Paganism = paganism

Oh sure, recycled and repackaged, but the same old "goodess" and "god", or spirit of darkness. Lord and Lady? Gimmie a break. Non-textual, non-historical? :lmbo: :rofl:

Sheer nonsense, we have an accurate and true historical record of the real gods and goddess, existing in multiple places and cultures throughout time. Same old, same old demonic realm.

Hear me whine, I'm all in a TIFF.

*burp*


Hey I will move it back. It was not clear from your OP that you were connecting the two (paganism and NEO paganism) and also Bandecoot has posted in the thread and others have answered him. Seeing how he is a theist and is not allowed to post in wicca forum, if I move it back I will have to edit all that out and the responses, and it might disrupt the thread even more than merely moving it.

Oh, and Sparko Mod' man, I wanted to get into the Biblical references to the "sacred grove".

Have you heard of the Sacred Groves of Oaks? :ahem:

How do you account for the exploding squirrel population???

"Exploding squirrell population"?

[Sparko]

This is about as screwball as it gets.

http://www.isaiah58.com/APOSTATEFATHERS.HTM

(I found it because this seems to be where Pythagoras found his forged quote that I reported previously (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1253834&postcount=10). I wonder if its HIS site? :teeth:)

It's near the bottom (but the rest is just as bad)

Concerning this Scripture, let me first point out the extremely important, but oft-overlooked fact that Peter is not calling believers Christians. In order to understand what Peter was saying, as his original readers understood it, we need to substitute the word Christian with a modern equivalent. We could use "cult member", or "jackass" or "fool", or any such term, ....
This crude drawing shows a believer looking toward a man, who has the head of a jackass, being crucified on a cross, ...

http://www.isaiah58.com/jackass.gif If we substitute the modern derisive term jackass for Christian in those three Scriptures in the New Testament where Christian is found, we will discover what was really being communicated at that time.







Acts 11:26 "And the disciples were first called `jackasses' at Antioch."
Acts 26:28 "Then Agrippa said to Paul, `Almost thou persuadest me to be a jackass.'"
1Pet. 4:16 "Yet if any man suffer as a `jackass', let him glorify God on this behalf."
...

There is nothing sacred about the name Christian. It is not of God. Christianity is not the church of Jesus Christ; it is a pretender to the title of the bride of Christ (cp. Rev. 18:7); it is an evil institution, in which no child of God belongs.

[Cynic Sage]

The Creep on those misunderstood terrorists:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=49446&page=3


But my point was that terrorists are people too and we shouldn't let the anti-art tendencies of a few dominate the samaritanian impulses of the many.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Pythagoras has outdone himself here. In response to my question on why he reads Habakkuk 1:12 as "You will not die" instead of "We will not die", he gave me a link to a Watchtower article with the latest scholarship going back to 1897!

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1256594&postcount=219

The guy just keeps outdoing himself

[Shadow Phoenix]

Can I also just save us a lot of writing in advance and nominate Squeakybro for any OP he writes on a thread beginning with the words on "Revelation on"?

[Darth Executor]

Gamefaqs is a gold mine. I'm going to spare one of the gentlemen I've met the embarassment of a nomination since he seemed pretty nice (although the temptation of claiming a trophy like "Christians copied halos from the Aztecs" is quite powerful).

Everyone of you who keeps talking about your faith as fact is wrong; Faith can not stand up to fact. You said your faith is fact, you are wrong and aren't worth me arguing with you. You wish to argue your faith against mine and treat your faith as faith, that is fine.

Having engaged him in the past, I give him one chance to leave the thread because I knew he'd end up shooting himself in the foot. He refuses my gracious offer.

Reading comprehension is your friend. You treat your faith as fact, you are wrong. Your faith limits your ability to form a coherent and decent argument because you, as you have shown many times, are very closed minded. And you laugh off other peoples questions without answering or twist what they say to attempt, and poorly at that, to make yourself sound smart, and then tell others they don't answer yours question when they had answered them three times prior.

I give him your link for the definition of faith (I'm sure you can predict the result but I'll get to it in a moment anyway). I then ask him to prove I "laugh off other people's questions". And the fun starts.

*points to last argument I had with you*

<b>Me: God is beyond time. God is in Heaven. Therefor Heaven is beyond time and would have always been there since time can't pass in Heaven for then it would pass for God and he would not be beyond time.</b>

I stated that three times in the last argument, you never got it.

<b>Me: If God is all knowing. Then he has to know all of the past, present and future. That means God knows what will happen and thus we can't have free will if he knows what we will choose.</b>

I stated that four times in the last argument, you never got it.

Simple, logical and easily followed. You couldn't follow either.

Love thy neighbor. They tell you to <ceonsored> off and shut up. And you choose NOT to. Then you aren't loving thy neighbor. You have chosen to force yourself and your beliefs upon them, even after they tell you not to.

Turn the other cheek. If you so believe that you are right to the point of where you view your belief as fact, then there is not logical reason to even be in this argument. You have often sounded like you are trying to convince yourself, not me, that you are right.

Yep.

* God is in heaven. God always existed therefore heaven always existed
* usual complaint about molinism
* loving your neighbour = letting them burn in hell (apparently when Jesus said to love your neighbour, he meant not to try and convert them. So much for "make disciples of all the nations")
* I'm insecure because I argue.

We then get to his reply to your article:



Yep.

[quote]Now until you stop doing what you accuse me of, this argument is over.

He comes back for 4 more rounds after this.

I answer his objections about heaven and free will (for the 5th time, he seems to have selective memory).
He dances around them for one post then pretends they never existed.
I then ask him if your site is automatically wrong because you're biased.

I didn't say it was wrong ... I said it was bias and not fit to pose an argument on. Please, read what is said.


In other words you said it was wrong. Stop playing games with me and explain to me how an article that quotes scholars(you know, people with PhDs and the education required to know what they're talking about) about the translation of a greek word is wrong. Otherwise I'll simply say you are biased and not fit to pose an argument on and I win.

Arguments are bias ... because we make them and as humans we all have bias. So using my argument to make an argument off of course is unfit.

Yep, now all humans have bias which leads to him having to tell me whether:

A) He's a moron who is suggesting that we can't trust any source because they're all biased by his own admission
B) He doesn't have an answer and is desperately trying to hide it.

So what does he do? Answer? Of course not. :wink:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/mission.html

That is how your site is bias. If you have one bias site, you should, if you have any sense, look at other bias sites. If you are making a argument of Abortion, you should go to both Pro-Choice and Anti-choice(Pro-Life, if you prefer a PC term) web sites. And get info from both.

Here is the other bias ... I took the liberty of finding for you.

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/rfholdin.htm

Yep. He says I'm supposed to do his research for him and show both sides of the issue. Maybe it's a new debate technique I haven't hear of where the Christian argues for both sides and the atheist just sits there and picks his nose. He "does it for me" by quoting an article written by EARL DOHERTY(which is enough to earn a nomination) which has nothing to do with faith.

As a side nomination, we have Dr. Freud:


It shows how insecure you are about your beliefs that you have to spend countless hours on the internet arguing about them with people you don't even know.

I'm guessing Freud doesn't know that it takes me roughly 10 minutes to write up a one thousand word reply. It's not like I actually have to think about it before I start with this kind of competition. :teeth:

[BronzeArcher]

You know Darth, :argh: is a good representation of that, but I have another one for you.

[Darth Executor]

You know Darth, :argh: is a good representation of that, but I have another one for you.

The most frustrating part is that gamefaqs won't let me call people morons. :sigh:

[spl_cadet]

Kenite again. (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1258467&postcount=10)


I think what you mean is legalism. Catholics are not justified by faith, and they have to go through the priest-centred hoops of their cult; going to mass and confession, 'Sunday' attendance (and there's no such thing as Sunday), saying rosaries, lighting candles, fasting, etc. It's no different from circumcision; 'Beware of the dogs', Paul wrote, and they're still around, ready to bite any passing foolish Galatian.

[dizzle]

Wow no such thing as Sunday? Woooo I have been getting free days off from my employer! :dance:

[The Laughing Man]

James Randi (http://www.randi.org/). 'Nuff said.

[The Laughing Man]

:dance:

What in the heck is that?

[MTresmond]

JP! I would like to submit Mark Smith of www.jcnot4me.com as a screwball of the month candidate.

[The Laughing Man]

What in the heck is that?

That was supposed to be the smilie in DDW's post.

[MTresmond]

TheLaughingMan,
I wouldn't be so keen on going after Randi. He does a lot of work debunking pseudoscientific claims of psychics, alternative medicine, and other fradulent and dangerous acts to the public. I believe that through his work, many people have been spared financial trouble resulting from the likes of Miss Cleo & Co., in addition lives saved from falling for bogus medical practices. Although he isn't of a religoius persuaion, let's let a good man rest.

I think the "Screwballs of the Month" contest shouldn't automatically be awarded to any atheist or nonbeliever, but to a skeptic who meets a number of criteria, which include (but are not limited to) :

- Overly inflammatory remarks that are of no value to scholarly discussion.

- Prejudiced and presumptuous attitudes that dismiss differently-opinioned scholars on merit of their belief system alone.

- Spends his or her time as an encumbrance to debate and discussion.

- Continuously maintains a cocky attitude towards others.

- Uses their time and resources for the purposes of satire and comedy rather than detailed research, and expects the satirical product to be accepted seriously.

It was for those reasons that I nominated Mark Smith. James Randi, on the other hand, is simply a man of different religious orientation.

[Cynic Sage]

TheLaughingMan,
I wouldn't be so keen on going after Randi. He does a lot of work debunking pseudoscientific claims of psychics, alternative medicine, and other fradulent and dangerous acts to the public. I believe that through his work, many people have been spared financial trouble resulting from the likes of Miss Cleo & Co., in addition lives saved from falling for bogus medical practices. Although he isn't of a religoius persuaion, let's let a good man rest.

I think the "Screwballs of the Month" contest shouldn't automatically be awarded to any atheist or nonbeliever, but to a skeptic who meets a number of criteria, which include (but are not limited to) :

- Overly inflammatory remarks that are of no value to scholarly discussion.

- Prejudiced and presumptuous attitudes that dismiss differently-opinioned scholars on merit of their belief system alone.

- Spends his or her time as an encumbrance to debate and discussion.

- Continuously maintains a cocky attitude towards others.

- Uses their time and resources for the purposes of satire and comedy rather than detailed research, and expects the satirical product to be accepted seriously.

It was for those reasons that I nominated Mark Smith. James Randi, on the other hand, is simply a man of different religious orientation.
Somebody nominate this for POTD (That's the opposite of a "Screwbie").

[BronzeArcher]

dunkel makes effort at showing his ignorance (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19728837&postcount=126)

In response to TIF factor 1,

There were many cults who revolved around a God/man who was put to death in ignoble ways. Some even had the subject of their worship dying through crucifixion. The fact that Christ was crusified does not make him unique by any stretch of the imagination.

factor 4,

Although they obviously didn't survive the Christian civil war of the first few centuries, the Gnostics considered their own beliefs to be simply continuations of earlier pagan practices. And, for quite some time and across many areas, Gnostic Christianity was the predominant Christian faith. This is proabably because many of the beliefs of those early Christians fit in so well with other pagan beliefs running around at the time, that it wasn't necessarily a huge leap to go from pagan to Christian. The Greeks, especially, were into these "mystery cults", so it would follow that the Greeks might be more inclined to take up this new faith...which is, in fact, exactly what happened...Christianity caught on quickly among the Greeks, and other populations that already had a tradition of similar practices. It was among the Jews that early Christians had a hard time preaching the word. And what did the Roman authorities care? Christians were generally a well behaved group, whose own founder told them to "render unto Caesar"...what more could they ask for? The stories of Roman persecution of the Christians, with a few notable exceptions, were greatly exaggerated.

factor 5,

I don't even know what he's trying to say here, really. Christianity, like many other faiths before and since, caught on first with the poor. As to why "Christianity grew where God-fearers were always a very small group", I don't see it as "very difficult to explain". For starters, as I said, there are a lot of similarities between already existing practices and these "new" Christian practices, so it wasn't a huge leap to go from one to the other. Also, what better message to spread among the poor that, although their life in this world sucks, just believe in Jesus, and the next life will be wonderful? Why is it hard to see why that message caught on?

I could go on, but I don't have the time. That guy is preaching to the choir and he knows it. That's all I'm going to say about it.

[{Tim}]

Somebody nominate this for POTD (That's the opposite of a "Screwbie").
Ask a mod.

.... not me! I already nominated one today... :ahem:

[BronzeArcher]

dunkel's trash again (http://www.christianforums.com/t2120397-jesus-is-a-myth.html&page=13)

I don't think even Biblical scholars believe that Mark was actually written by Mark.

Just for fun, though, here are a few links for your reading pleasure:
http://www.infidels.org/library/his.../16/chap16.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/wasdin/wasdin30.html
http://www.fabrisia.com/crucifixion.htm
http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

Have fun.

In response to my exposition of TIF factor 1, he goes on about the uniquness (or lack of) of Christianity. Clearly, his competence is off the charts.

[Cynic Sage]

Moses (Allan) and Provoker:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=63161&page=1&pp=16


"Christianity," in its simplest terms, is the result of previous centuries of Jewish and Greek myth and conjecture about the coming of a “Messiah,” and revolves around the resurrection.

The teachings of Jesus were altered to fit the legend, but definitely took a secondary role.

The gospels were composed many years after the death of not only Jesus, but even of most of the people that knew him directly. Not only were these Gospels displaced in time, but also displaced culturally since Greek speaking Christians composed them.

- And then even further meaning was lost in translation from the Aramaic.

There are now two main, and disparate, schools of thought about the origin of Christianity. The first, and mistaken belief is that Jesus himself, as well as his teachings, was the founder.

The other is that the Christ or "Anointed One" of the Resurrection, as well as Pauline thought, is the bases of this religion. This may seem to be a small distinction upon first inspection, but in the end a very crucial one.

If it is based on the teachings, and more importantly, the example of Jesus, then his words take on enormous significance.

If, on the other hand, the "resurrection" and "Pauline thought" is taken as the bases for Christianity, then it is based on the ideas and beliefs of the people who came after him!

Remember a very important fact! Jesus never personally claimed to be conducting his Ministry to "erase man's sins,” just as he never claimed to be Divine himself. Jesus constantly referred to himself as the "son of God,” just as we all are!

The early Christian gospels are not historical biographies of Christ, and do not really give us insight into the life of Jesus. These gospels proclaim a message about Jesus, and express a significance that the early Christians found in Jesus.

They are written in a way that appeals to historical truth, but they are not history in any actual sense.

The gospels expressed what people experienced about Jesus in the context of the first century Near East.

This experience was taken as a "revelation" of the divine, and they tell us what the early Christians eventually came to believe about Jesus!

Until the recent deciphering of the Gospel of Thomas and the discovery of the "Q" sayings, this knowledge of Christ was the only bases we had to explore the historical Jesus.

As a result, it was very difficult to differentiate between the actual words of Jesus and the words attributed to him by his followers. (Christians) ............................Fortunately, this is changing.
Your faithfull scribe;
Allan :smile:

Hello Allan...you faithful scribe:-)
I agree with your premise, but let me add my...
(2 cents)=Christianity was actually formed in 6th century BC when it was prophesied that an annointed one would come and resurrect the kingdom of his father David. This started a nationalist movement called "Judaism", which began watching, waiting, and preparing for, the coming messiah, and the resurrection of the covenant nation/kingdom Israel. Judaism was "messianic", and when "messianic" is translated into 1st century Greek, it becomes "Christian".
The Jews who went to Judea after the Babylonian captivity was over, went with the intention of resurrecting the kingdom, but they found it so comfortable to live by their own laws in Persian Judea, that they lost faith, and interest, in the messianic goal...Kingdom resurrection.
This made the Judean Jews the backslidden lost sheep of the house of Israel, and Jesus came specificly to bring them back into the messianic fold, by preaching the gospel of the kingdom(the same gospel of the kingdom preached by the prophet in 6th century BC Babylon).
The chief priests and Pharisees became afraid that if enough Jews followed Jesus, he might lead an attack on Rome, in an attempt to resurrect the kingdom, and then the Roman soldiers would come and kill all the Jews. This would cause the chief priests and Pharisees to lose their jobs, at the very least, so they plotted to kill Jesus before he could attack Rome, stating that the death of one man(Jesus) would save the whole nation(from death at the hands of the Romans).
The chief priests and Pharisees arrested Jesus, and the Romans, who obviously had a stake in it, executed him.
The apostles continued to preach the gospel of the kingdom after Jesus' death, and eventually Rome got tired of the kingdom zealot's rebellion, and they destroyed Jerusalem and scattered the Jews(and Christians).
Apostolic Christianity, and it's goal of kingdom resurrection, went underground for a couple of centuries, and Constantine, the sun worshipping emperor of the Roman empire, probably recognizing that Christianity might still be a threat to the national security of the empire, made Christianity legitimate, and turned into a completely universal organization, by adding to it doctrines from all the other(pagan) religions of the empire.
The main change that Constantine made to Christianity, was to add to it the one doctrine which was common to virtually every pagan religion of the time; "the virgin-born, dying-rising, god-man, saviour".

Unfortunately I was not present when Jesus was around so we can only go by what is written in the scriptures. By the way did you know that there is absolutely no mention of Jesus other trhan in the scriptures. (there are a handfull of pruported sites but they have been dismissed as hoaxes) Strange for the most famous man in history! :wink:

Oy!:ahem:

[TuckEverlasting]

One would hope that most TWebbers have long since stopped taking DJ's arguments assertions seriously. Still, (just for kicks!) I thought this (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1259822&postcount=24) was worth mentioning:

You're trying to show me how smart you are, but most of what I see is obtuseness.

The irony is like... a 1000-ton block of iron. :hehe: I really cannot believe he is a Phil. prof. :shrug:

[jpholding]

You know Darth, :argh: is a good representation of that, but I have another one for you.

Huh huh...."I'm a woodpecker....'cept with dirt!" :rofl:


JP! I would like to submit Mark Smith of www.jcnot4me.com as a screwball of the month candidate.

Heck, I may as well give him a Lifetime Achievement since I've stated I won't write any articles about him. But Randi does deserve a Bronze for stepping so far outside his field of expertise....

[quote=BronzeArcher]
In response to my exposition of TIF factor 1, he goes on about the uniquness (or lack of) of Christianity. Clearly, his competence is off the charts.[/quote\

Sometimes it seems like responses to TIF do more to encourage conversion than TIF does. :lol:

[Darth Executor]

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=142757

If anybody wants to quote mine that thread, go ahead. I think it stands on its own without my help.

[Sparko]

Vfarris01 on Plagiarism:



Then I accuse you of being a liar as well as a plagerist.

You took your post

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1258025&postcount=1


directly from this site (see below), and just changed the statements to questions.

http://www.touchstoneforum.com/htdocs/dcforum/User_files/428371050164d9bc.html


You didn't even bother to change the order of the points or the verses.
That I made use of someone else's work does not make me a plagerist... I came up with the idea and started compiling the list of verses before I found that site... Using it only saved me time... I checked out most of the verses as well... so sue me... Last time I checked the Bible was public domain... there are also no restriction associated with the site nor did I know it was a JW site... I probably would not have made use if it had I known.




http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1261412&postcount=103

[Rayado]

This just in: VFarris has just been awarded the Modern Langauge Association's prestigious Advances in Defense of Intellectual Property award.

:shifty: :hehe: :haha:

[OfficialPro]

There's this guy called Nathyn (at protestwarrior.com) who pulled the old No True Scotsman dealie over Hitler. (he claims it wasn't to smear Christianity, but I digress). He said that since there is no accepted definition of Christian, that if Hitler said he was a Christian, that he was. (I think he's been copypasting off of religioustolerance.org lol) After all, "people don't lie to themselves about their beliefs". :lol:

[Cynic Sage]

JP! I would like to submit Mark Smith of www.jcnot4me.com (http://www.jcnot4me.com/) as a screwball of the month candidate.

DUDE! This guy commited the "Argument by Authority" fallacy not to, say, the likes of refferring to Issac Asimov on on the subject of life in the Biblical Era, but is instead referring to STAND-UP COMEDIANS to back up his anti-xtianity arguments.


Stephen *Colbert Speaks Out Regarding: Bible Stories

"Of course they're real stories- the Bible says they're real stories!!! And we know
that the Bible is inerrant, because the Bible says the Bible is inerrant.
I mean, what part of that logic don't you get?
If we need evidence, what's the point of faith?"

Note from Mark Smith: The "court jesters" of today seem to be the only ones who can get away, in the public media, with telling the truth about Christianity- because, after all, it's just the crazy court jester. Bill Mahrer, George Carlin, Sam Kennison (r.i.p.), Jon Stewart- people hear the comedians mocking their mockable religions, but then shrug off the criticisms with a "yeah, that was a little close to home, but what does he know? He's just a comedian". They laugh- but then they feel guilty for laughing, for the laughing reveals that deep down inside they know the comments are true. If there are prophets for the modern era, it's the Lenny Bruces and not the Jerry Falwells.
The Colbert Report (http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/index.jhtml) on Comedy Central, Nov. 2, 2005



And dig the poor hermeneutics in this "Letter to Jesus"

[attachment]
click to enlarge

"Everyone knows you try on shoes before you buy them." Wow, you can really tell this guy truly loves and respects his wife. :ahem:

[Cynic Sage]

Underlings, for his support of "Why does God Hate Amputees.com" (which simply offerers the a glorified version of the "If God was real prayer would be like a gumball machine" argument, and for that the website deserves a nomination itself):

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=64969

Hi there. I haven't posted here before, but Dee Dee suggested I do, so why not jump in with something powerful?

Over the years I've spent a lot of time defending science and arguing theodicy, and I'd been working on articles clarifying my positions on the latter topic...only to discover a site that basically covers the subjects in more detail than my own articles, and more compellingly. The site is:

http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/ (http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/)



...According to the Bible, all you need is a modicum of faith--the relative amount of a mustard seed next to a mountain--and what you ask Jesus for, he will give. NOTHING is impossible. I'm not making up the rules...that is what the Bible says! Those who disagree with the site's position have been skirting around this issue with red herrings (pardon the odd imagery).

So let me try once again.... Given the following:

1. The Bible is literally the word of God and all its contents are true.
2. The Bible says in no uncertain terms that ANYTHING you pray for you will get.

Why is it that when you actually pray for something that can't be explained by natural means (coincidence, human deception, human achievement, etc.), such as the regrowth of amputated limbs, the prayers NEVER come true? (If you do not believe me...try it!!)

And if that's the case, then that means that at least one of the two givens is false. We know that 3 is not false because it's right there in the Bible, so...


And an Anti-Screwball award for Carpedm9587:

This has been an interesting thread :eww:

Although I am atheist, I never have understood the atheist argument against god that was premised on the idea that the christian god was a massive piggy bank. It seems to me the argument that god is not because people pray for things and don't get them is an empty claim.

Likewise, I have never truly understood the theistic perspective that if something you ask for happens it is the act of a god. Across the board, I have found if you widen your perspective from the individual to the general you find a phenomenon that is a credible natural process; it requires no recourse to the supernatural.

Bottom line: I don't think getting what you ask for proves there is a god or not getting what you ask for proves there is not. To me, there are far more meaningful discussions that could be had that demonstrate that the idea of a god is a human construct. This one seems a tad superfluous.

/Michel

[Cynic Sage]

There's this guy called Nathyn (at protestwarrior.com) who pulled the old No True Scotsman dealie over Hitler. (he claims it wasn't to smear Christianity, but I digress). He said that since there is no accepted definition of Christian, that if Hitler said he was a Christian, that he was. (I think he's been copypasting off of religioustolerance.org lol) After all, "people don't lie to themselves about their beliefs". :lol:
Linky Linky. :teeth:

[jpholding]

Ironically enough just the day before he posted that, one of my regular readers pointed me to that site and suggested that it could stand a parody rebuttal. Fortunately I had my new policy in effect already. :teeth:

Johnny, do me a favor...check out the site Ray Fletcher points to in the Apol 301 "Question for JP and His Friends" by a guy named Dutch who makes some comments about honor-shame and particularly Bushido. See what you think of my analysis of what Dutch is doing, also. I think Dutch may deserve a Screwball.

Back tomorrow...

[Richbee]

Clutch Cargo goes a bit nuts in Locker Room about a thread of his that was moved:

"Exploding squirrell population"?

Acorns - squirrells...

:poke:

:hehe:

If you knew what the pagans really had in mind, you might catch the humor intended for Wiccans or Neo-pagans. (The Canaanites combined in conjugal relationship the fertility goddess Asherah with the fertility god Baal. Her sacred sites of worship were found among groves of trees, trees being a symbol both of fertility, longevity and in some cases eternal life. In reality, the worship of Baal and Asherah was in many regards cultic prostitution. )

Pagans of Europe had "sacred groves of Oak trees", with their own version of same deities. :lmbo:

:rofl:

(Never mind. That fertility goddess was just squirrelly for those Nuts.)

[Cynic Sage]

Johnny, do me a favor...check out the site Ray Fletcher points to in the Apol 301 "Question for JP and His Friends" by a guy named Dutch who makes some comments about honor-shame and particularly Bushido. See what you think of my analysis of what Dutch is doing, also. I think Dutch may deserve a Screwball.


http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/TOXICVAL.HTM

Dude, this guy is an total freaking idiot who although travelling to foreign countries, really needs to get his head out of the yankee-doodleverse and let go of his ideas of Manifest Destiny. The guy isn't even an anthropologist, he's a geologist.

It's considered bad form in many circles to criticize another culture's values. In addition, the social science literature contains a number of rationalizations for the "honor" mentality. One is that every value system makes sense to the people that hold it. Another is that every value system exists for a reason. Well, of course. The problem is that you can make these assertions about any value system whatsoever. Rape and genocide and embezzlement also exist for a reason, and make sense to people who think a certain way. That doesn't tell us whether the values are morally acceptable or even whether they are beneficial to those who adhere to them.


"Don't worry you bearded savages with your modestly dressed women, Dear Old Uncle Sam McWhitey, who isn't from your country but has stopped by a few times on vacation and work trips, knows what's best for you."

The sad part is that I saw other exchange students (even myself :blush:) have the same kind of attitude of self-rightousness towards the Japanese at times (such as with regards to the importance placed on the observation of certain rules how to wear the school's uniform).

Now as to the Bushido bit, I'm no anthropologist, but I can tell you that this is straight BS:


In sharp contrast to thar, Bushido was an internalized code of honor. One could be shamed in Bushido even if nobody else knew.

In her book The Rape of Nanking, Iris Chang recounts the story of a Japanese doctor who had willingly committed atrocities in China during World War II. He now has a shrine of remorse in his waiting room. Many Japanese are in denial about Japanese war crimes but others want to know the truth; it's a terrible struggle for many given their cultural conditioning, but many are making the effort. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for anyone in Hamas, Serbia, Rwanda, or Liberia to build a shrine of remorse.



With regard to what Shintoism has to do with Bushido, one could be shamed before one's dead ancestors (that would have to do with the significance of the Shrine of remorse). Although he is somewhat half, no, make that a quarter right that modern Japanese are different from the ancient one's and may feel guilt (IMO), but they are not a "Guilt-culture" as the values of honor and shame still hold precedence.

Aside from that, he grossly charicatures honor-shame cultures, just look at this:


We find this mentality developed to differing degrees in different places. Hispanics, Turks and Greeks can be roused to seek revenge if insulted, but my experience with these cultures is that the "honor" mentality is deeply moderated by pragmatism, a sense of humor, and a general zest for living (another reason I consider the label "Mediterranean" inappropriate). On the other hand, I recall a bank clerk in Naples who refused to cash travelers' checks even though he had cashed them the previous day. His attitude seemed to be "You're the SOB who makes it necessary for me to come to work and I'm not going to do a thing for you." 24 hours afterward, I cashed a large amount of checks in Greece, totally wiping out the cash supply of a small bank office. Not the slightest problem. The attitude here seemed to be "It's too much trouble to be a pain. Let's cooperate and enjoy life." Where I've personally seen the "honor" mentality at its most grim, deadly, and unredeemed by humanizing characteristics is in the Balkans and the Middle East.

The thar mentality can be said to include these features. They vary in degree from person to person and place to place but if we find all or most of them in a society we can justly apply the label thar.


Extreme importance of personal status and sensitivity to insult
Acceptance of personal revenge including retaliatory killing
Obsessive male dominance
Paranoia over female sexual infidelity
Primacy of family rights over individual rights


I knew you'd get a kick out of at last part, JP.

"A bank teller in a foreign country was rude to me, and another one was polite. The former demonstrates the danger's of an Honor/Shame society and how modern American Individualism is far superior. No, I have never been to New York City. Why do you ask?"

:lol:

[jpholding]

ROFL! Thanks, I was being generous then. Nice to see I was on target about the ancestor aspect, too.

[Cynic Sage]

I LOL nominate LOL Provoker the LOL "Bible Scholar" LOL in his LOL thread titled LOL "Defining scripture in my dreams...LOL":

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=64727

I discuss with other bible scholars, not to convert, because that would be impossible...LOL, but as a critical test of my own opinions, and on the chance that I might discover evidence which I may have missed.



Don't be sorry...LOL I do not discuss the bible as a teacher, but as a lifetime bible scholar, so I cannot be responsible for anyone but myself, and any "criticism" is constructive if it causes people to look past their dogmatic committment and become aware that there is more than they know.

... I don't see that as a problem either, because I do not see myself as in competition with any bible "experts", or any denomination/sect of Christianity. I have dealt with "experts" all my life, and I am aware of the limitations of "expertism"...LOL I personally think that the less one specializes(expert), the bigger picture he can see, and consider. Bible scholarship is not a precise thing, but when it becomes limited to specific methodologies taught in school, it becomes a trade which is performed from memory, not from understanding, and while it is good to know the different methodologies, it is also good not to limit one'self to the standard methodologies, but to keep an open mind.
What do you think?

This is when the red warning flags popped up and a few of us started to ask about his credentials.

Firstly out of interest as you describe yourself as a 'lifetime bible scholar' I'm curious as to what your academic background is.

Hello James Peter:
"lifetime bible scholar" simply means that I will always be a bible scholar, and never allow myself to reach a point where I think that I know so much that I can close my mind...LOL

I began personally studying the bible in 1957, I graduated from high school in 1960, and have been studying the bible, off and on, ever since.
I found that orthodox Christianity requires the acceptance of unsupportable, unscriptural, man-made doctrines, as a starting point, so I began to study the bible in the context of it's own story, and worked very hard to avoid any doctrinal preconceptions.

...

Basicly, my method is to interpret scripture according to the continuity of the story it tells.
I don't expect to be taken seriously, as I test my honest opinions through discussion with other bible scholars.


There have been many new discoveries in 400 years.


Yes, and if I was a famous bible scholar with great academic credentials, mine might be one of them...LOL

But seriously, what are your credentials?

Hello Johnny:
If by credentials, you mean; who's opinions have I been taught? the answer is that I have not been taught anyone's opinions.
However, the unofficial credentials that I have are; a reasonable command of English composition rules, a reasonable amount of common sense and logic, and a "hopefully" unbiased committment to seeking the truth of the bible.
Da Vinci said; He who in discussion, appeals to credentials, argues from memory, not from understanding:-)

So the less education he has, the more qualified he is to speak on the subject? :twitch:

[Sparko]

Another Vfarris classic:

Sparko is clutching at straws as he usually does, this time with Titus 2:13...

"Theos" here is mistranslated as "God" instead of "lord" and shows the bias of the translators... "Theos" does not always mean "god" as the "trini's" would have us believe as shown by the two gods we get in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 if both words mean "god."

Jesus is indeed "lord" of all but not God of all; there is ONLY ONE GOD...

Titus 2:13, in my opinion, should read: "while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great lord and savior, Jesus Christ,"

Paul does not belive Jesus is God... The word "theos" in Romans 9:5 is mistranslated... it should be translated "lord." it shows the bias of the translators... they want Jesus to be God therefore that is the way they translate the text... to suit their theology.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1264059&postcount=101

:lmbo:

[Darth Executor]

Another Vfarris classic:



http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1264059&postcount=101

:lmbo:

How the heck is theos "mistranslated" if theos is from the language it was originally written in?

[Sparko]

How the heck is theos "mistranslated" if theos is from the language it was originally written in?

he is saying they mistranslated "theos" into the english word "god" when it should have been translated into the english word "lord"

:lmbo:

[Cynic Sage]

A new Biblewheel supporter just showed up:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1263421#post1263421

It is amazing that with so much proof of G-d's existance on the BibleWheel website, that people dare come up with such foolish responses. Richard, you are throwing G-d's pearls to the swine through this poll. What G-d has revealed to you through the gift of the Holy Spirit can not be understood by those who do not know the Holy Spirit. They are blinded to the simplest of Truths.

Blessed is He who comes in the name of the L-RD!

I'm getting really sick of this. To paraphrase Ra's Al Ghul:

"Numerology has become a breeding ground for heresy and poor hermeneutics, and must be allowed to die."

[Darth Executor]

Man this thread is a trainwreck.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=64969&page=7&pp=16

BTW JP, in case you haven't checked it out, it's the guy from the godhatesamputees site.


And you're lamebrained enough to think this helps your case by pointing out the barbaric ethical norms of an ancient people that are sanctioned in a book you claim comes from God?

Are you a civilized person?

Civility. Is that a virtue you find in the Bible?

The "Ancient people were stupid" syndrome.

Oh no, you're quoting from the "educated layman" budding scholar :bow: Not him...not him... :eek:

The truth of the matter then, is that the whole issue of prayer dies the death of a thousand qualifications, doesn't it? See here for more:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56712

Either the promise of answered prayer means something, or it dies the death of a thousand qualifications. Neither of these alternatives seems to favor your position. Can you argue for a middle road?

Prayer is a gumball machine. I wonder if it ever crossed DJ's mind that the purpose of prayer isn't to ask God to wipe our nose every time we get a cold.

At any rate, if someone uses hyperbole to explain the power of something that is unknown to the listener, it is a form of deception.

If one of Jesus's "listeners" is an armchair skeptic too stupid to figure out Jesus's message, Jesus is using a form of deception. :rofl:


Can you please explain to me how my worldview would be "shattered" even if God showed himself to me and proved to my satisfaction that he exists? I would simply believe he exists (although he'd have a LOT of explaining to do concerning the evil behavior the Bible says he's committed for me to think well of him). Rational people base their beliefs on EVIDENCE. If I am presented with sufficient evidence, I believe. Without evidence, I do not believe. It's as simple as that. The biggest reaction I'd experience would be sincere surprise and a little bit of amusement.

Somehow, I doubt that Underlings will be demanding any kind of explanation from God if He showed himself to Underlings.


Is a god who deliberately murdered children worthy of worship? Is a god who demanded animal sacrifice followed by human sacrifice worthy of worship? Is a god who sends people to burn in hell for all eternity for the simple "sin" of not believing in him worthy of worship? Quite frankly, if I had my druthers, I'd prefer a sugar daddy, thanks.

Human sacrifice? Burn in hell for not believing? :lmbo:

[jpholding]

Man this thread is a trainwreck.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=64969&page=7&pp=16

BTW JP, in case you haven't checked it out, it's the guy from the godhatesamputees site.


I'm purposely ignoring it for now. I've seen samples of the crybabying and it's the sort of thing, under my new policy to ignore people who present the Same Old Crap(TM), I won't deal in except on the new toon/parody site...so maybe if i's still around next year I'll waste it that way.

[Doubting John]

Quote: Originally posted by Doubting John

And you're lamebrained enough to think this helps your case by pointing out the barbaric ethical norms of an ancient people that are sanctioned in a book you claim comes from God?

Are you a civilized person?

Civility. Is that a virtue you find in the Bible?

Darth:
The "Ancient people were stupid" syndrome.

No, but there is a thread called, "Ancient People Aren't Stupid, Just Superstitious." And now how about starting another one called, "Ancient People Aren't Stupid, Just Barbaric?" :lol:

But stupidity? Darth believes that ancient people's barbaric ethical codes are the standard for today's ethical codes. And Darth thinks ancient people aren't any more or less superstitious than people are today! :lol:

NOW THAT'S VERY VERY STUPID. STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES.

I JUST DON'T SEE HOW YOU GET OFF PROCLAIMING SOMEONE ELSE STUPID WHEN THESE TWO BELIEFS OF YOURS ARE ABOUT AS STUPID AS ONE GETS!

Only the stupid would agree with you though. Stupidity loves stupid company, and this screwball thread is probably the only place on earth where you can post these kind of stupid and completely ignorant posts.

Have at it, you complete and utter idiot.

What a maroon!

As far as prayer being a gumball machine.....

And in case you never read what I wrote in the link I offered, I also said this:


The problem of unanswered prayer is particularly vexing when many Biblical promises of answered prayer seem unqualified (Matthew 7:7; John 14:13; 15:16; and 16:23). The problem is that our experience teaches us otherwise. We all know of someone who has died even though believers had prayed. This is true even of those we deem spiritual giants.

When we seriously reflect upon it, a recipe for disaster would be for God to simply give us whatever we ask. Whenever we experience the slightest suffering, answered prayer would rescue us. Yet suffering teaches us to have a deeper faith, we are told, which brings more glory to God (James 1:2-4; I Peter 1:6-7). According to the Bible it’s God’s will that sometimes we suffer (Job). Sometimes it may even be God’s will that we fail in an endeavor. For only through pain and failure can we learn of God’s grace and truth in our lives in a way that makes future ministry more effective. (See Acts 7:23-36; Luke 22:31-32; John 21:15-19).

However, Carl Sagan, who wrote: “We can pray over the cholera victim, or we can give her 500 milligrams of tetracycline every 12 hours…the scientific treatments are hundreds or thousands of times more effective than the alternatives (like prayer). Even when the alternatives seem to work, we don’t actually know that they played any role.” [The Demon Haunted World, (Random House, 1996, pp. 9-10)].

[jpholding]

No, but there is a thread called, "Ancient People Aren't Stupid, Just Superstitious." And now how about starting another one called, "Ancient People Aren't Stupid, Just Barbaric?" :lol:

Why thank you, Uncle Whitey McSam. Would you like for all of us dark-skinned Third World barbarians to deliver ourselves to the prison camp now, or later? :glare:


And in case you never read what I wrote in the link I offered, I also said this:

Which I :ahem: fully answered, and to which all you said was BRRRRRAAAPPPPPPP.

Neither you nor Sagan know what a client-patron relationship is.

And you're qualifying very well for being ignored under my new policy. :rasberry:

[Doubting John]

Why thank you, Uncle Whitey McSam. Would you like for all of us dark-skinned Third World barbarians to deliver ourselves to the prison camp now, or later? :glare:


Which I :ahem: fully answered, and to which all you said was BRRRRRAAAPPPPPPP.

Neither you nor Sagan know what a client-patron relationship is.

And you're qualifying very well for being ignored under my new policy. :rasberry:


Ya see, Darth, only the stupid and ignorant would think you're right!

Congrats to you!

And the client-patron relationship, like the honor-shame one are ancient codes and ancient ways of thinking.

Stupid is as stupid does. :lolo:

[jpholding]

And the client-patron relationship, like the honor-shame one are ancient codes and ancient ways of thinking.

You mean, like held by 70% of the world today, Uncle McWhitey? :lol:

You really ought to try to make some new graphics. Like this one I'm working on. Acharya S makes a good duck. Not sure what you could be. Maybe weasel. Or pig.

[Doubting John]

You mean, like held by 70% of the world today, Uncle McWhitey? : :lol:

Yea, but if you want to be in the same company as 2/3rds of the world who are animists, then go ahead and claim they agree with you. :lol:

But it doesn't help your case at all!

AT ALL! :lol:

It defeats it!

Completely destroys it.

[Darth Executor]

:lol:

Yea, but if you want to be in the same company as 2/3rds of the world who are animists, then go ahead and claim they agree with you. :lol:

But it doesn't help your case at all!

AT ALL! :lol:

It defeats it!

Completely destroys it.

When you're done whipping your slaves and feeding the japanese and jews in your concentration camps let me know, maybe we can find something to discuss.

[Cynic Sage]

Ya see, Darth, only the stupid and ignorant would think you're right!

Congrats to you!

And the client-patron relationship, like the honor-shame one are ancient codes and ancient ways of thinking.

Stupid is as stupid does. :lolo:

[attachment]
click to enlarge

[Doubting John]

When you're done whipping your slaves and feeding the japanese and jews in your concentration camps let me know, maybe we can find something to discuss.


Where is this coming from?

When you've completely destroyed the Caananites and Amlekites and persecuted the "Christ Killing Jews," crusaded and conquered Jerusalem from the infidels, beaten a few black slaves, lynched a few of them for looking at your white daughter, and then kept your women silent barefoot and pregnant, then we can talk.

[Darth Executor]

Where is this coming from?

When you've completely destroyed the Caananites and Amlekites and persecuted the "Christ Killing Jews," crusaded and conquered Jerusalem from the infidels, beaten a few black slaves, lynched a few of them for looking at your white daughter, and then kept your women silent barefoot and pregnant, then we can talk.

You're right, I guess I'll never do all that and lower myself to your level. Not that I'll miss our discussions. :lol:

Oh yeah...

[Sparko]

DJ go start a new thread if you want to do off topic ranting.

[Doubting John]

DJ go start a new thread if you want to do off topic ranting.


Didn't I tell ya, not to invite me here if you don't want me here?

Didn't I?

Then if you don't want me here, tell Darth that was bad.

Very bad.

It's up to you guys. Entirely.

[jpholding]

Yea, but if you want to be in the same company as 2/3rds of the world who are animists, then go ahead and claim they agree with you. :lol:


Hey, there's a sale on white sheets down at JC Penney! :thumb:

And you TEACH classes? On what? Dental hygeiene? :lol: What do they teach there? Fallacies of association?

So what will it be? Pig? Anteater? What?

[Darth Executor]

And you TEACH classes? On what? Dental hygeiene?

I bet that's a type of white supremacy DJ hasn't considered yet.

[Mark_S]

You're right, I guess I'll never do all that and lower myself to your level. Not that I'll miss our discussions. :lol:

Oh yeah...


Oh my pearls for that attachment

:lmbo:

[Darth Executor]

Really? So the Bible never was meant for other cultures and other time periods, is that it? Well, I suppose that makes sense if it was written by primitive men. After all, if an all-powerful god created it for the whole world (even by proxy) then he would have ensured the book was written well enough to accurately survive translation and not be so confusing to decipher. But, unfortunately, the Bible has gone through a lot of translating. And without a true understanding of the original culture in which it was written--something that is, of course, essentially impossible in this day and age, at least by Westerners--there's not much hope that the true meaning can be determined. Wow...over a third of the world's population is following a religion based on faulty translations. Pretty heavy stuff!

God should rewrite the Bible every year or so because skeptics have busy busy lives.
:lmbo:

[Darth Executor]

This guy is too stupid for words.


Sorry, but you're wrong. Treating people as property is utterly dehumanizing. The nicest thing the above quote says is that you can't "rule over them ruthlessly"...but it's perfectly okay to beat them to within an inch of their lives, it's okay to tear a family apart, it's okay to buy and sell them as commodities. If that kind of behavior is fine with you, then I pity you.

Right after I gave him Miller's article too.

[Sparko]

darth you need to post links to the originals.

[Darth Executor]

Same thread as all the others.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=64969

[spl_cadet]

Didn't I tell ya, not to invite me here if you don't want me here?

Didn't I?

Then if you don't want me here, tell Darth that was bad.

Very bad.

It's up to you guys. Entirely.

Would you mind quoting a PM or post where they asked you to be here?

[Doubting John]

Would you mind quoting a PM or post where they asked you to be here?

Anytime someone nominates me, they invite me.

"If you nominate him, he will come." :smile:

I just expect that if someone nominates me, then they can defend their nomination, that's all, and why not?

Besides, it's just fun.

[Darth Executor]

I don't know WHY you defend it though, everytime you try, you just end up upgrading the previous nomination or get another one on top of that.

[Doubting John]

I don't know WHY you defend it though, everytime you try, you just end up upgrading the previous nomination or get another one on top of that.

And that's where the fun comes in.... :lol:

[spl_cadet]

Anytime someone nominates me, they invite me.


in·vi·ta·tion P Pronunciation Key (nv-tshn)
n.
The act of inviting.
A spoken or written request for someone's presence or participation.

Now, would you please show me where they requested your presence or participation?

[Doubting John]

in·vi·ta·tion P Pronunciation Key (nv-tshn)
n.
The act of inviting.
A spoken or written request for someone's presence or participation.

Now, would you please show me where they requested your presence or participation?


Oh, aren't you cute. You remind me of the Pharisees, but wait, you would be one of them.

This Ode to Orgre (Captain Orchre) is now for you too (slightly revised):


Ode to Orgre:

You wiggle and squiggle and you twist and turn;
You slither and slide and you crash and burn.
You skip and you hop and you perch from above;
With claws like an hawk you’re as mild as a dove.
But this prey of yours is too big to handle;
Just try to grab him, and you'll get mangled.
You're ignorant and pompous and stupid to boot;
You claim you're smart, and I say, "what a hoot!"
Like the ginger bread man, you say "catch me if you can."
Like the Cheshire Cat, you ask "can't see me?, here I am."
Like a spider you spin a web of deceit,
You backtrack and sidestep and in this you cheat.
Like arrogant lawmakers you redistrict for gain,
Because you'll never admit fault, you'll avoid the pain.
So I'm done with you, ya little poop,
You'll not drag me down, that low I won't stoop.

[jpholding]

Don't quit your carpet cleaning job.

[Cynic Sage]

Chetrecon, on why living in a city is unbiblical:

http://www.xanga.com/chetrecon/383284283/item.html

Agrarianism (http://www.theagrarianfoundation.com/index.htm) is a movement that seems to me makes total biblical sence, I have lived city life before and I absolutely hate it, and I see absolutely no biblical call for it. I think that the tower of babel, egypt, canaan, rome proves at least in my mind that God does not desire city life for anyone. They just seem to be a breeding ground for degenerates. Similiar to public school vs homeschooling. Also in scripture as I think back to Gods judgments, it seems to me that most of his judgments happened within cities. Country life is not only more healthy, but it is also far more scenic and has far less traffic and nonsence to deal with. Why would I want to raise kids in a city when the country gives them far more positive hobbies to learn like hunting, fishing, camping and farming. Gen 3:23 Jehovah God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground out of which he was taken. Gen 9:20 And Noah, a man of the ground, began and planted a vineyard. Ecc 5:9 And the advantage of a land, it is among all; even a king has a field being tilled.

[Cynic Sage]

This guy deserves a big fat one. Read it and find out why.

http://littlegeneva.com/

[spl_cadet]

Oh, aren't you cute. You remind me of the Pharisees, but wait, you would be one of them.

Well, in a strict sense, yes. As they had the doctrinal authority over Judaism, so does the Church hold all Christian doctrinal authority. So in a sense, yes. Just with less hypocrisy.

[Cynic Sage]

Turns out Chetrecon is Theonomy as is supporting Kinism because his hero, RJ Rushdoony, was a Kinist:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65357&page=1&pp=16

"Unequal yoking plainly means mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers is clearly forbidden. But Deuteronomy 22:10 not only forbids unequal yoking by inference, and as a case law, but also unequal yoking generally. This means that an unequal marriage between believers or between unbelievers is wrong. Man was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), and woman is the reflected image of God in man, and from man (1 Cor. 11:1-12; Gen. 2:18, 21-23). 'Helpmeet' means a reflection or a mirror, an image of man, indicating that a woman must have something religiously and culturally in common with her husband. The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish. Unequal yoking means more than marriage. In society at large it means the enforced integration of various elements which are not congenial. Unequal yoking is in no realm productive of harmony; rather, it aggravates the differences and delays the growth of the different elements toward a Christian harmony and association." -- R.J. Rushdoony comments on 2 Cor. 6:14

"Helpmeet" means "Mirror Image"? Does this mean Eve had a penis?

Well I don't know too much about Rushdoony but am only a bit familiar since I run in some postmill circles, but that quote was icky.

Icky to our flesh and the way we have all been taught through society, but I have to consider it biblicaly because Rushdoony was an absolute genius... "if" my calculations are correct, he read a book per day plus 3-4 hrs of bible study wich (if I am correct) equalled 28,000 books in his lifetime, he had a personal library of 35,000 books, 80% of them footnoted.

How the heck could Theonomist be able to calculate how much time this guy spent reading anyway? I wonder which book of his had the footnote saying that "Helpmeet" means "Mirror Image".:ahem:

And JP, if skeppies say that you have "sycophants", look at this:

SALUTE TO THE BEST THEOLOGIAN OF THE 21ST CENTURY ROUSAS JOHN RUSHDOONY! THE MAN WHO WROTE HIS MAGNUS OPUS THE INSTITUTES OF BIBLICAL LAW THE YEAR I WAS BORN 1973, AND DIED THE EXACT DAY I WAS BORN FEB 8 2001! WE LOVE YOU RUSH! :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray:

Freaky. :eek:

[Cynic Sage]

Underling, again:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1267081&postcount=24


It's not like there's just this one example, either. Even in the Bible we see examples of how God treats children:

2 Kgs. 2:23-24 -- He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!" When he turned around and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

(Yes, yes, I know that some people would like the words "small boys" to be replaced with "youths" so the passage wouldn't sound so condemning, but nearly all versions of the Bible refer to "small boys"...not that "youths" wouldn't still mean small boys, and not that even if the boys were older such a vicious act would be justified.)

I see contextual study is not his friend.

And one more example is Hell. Hell is supposedly eternal suffering. One is forced to ask...does ANY punishment deserve to last forever, especially if there is no hope of redemption ("Abandon all hope, ye who enter")? If there is no hope of redemption, then there is no lesson to be taught, is there. That's why we have another name for punishment that does not teach a lesson: "torture."

While one might not mind if a murderer suffers forever, the Bible implies that those who fail to worship God and ask for salvation through Christ are doomed to suffer in Hell for all eternity too. Well, what if you don't like God, or have been raised in another religion without exposure to Christianity, or simply don't believe there is enough evidence for the existence of God? Do you deserve to suffer for all eternity? And to what end? Even if you learn your lesson ("Okay, I guess God does exist."), is there any hope of redemption? No, not really. So billions of people will suffer for eternity...for the sake of gratuitous torture. Would a loving God permit such a thing?

Taken all together, both what we find in the Bible and in the real world, how can one call God "good"? And if he's not good, why worship him?


Did he just quote Dante's "Inferno" to show Christian Doctrine regarding hell? Man, What an idiot.

He reminds me of a young Jimbo, before his JPHOCD blossomed.

Speaking of which, I know you're swearing off idiots (for the month, was it?) but how do I say it? You have a Je ne sais quois when it come to PWNing guys like Underling. And we miss your presence in places like the Locker Room and certain threads in Apologetics.

'Till the next nut,
Johnny Eccentric.

[jpholding]

Speaking of which, I know you're swearing off idiots (for the month, was it?)

I tried it for a month but now it's permanent in terms of tektonics.org.

However, I last week registered the domain tektoonics.com and just got off the phone with my webhost about starting it up. I'll be turning Tekton into a more "white bread" sort of resource while the new site will be a place where I can deal in idiots the way they need to be dealt with, meaning, applying my creative edge as much as I can while still answering the arguments.

And we miss your presence in places like the Locker Room and certain threads in Apologetics.

I might get back there after a few weeks of toon-drawing rehab. :tongue:

[Cynic Sage]

Uh oh everyone, Ebolav's on to us :ahem: :

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1268967&postcount=72

Let me make my position clear from the get go.. I do not believe in any jesis christ, warewolves, hindu gods, Zeus, or any other mythical type stuff..

You know you're a Fundy Athiest when you misspell "Jesus" and use a lower case "J", yet spell "Zeus" correctly with a capital "Z".

But I will say this, the fundementalist are the closest thing to practicing what they preach with regards to religous goofs in general. However, they still don't go all the way.. I am sure they wish they could but they don't have the Gonads for it.. For example, Leviticus in the old testament says that if a man has sex with his daughter in law, he should be PUT TO DEATH, and that if a man has sex with his wife's mother, he and her should be BURNT WITH FIRE.

Laws that don't allow you to have sex with your family members...

[attachment]
click image

It also says that if a man lays with another man they shall be put to DEATH..

There's no fundementalists going that far to follow this dumb book that closely.. I'm sure some of them are psychotic enough and angry enough to secretly want to, but they fear a much realer god then their bible god - that god is THE POLICE.

I think it goes to show how silly the freakin book (the bible) is..It's so barbaric.

In anycase, the fundementalist stick to their guns the most out of any of these religious yahoos..

later

Wow, that isn't just "I havent bothered to do socio-cultural contextual study before criticizing the Bible" dumb, that's "Sunday School dropout" dumb.:lol:

[Cynic Sage]

Ebolav Highjacks and trolls two different threads using the same post's contents

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=9492&page=3

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=17763&page=2

Here is a stray thought I had..

In heaven (I am talking about many religions' idea of heaven), there is nothing negative.. Right? No pain, no suffering, etc..

Here are some obvious problems with that.. We all have painful memories. Will we be able to remember those painful things in these heavens? If so, then there will be pain in heaven. The only other options are

1. Your mind is fundementally altered such that it is not ALLOWED to recall or think of anything painful.. Which OBVIOUSLY compromises FREE WILL..

OR

2. When you think of things that were once painful they bring you JOY.. This seems rediculous. imagine someone thinking about getting raped when they were young. That is going to bring them JOY?? That makes no sense..

Here is a second problem: The problem of free will..

If there is free will in heaven, then why wouldn't there be "sin"? If you are going to answer "the gods will make it so you ONLY choose certain things - all of those things GOOD.. than that is NOT free will..

If you are going to make the claim "god BANS evil from heaven so it simply DOESN'T exist" than the question must be asked "why could that god not have done that here?"

Those are some problems with the idea of heaven.. Heaven and freewill don't mix.

[jpholding]

I just read Underlings' latest post.

Good night. I need to make my policy even stronger. :duh: Watching him pretend to know what patronage is, warrants a Screwball by itself.

[Teallaura]

Ebolav Highjacks and trolls two different threads using the same post's contents

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=9492&page=3

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=17763&page=2


He needs to round up that stray thought... it seems to have taken his brain with it...sheesh! :no:

[Cynic Sage]

Ebolav does his best Automaton impersonation:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1269388#post1269388

Hey look, there are no gods or goddesses, or at least there is no evidence for any of them. It's so rediculous people still believe that this christ character is going to come to save humanity or that the world was created my magic ant feces (yes, there is a religion that believes that)..

I mean, life is absurd.. Life is meaningless ULTIMATELY. Things are "screwed up" so to speak.. But trying to compensate by adding gods and goddesses into the mix is so childish.. There is no REASON to believe that those things exist.. No gods, no god, no goddess, no goddesses, no transexual gods, no transexual gods, no wind gods, rain gods, sun gods, olympian gods or anything else like that.. These theist just WANT to believe it because it fulfills a need.. Well here news for you.. The universe doesn't correspond with our needs. Why should it? Because we are UPSET otherwise?

I always hear someone say "This can't be the end of life.. There must be something after this.. How could there be no afterlife?"

What do you mean?? You mean "How could there be no afterlife when that means that my awareness would cease to exist forever and I don't want that"

That's what you really mean.. Death is a hard thing to accept.. TO BAD.

I like how he thought it was important to list "Tranny-gods" twice. :lol:

[Bill the Cat]

Ebolav Highjacks and trolls two different threads using the same post's contents

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=9492&page=3

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=17763&page=2

Actually Johnny, it was in 8 different places...:no:

[Cynic Sage]

Actually Johnny, it was in 8 different places...:no:
Oooooh. Linky-Linky please.

[Bill the Cat]

Oooooh. Linky-Linky please.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1268943#post1268943

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1268942#post1268942 (edited by me)

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1268939#post1268939

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1268938#post1268938

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1268937#post1268937

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1268935#post1268935

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1268934#post1268934

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1268933#post1268933

[Cynic Sage]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1268943#post1268943

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1268942#post1268942 (edited by me)

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1268939#post1268939

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1268938#post1268938

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1268937#post1268937

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1268935#post1268935

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1268934#post1268934

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1268933#post1268933
Wow, just freaking Wow! :twitch:

[Cynic Sage]

Richard (BibleWheel) answers his critics, again, using the oh-so-effective "If you don't agree with my pretty drawing being divinely inspired you hate Jesus and the Bible" argument:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=62036&page=11&pp=16[/url]

Hey wfaber, let me set the record straight. The reason I took a break is because of the PUTRID CORRUPTION of many of the posts on this thread. No self-respecting person has any reason to try to communicate with people who smear their own poop on their posts.

Steadele is the prime example. He posted nothing but vile god-hating mockery and ad hominen time, and time, and time again. In his every post, he violated every principle of Holy Scripture, and by inevitable implication, he conclusively denied its Author. After many such posts, he finally did make an assertion that had sufficient content for me to answer. And what did he do when I answered? He ran out of here as fast as possible, all the while claiming he had "owned this thread."

Of course, steadele did own this thread, in the way that a flatulent cow owns a tea parlour. But there is one thing he would NEVER OWN, and that is his OWN WORD! He utterly disgraced himself. But worse, and almost everyone else posting here, yourself included, let his corrupt posts slide right by without comment. This is why serious minded Bible students don't like TWeb.

Or take yourself as an example. How is it possible that you could be so deceived as to think it valid to simply DISMISS anybody who disagrees with you as failing to be a "serious minded Bible student"? Look at the Poll! There are a dozen folks who voted that they have not seen an error in my work. But according to you, each and every one of them is not a "serious minded Bible student." Nice work, wfaber. Real "christian" of you.

But it gets worse. Many in the Poll that voted negatively never gave any reason at all, and the others often gave "reasons" that were obviously flawed and easily refuted. You ignored all that.

Hope that clears things up,

In Sevice of the Everlasting Word of God,

RAM

I've been following that thread for a long time and have been reading Steadle's posts, and all I can say is that Mr. Biblewheel is a lying sack of crap.

He even admits to rigging his own poll.


Your precious Biblewheel doesn't work period. Richard' [url="http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1208934&postcount=44"]rigged (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=62036&page=11&pp=16) this poll in his favor. The Biblewheel has been shown to be mathematically innacurate (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1214371&postcount=114). At Best the wheel is simply a product of Richard's imagination (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1208932&postcount=43)and at the worst a result of the Pagan practice of Numerology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology).


I'm here JEC. You are correct about one thing. This poll is definitely "rigged." I rigged it to disable people like you from claiming "victory" when you have none. Case in point, I answered every point you raised against the Wheel. And what did you do? YOU IGNORED IT!

But it gets worse. Your primary argument is to simply ATTACK GOD'S HOLY WORD as presented BY HIM in the 66 Book Protestant Bible! You have an extraordinarily LOW VIEW of God's Sovereignty. You claim to be an "inerrantist" even as you assert (by implication) that God inspired the individual documents and then just tossed them in the wind, hoping weak and fallible humans would succeed in putting them together in the form He wanted. Or didn't want. In your view, Genesis could be tossed in with the Minor Prophets, and Revelation with the Gospels and all would be just fine. God didn't actually ORDER the structure of Scripture! No sir! He's not a God of order, now is He?

That is one low view of Scripture, man!

As for your links - talk about making somebody look STUPID! And its not the Holy Spirit I am speaking of. It is you and the Twebbers who posted the posts you linked to. Most obvious is the supposed "failure" of symmetry. That is tooooo stuuupppiiiidd. How in the world could you let yourself post that?

Well, that's enough. If you want to forget what has gone before, and try to find any fundamental flaw or systematic error in the Bible Wheel, I'd love to discuss it with you. As it stands, you are batting zero. If I am wrong, all you need to do is write two or three sentences that state in simple and clear language what you think the error is, and I will answer.

In Service of Christ the Lord of All,

Richard

Boots is correct JohnnyEC. You can not even admit the Bible has 66 Books. If that is not one of the "simplest truths" I don't know what is.

Also, YOU are the one insulting the Holy Spirit, because it is the Holy Spirit who inspired the 66 Books. You are treating God's Bible as an unholy thing. This is why I don't like to post here. It gives blasphemers too much opportunity.

In service of the Eternal Word,

RAM

Who wants t'bet that this guy gets either banned or matrixed for slander? :grin:

[Cynic Sage]

BW again, this time elevating his BibleWheel to the status of the Son of God:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1269700#post1269700

My proclamation is that the Bible Wheel was designed by God before the foundation of the world and that it reveals the Divine Perfection of Holy Scripture.

If something is perfect, it can not be improved upon.

Therefore, all the enemies of the Bible Wheel have a very simple means to prove me wrong.

All you need to do is rearrange the Books to make a better, more meaningful pattern. If the Bible Wheel is truly random, as many have suggested, then it should be TRIVIAL to use your mighty intelligence to rearrange the Books to make something obviously more "intelligent."

Clue: Try interchanging just two Books and see if you can change anything without destroying some aspect of the Divine Perfection revealed in the Wheel.

Happy hunting!

RAM

[Cynic Sage]

BW again, this time elevating his BibleWheel to the status of the Son of God:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1269700#post1269700
Correction: "elevating his BibleWheel to quasi-divine status"

[Cynic Sage]

David Ben-Ariel on Dietary laws for Christians:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65524

http://beyondbabylon.blogspot.com/2005/11/real-christians-dont-eat-pork.html

Biblical Christians who follow Yashua's example don't eat pork or other unclean foods or partake of unclean pagan practices that pretend to be "Christian."

Biblical Christians know that the dietary laws given at CREATION for ALL MANKIND are still in effect, and will remain in effect as long as there are mortals, until our transformation into the Divine or our return to the dust.

Acts 15:29

29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell. (The dietary law against blood reveals the dietary laws remain in effect, which is why Peter hadn't eaten any unclean things years after Christ's resurrection).


Isaiah 66:15-17


15 See, the LORD is coming with fire, (time-setting, the end times, after the resurrection)
and his chariots are like a whirlwind;
he will bring down his anger with fury,
and his rebuke with flames of fire.

16 For with fire and with his sword
the LORD will execute judgment upon all men,
and many will be those slain by the LORD.

17 "Those who consecrate and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following the one in the midst of those who eat the flesh of pigs and rats and other abominable things—they will meet their end together," declares the LORD. (pagan holidays with unclean foods like an Easter ham).


Matthew 5:17-19

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (Yashua didn't rebel against His Father's commandments but kept them, upheld them, taught them and magnified them to make them even more binding!) 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


Those unclean ministers who teach the religious lie professing Christians can eat abominable things will have "hell" to pay and their tainted traditions will become toast! Real Christians don't eat pork!

[Darth Executor]

David Ben-Ariel on Dietary laws for Christians:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65524

http://beyondbabylon.blogspot.com/2005/11/real-christians-dont-eat-pork.html

I don't get it, how is this a screwball? There are a lot of Christians who think the dietary laws are still in place. They're wrong but it isn't stupid enough to deserve mockery especially in light of Colossians 2:16

[jpholding]

Our new "friend" has the marks of one the Hebrew Roots sorts and they are quite screwy at times.

[Cynic Sage]

I don't get it, how is this a screwball? There are a lot of Christians who think the dietary laws are still in place. They're wrong but it isn't stupid enough to deserve mockery especially in light of Colossians 2:16
The big one would be saying that the Kosher dietary laws were set in place were given at Creation for "all mankind".

[Cynic Sage]

Ebolav gives a rehashed version of Johnny Skep's old argument (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=28758&page=1&pp=16), this one I've titled "There are no Athiest Retards therefore God does not exist":

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1270026&postcount=14

Hey look, let's face the facts..

The rate of Atheism goes up with IQ and education. The more poverty and lack of education go up, the more religious belief goes up. Who would deny this? Ever meet a mentally retarded atheist? I used to work with the mentally disabled, and I can tell you that there was not an atheist among them. Ever go into the ghetto? Go into the ghetto where there is a severe lack of education and a desperate poverty problem. Find me an atheist there. YOu can, but it is rare. Now go to Berkley where there is a bunch of well off, well educated people with naturally high IQ's. Go into the philosophy department. Go into the sociology and psychology departments. Go into the Archeology department.. Take a look at how many MORE atheists and agnostics you find in comparision to uneducated and low IQ populations. Let's not dance around the subject. People who believe in gods and goddesses, whether they are wind gods, jesus gods, a muslim god, or whatever, are generally dumber than people who take a more skeptical or empirical position.

"Ever meet an mentally retarded athiest?"

Well, there's this one guy on Theologyweb who had a "stray thought" and cross-posted it in several different threads that has absolutely nothing to do with what he was talking about. Would that count. :ahem:

[Cynic Sage]

Cognos is accepting prayer requests:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65310&page=1&pp=16

:lol:

[Darth Executor]

LakeGeorgeMan. At his "request" I put these in my signature:

"Crossan is a NT scholar who has spent his entire life studying these texts."

"Crossan is a scholar. So it is accepted."

"You don't "like" his conclusion because he does not agree with your confessional belief that the gospels are inerrant historical records."

"Wright is a confessed Christian minister defending his faith."

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65496&page=1&pp=16

Yup, LGM is telling Xavier to accept Crossan because he is an accomplished scholar then dismisses Wright as some Christian redneck apologist.

[Cynic Sage]

Joe Wallace (have you come across him before, JP?), on Superman vs. Christanity?:

http://www.liesexposed.net/nfp/issue0104/super.htm

Superman was created by two Jews in 1933 (no, that's not a coincidence) named Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. Yes, I am talking about the comic book figure, Superman. Everyone has seen the movies or read the comic books, but few understand that the Jewish-created Superman was a Jewish fantasy that pitted Jews, or the Supermen, in an epic battle to destroy Christianity (in other words, Siegel and Shuster were just envisioning World War II where World Jewry united against the last great Christian nation). This may sound a little far-fetched to some, but that is just what these two Jews had in mind. The Jews have long operated this way, creating entertainment that purports to be wholesome or family-oriented but in the background it is filled with various pro-Jew, anti-white themes. Just look at the Walt Disney Co.

...Superman came to America from another planet "whose inhabitants had evolved, after millions of years, to physical perfection." He was born Kal-El before changing his name to Clark Kent. Now if you think that Superman's original name sounds a little Hebrew, you are right. So what we have so far is the story of a Jew who immigrates to America, changes his name so that he can act like everyone else and be undetected, and who believes that he is superior to all of the goyim he encounters. But all the while, he is on a secret mission against evil. And, oh yeah, he has to pretend to be a Christian, another Jewish tactic. Like the Zionist Jew Israel Zangwill said (see "The Mongrelizing of America" on page one of this issue), "No Jew was ever fool enough to turn Christian unless he was a clever man.
So the Jew must infiltrate his enemy in order to destroy him. In Superman's case, his arch-rival was Lex Luthor. Again we see that these two Jews really had a sense of humor. If you haven't figured it out yet, Luthor is just another spelling for Luther, as in Martin Luther. This was their way of identifying Christianity as the arch-nemesis and the object of attack of the SuperJew.
...

As for the Lex in Lex Luthor, again, this was a carefully thought out attack against white Christianity. Lex is simply the Latin word for law and Lex as a concept represented the white Christian Law that had been in Europe, particularly in Germany, for hundreds of years. There are dozens more such "coincidences" that could be discussed, but this is really just an object lesson in looking out for what the Jew is really saying when he says something. Of course, Superman went on to become the posterboy for War Bonds posters in World War II while Superman battled the Nazis in the comic book series and the Jews went on to make millions of dollars by having millions of white children read their Jewish comic books. We will have to talk about Batman and Robin (created by Jew Bob Kane) and Spider-Man (created by Jew Stan Lee) later.



:lol: Man, I can't wait for the articles dealing with Spiderman and Batman to come out. Those are gonna be hillarious. :rofl:

[jpholding]

Joe Wallace (have you come across him before, JP?),

Wallack, yes. It sounds like him -- he's of Jewish descent but was on here ages ago and he loved to make anti-Semitic remarks and make stupid comments like those.

Thanks to me he doesn't update his "1001 Errors in the Christian Bible" any more. :lol:

[Darth Executor]

Joe Wallace (have you come across him before, JP?), on Superman vs. Christanity?:

:lol: Man, I can't wait for the articles dealing with Spiderman and Batman to come out. Those are gonna be hillarious. :rofl:

Maybe I can help Mr. Wallack expand his thesis. If you replace the L in Lex with an R you get Rex which means "king" in French and since some French king banished all the jews from France and Jesus was also known to be a king Lex Luthor's first name is a reference to two enemies of the jews.

[wfaber]

Joe Wallace (have you come across him before, JP?), on Superman vs. Christanity?:

http://www.liesexposed.net/nfp/issue0104/super.htm

Superman was created by two Jews in 1933 (no, that's not a coincidence) named Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. Yes, I am talking about the comic book figure, Superman. Everyone has seen the movies or read the comic books, but few understand that the Jewish-created Superman was a Jewish fantasy that pitted Jews, or the Supermen, in an epic battle to destroy Christianity (in other words, Siegel and Shuster were just envisioning World War II where World Jewry united against the last great Christian nation). This may sound a little far-fetched to some, but that is just what these two Jews had in mind. The Jews have long operated this way, creating entertainment that purports to be wholesome or family-oriented but in the background it is filled with various pro-Jew, anti-white themes. Just look at the Walt Disney Co.

...Superman came to America from another planet "whose inhabitants had evolved, after millions of years, to physical perfection." He was born Kal-El before changing his name to Clark Kent. Now if you think that Superman's original name sounds a little Hebrew, you are right. So what we have so far is the story of a Jew who immigrates to America, changes his name so that he can act like everyone else and be undetected, and who believes that he is superior to all of the goyim he encounters. But all the while, he is on a secret mission against evil. And, oh yeah, he has to pretend to be a Christian, another Jewish tactic. Like the Zionist Jew Israel Zangwill said (see "The Mongrelizing of America" on page one of this issue), "No Jew was ever fool enough to turn Christian unless he was a clever man.
So the Jew must infiltrate his enemy in order to destroy him. In Superman's case, his arch-rival was Lex Luthor. Again we see that these two Jews really had a sense of humor. If you haven't figured it out yet, Luthor is just another spelling for Luther, as in Martin Luther. This was their way of identifying Christianity as the arch-nemesis and the object of attack of the SuperJew.
...

:lol: Man, I can't wait for the articles dealing with Spiderman and Batman to come out. Those are gonna be hillarious. :rofl:
Superman was Jewish? Man, how did they ever manage to circumcize him? Musta worn out a dozen scalpels doing it.

[wfaber]

Correction: "elevating his BibleWheel to quasi-divine status"
John Powell's on his case now and giving him a pretty hard beating with the predictability of scientific models. Imagine, for once the Christians, agnostics and atheists, liberals and conservatives all in agreement for once.

[Cynic Sage]

Maybe I can help Mr. Wallack expand his thesis. If you replace the L in Lex with an R you get Rex which means "king" in French and since some French king banished all the jews from France and Jesus was also known to be a king Lex Luthor's first name is a reference to two enemies of the jews.
I think it could just be a case of simmilar names. I wonder where Wallack went anyway?

[Darth Executor]

I think it could just be a case of simmilar names.

I wasn't serious. :whack:

[Rayado]

Bible Wheel, again, from here: (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1270944&postcount=100)
I declare the Bible is God's Written Word, and its fulfillment is God's Living Word, Jesus Christ.

The Written Word is the great Type of the Living Word, Jesus Christ, its true Antitype. He fulfills it all.

The Bible Wheel is the Bible. Everything in the Bible is in the BW, and everything in the BW is in the Bible.They are simply two views of a single object. All I did was roll up the traditional list of 66 Books on a spindle wheel of 22 Spokes corresponding to the 22 Hebrew Letters that God Himself eternally established as a FOUNDATION STONE in the Alphabetic Verses, most notably Psalm 119, the incomparable Psalm of God's Word.

God used Hebrew alphabet as a template for the large-scale structure of His Word (the Bible) just as He used it as a template for the Psalm of His Word (Ps 119).

The Bible Wheel is what the Bible looks like if we simply roll it up![Ed. note: and smoke it.]

The BW is simply a 2D representation of the traditional 66 Book Christian Bible. That's it.

So yes, the Bible Wheel is the Bible, and the Bible is the Written Word of God.

RAM
Right. So BW=Written word of God. :ahem:

This guy's reasoning is just like his wheel: circular but colorful.

[Cynic Sage]

Smaller attacks Arminianism, I think :shrug::

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=63942

That's right!

Or should I say "that's wrong?"

Right/wrong.

Right turn. Right decision. Right reward.

Wrong turn. Wrong decision. Bad reward.

Sure it's Bible. "Whatsoever a man sows he shall surely reap."

Is there any person who sows ONLY GOOD? No.

Is there any person who sows ONLY BAD? No.

So we all reap a little or a lot of each, depending on our general drift and inclination.

If there is a mixture of good/bad reaping within ALL, THEN the Arminian surely cannot say that they (themselves) only sow and reap GOOD while the unsaved only sow and reap bad.

The only valid lasting reaping is based on ONE SINGLE DECISION, the "affirmation of Christ." Their "right" decision, making ALL OTHER DECISIONS by ALL OTHER PEOPLE (except of course those who hold to their various dissjointed views of what "the affirmation of Christ" may really consist of) totally invalid and borne to failure and bad eternal reaping.

So I had to ask my freewilling Arminian SELF, "is God's Love only valid based upon my DECISION?"

And the answer of course was a resounding NO, at least as to how I answered my SELF. God's Love, only affirmed by ME? Of course not. Absurdity. If that were actually the case that made ME GOD'S ACTIVATOR. Well He Is my Servant after all. But that Servant seemed to fail as often as I do. hello.

And that was the DAY I stepped off the RAT MAZE of perpetual Arminian PERFORMANCEs to validate, affirm and sow God's Love in me and to others.

God is Love.

Love NEVER fails and that's a NO MATTER WHAT deal on His Part. Men could never "save themselves" anyway. I mean come on? Save yourself from GOD? The only failure is one of my own blinded perceptions. So then I asked myself, WHY do I perceive that LOVE FAILS?

The "activators" of God's Love (as if there were such a thing) do not STOP or WITHOLD The Love of God "except in themselves." The activators have halted The Love of God to OTHER PEOPLE DEAD IN IT'S TRACKS IN THEMSELVES ONLY, all the while falsely thinking they AFFIRMED AND ACTIVATED HIS LOVE IN THEIR BEHALF. How deceived is that anyway?

Did that thinking stop or change or even activate God's Love? Never. That thought only BLOCKED GOD'S LOVE OUT IN THEM by DECEIPT! God's Love has been stolen in these people. Outright THEFT! And of course we know who the real thief is eh?

In fact such a thought is nothing but a BAD SOWING with the subsequent bad reaping, as amply shown among them all by various forms of hatred.

If you are a weed, then you're a weed. That will not change.

If you are a wheat, then you are a wheat. That will not change.

Both of these seeds grow in the earthen bodies (vessels) of each person. If the TARE grows larger than the wheat, then God's Love gets progressively DIMINISHED IN THEM. Of course the end result of that diminishment is the promotion of eternal human torture. There is no worse promotion, no greater hatred available by THE TARE available to THE TARE in them. And God has conveniently PLANTED His Light to grow THE TARE as well, until THE TARE is ready to be gathered and BURNED.

I learned where THE TARES grow the TALLEST and this growing is EXEMPLIFIED in those who are exposed to MORE LIGHT. Well well well. Just like on the FARM.

All people are God's offspring and His Wheat will be gathered into His Barn.

Bank on it.

enjoy!

smaller

Thats probably the most number of strawmen that have been fit into a single post. Congratulations.

peace,
jd

Yeah, it ranks right up there with people who want to eliminate, diminish, or generally extinguish God from acting within His Own creation. hello infide.

If you have a specific point to justify your self justifications, have at it. I'm sure to be impressed...;)

After all infide, God was COMPLETELY WORTHLESS to you until YOU CAME TO THE LIGHT and turned on THAT SWITCH, right? Simplistic. Perhaps. Men like you have written novels to justfiy this nonsense. Masked it in forms of psuedo intelligence.

And THEN and THEN and THEN the chorus of ANGELS SANG FOR JOY and Jesus clapped for YOU and the heavens were OPENED and REVEALED in your heart. It kinda reminds me of that car commercial where the lady hires singers and lights for her new car purchase. la la la

heh heh heh. I love The Truth, especially when "they" claim strawman.

"Have written novels"? I haven't come across any xtian fiction dealing with the subject of Soteriology. And if they did exist, I don't think they would sell that well.

And now, your moment of Zen.


But it's such basic logic.

Love never fails
Smaller writes in all caps and bold more often than not
Therefore, Arminianism is wrong.



Strawman intended. :hehe:

:hehe:

And all the little round yellow heads with NO EYES and NO BODY OR HEART and BIG TEETH nod their heads in agreement with eternal human torture...

and smaller says go figure.

:lolo:

[Cynic Sage]

You remember how I nominated Underlings (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1262898&postcount=39)for his "If biblegod was real and good prayer would be like a gumball machine" argument. Well, he's been telling beleivers that if they pray for an amputee's appendage to grow back and it doesn't, that it serves as a disproof against God's existence or benevolence (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1261301&postcount=10).

Now read this:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1271092&postcount=238



Hi . I have a question . Just out of curiosity , if you did happen to find someone who regenerated a limb , would it prove the exsitence of God or Jesus to you ?

Or, would you end up attributing to evolutionary ? Like when a lizard grows back his tail after it breaks off when someone picks him up by it ?

Thanks .

That's really immaterial, since the point of this thread is to prove that prayer does NOT work, thus helping prove the non-existence of God. But I'll answer it anyway:

No. After all, if you saw someone regenerate a limb, would it prove to you the existence of the Babylonian god Marduk? Or any other non-Christian god?

What it would prove would be that limbs can regenerate, and the process would then have to be investigated thoroughly. If every time someone prayed for a limb to regenerate, a limb regenerated, then it would be logical to infer a causal relationship between prayer and regeneration.

But it would take further experimentation to determine the cause. After all, it's conceivable that some naturalistic phenomena is responsible. If extensive research reveals no such thing, then the answer becomes, "We still don't know the cause." Some may BELIEVE the regeneration is due to a divine cause, but without evidentiary support there is simply no way to know.

Really, what I would need would be hard evidence that God himself exists. He could provide that, of course, assuming he exists and is all-powerful. But if he is evil, as I suspect he would have to be to allow massive, unnecessary suffering of innocents, then I would not expect him to prove to me his existence.

Derek

Now he even admits that he wouldn't be convinced in the case of him witnessing a regeneration unless it would happen over and over again, which is what pretty much all the xtians there said he would do.

[Cynic Sage]

We really ticked of BibleWheel, with all of us spouting truth and facts and not kissing his doughnut and all:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=62036&page=13&pp=16

Goodbye folks.

I'm taking a break from this PUTRID PIT OF CORRUPTION.

Don't bother answering any of my posts.

RAM

PS: I strongly recommend any remnant of TRUE CHRISTIANS to get out of the evil place. It is not good for your souls.

I love it when Fundies say "TWEB IS TEH DEVAL!" or "TWEB IS EVAL!" :teeth:

I bet 5 pearls he's gonna pull a Doubting John. Any takers?




























<Johnny waits for DJ to show up and rant about himself being "nominated".>

[BronzeArcher]

I wonder where Wallack went anyway?

I saw him on Peter Kirby's errancy wiki thing. I read one of his alleged contradictions about the order of Mt/Mk in the canon and left, having my faith utterly destroyed. :smile:

[Cynic Sage]

I saw him on Peter Kirby's errancy wiki thing. I read one of his alleged contradictions about the order of Mt/Mk in the canon and left, having my faith utterly destroyed. :smile:
:lol:

[Cynic Sage]

What's up with Vance, he started a thread titled: "Cognos is right: only 1% of Bible prophecies fulfilled. (Ouch !)":

]...and they number a pitiful twenty-one. That leaves at least--no, more than--two-thousand that have proven to not be worth the paper they're printed on ![/color]

It turns out that the 1% are all of a type known as "messianic" ones (long story). The majority come from a couple of Old Testament books too, so you can guess how somebody--the writers--might be trying their best to come up with stuff that was vague enough to be fulfilled by any number of people (kind of like one-size-fits-all horoscope predictions, or Jeane Dixon (sp. ?) tabloid stunts.)

Are they worth even taking a look at ? I mean seeing as how there are 2,000+ bogus prophecies in the Bible ? ...a whopping 99% failure rate ?!

I say; what the hay. "They're good for a laugh," perhaps (for some, anyway.)


-----------------------------------------------------------------
It's Christmas time (almost) so I'll start "there:"

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrath though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to me the one to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from old, from everlasting."

Or this one: "The kings of Tarnish and of the isles will bring presents; the kings of Sheba and Seba will offer gifts."

These messianic prophecies are -you guessed it- supposed to be, for Christians, about Jesus. You might say that they put the "Christ" into Jesus Christ.

If you are familiar with the accounts of Jesus' life in Matthew, Mark and Luke and such, you'll probably "recognize Jesus here"...spoken of some 300 -even 700- years before his birth by a couple, three, so, prophets.



See what you think:

"Even my familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me." (Judas Iscariot, "the betrayer ?")

"Then I said to them, 'If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain. 'So they weighed-out for my wages thirty pieces of silver." (The amount of Judas' "blood money ?" Hmm.)

What about, "So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord for the potter." (sound familiar ? I'm just asking.)

I'll leave Judas behind now, and we'll see how Jesus' disciples treated him on that fateful night:

"Strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered." (they all ran off and hid themselves well, for a few days)



The Jewish 'supreme court' of the day (Sanhedrin) took over, to accuse Jesus of blasphemy; His claims to be God's Son--THE Son. They wanted him dead. They would get their way.

Jesus kept His mouth shut for them and later before Herod, the Roman's puppet ruler...

Here: "He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth."



The following is a telling prediction, I think:

"He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities (sins); the chastisement that makes us whole fell upon him, and by his stripes (whip marks) we are healed." (set right with God.)

And this is worth considering, regarding the recorded tormenting that preceded Jesus' execution:

"I gave my back to those who struck me, and my cheeks to those that plucked out the beard; I did not hide my face from shame and spitting."

More along those lines; later on, at the cross:

"All who see me ridicule me; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, "He trusted in the Lord; let Him rescue him; let Him deliver him, since he delights in Him !"

Yes, we are 'now up to' the crucifixion. What is this below, but a reference to the way of capital punishment that would be the Romans,' alone, hundreds of years later....(the Jews stoned people, for centuries before.)

"They pierced my hands and my feet."
(the book of Psalms; collection ranging from 300-450 B.C.)

What about this ?:

"Because he poured out his soul unto death, and he was numbered with the transgressors." (2 criminals died along with Him that day.)..."And he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."

This is very specific, to Jesus (who else ??)

Continuing: "He is despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. As we hid, as it were, our faces from him; he was despised, and we did not esteem him."

Interesting ! (?)




"They divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots." --- "And for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. They also gave me gall for my food..."


Jesus cries out from the cross, these words (from the book of Psalms): "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me ? ...'Into Your hand I commit my spirit."

"They will look on me whom they pierced." (fulfillment: "But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear." John 19: 34)

"And they made his grave with the wicked--but with the rich at his death." (That would be the Sanhedrin's, wealthy, Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27: 57-60), who put Jesus' body in his own, unused tomb, along with the help of "John 3: 16's" Pharisee, who came to believe: Nicodemus.

God bless you, Nicodemus ! You heard; you trusted the good news !

And speaking of John 3: 16, here's at last an indicator for your consideration that the Jewish people had been expecting, for several hundred years, an earthly ruler for them/from them, (yet) fully divine; a King...THE King, from Heaven: (even) The Son of the Most High God:: Yahweh.

"I will declare the decree: The Lord has said to Me, 'You are My Son, today I have begotten You."

That was what His Father -Jesus'- declared at the time when He began His public ministry, in about 27 A.D., as He in a humble, obedient demonstration of the godly importance of His forerunner, John the baptist's, work, the Holy Spirit took the form of a dove and lit upon Jesus..."And suddenly a voice came from Heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

_______________________________________________
If this last one is one you feel/regard was of the purely self-fulfilling type (and not worthy of belief, therefore), please do consider all the others. If you are open minded and open hearted to the possibility that these twenty prophecies are a genuine kind of proof that Jesus is indeed exactly who He always claimed to be, you are a lot closer to being willing to receive Jesus as your Saviour.


You really need a Saviour, don't you know ?! And...He wants YOU !

Sincerely, to all,
V.

I'm confused. Did he, or didn't he apostasize before writing this? :huh:

Vance really needs to learn about Typology.

[Cynic Sage]

BW "leaving" again:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65554&page=1&pp=16

Cop a clue.

You have WICKED GOD-HATERS as moderators. You allow wicked communications and mockery of God's servants on a daily basis.

You need to clean up your house. It STINKS! It is CORRUPT! It is filled with LIES and blaspheme.

And the "moderators" promote LIES and MOCKERY and FILTH!

God have mercy on your soul,

RAM

Apparently LGM jokingly told him that he was a moderator and BW believed him (IIRC). :lol:

[Cynic Sage]

Maybe I can help Mr. Wallack expand his thesis. If you replace the L in Lex with an R you get Rex which means "king" in French and since some French king banished all the jews from France and Jesus was also known to be a king Lex Luthor's first name is a reference to two enemies of the jews.
Actually, "Rex" is "King" in latin. "Roi" (rwa) is "King" in french.

[Cynic Sage]

BW "leaving" again:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65554&page=1&pp=16



Apparently LGM jokingly told him that he was a moderator and BW believed him (IIRC). :lol:
Wait, I was wrong. LGM was joking in the thread when he told us that he told BW that he was a moderator.

[Cynic Sage]

Dr Babara Rossing, who teaches New Testament at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago (don't worry, I'm not nominating her) wrote of book criticizing Left Behind-esque views of the End-Times. Her book is titled "The Rapture Exposed, The Message of Hope in the Book of Revelation".

I was checking out info on the book from Amazon and came across this rather interesting reader review:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0813343143/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/104-0479948-5332762?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155

***** Rapture Exists. People Have to Believe in The Lord. , October 31, 2005
A Kid's Review
The Rapture exists period. This signifies that the coming of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just so close. It has been predicted by the Mayans that the time cycle will change in December of 2012...the Rapture has to exist because His Believers will be picked up. I don't think that Christ will leave His Followers on this Earth in order to face the wrath of the antichrist (who is in the flesh right now, yes, in 2005). And believe it or not the antichrist has a book out right now titled, "Memoirs of Antichrist." It is here, sold on amazon.com . The signs are everywhere, but the signs point to the Sign: Jesus Christ. Immortality for ever is at hand but just believe in the Son Of God: Jesus Christ. You need the invitation (by Christ) in order to make it to the Party that( God the Father)is having in Heaven. Just pray alot for yourself, and for the poor and sooner or later He will come back. Let the secular or Religious Mayans of the past persuade you through their information that they have done-that the Signs that they have talked about point to the Sign: Jesus Christ. The Rapture is always talked about on TBN and backed up with Biblical scripture. It is best to believe in Jack Van Impe than in this person named "Barbara Rossing." Barbara Rossing should talk to Jack Van Impe.


For someone who hated the book so much he sure seemed to give it alot of stars (5) :rofl:

[BronzeArcher]

what? er... (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=20009615&postcount=17)

Stricly speaking, God did not exist until Jesus was conceived.
Although, I do concede that perhaps it may be said that God does not exist even now, and merely is. It hinges upon the semantics of Chalcedon, and might be beyond the precision of human language.
Put another way, while it is accurate to say that Jesus exists, it may not be precise; and while it is accurate to say that God exists, it is certainly not precise.

Given Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, this is to be expected from our vantage point (ie precision being ultimately incompatible with accuracy).

[Cynic Sage]

Moses decides to leave Tweb cuz we remind him of his mom :lmbo::

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65734&page=1&pp=16

I have spent the last few years or so visiting a bunch of different web-sites that give their views of the world and the "here-after" from a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist etc. etc. point of view. They all exhibit the same tendencies that my dear old mother lives by.
This sweet (?) self-centred lady has spent more than eighty years not only believing that the world revolves around her, but that it also always operates only in a way that makes sense to her. If by chance it does not conform to her ideals then there is something wrong with the world, not her!
Now not being knowledgeable enough about the Eastern Religions to comment on them, this is exactly the way staunch proponents of Western Religions behave.
Thank God that moderates have been tempered enough by modern secular society that they and their beliefs are compatible with the general population and other faiths. (Or tolerated anyways - and, I still have enough spiritualism in me to say "Thank God!")
The consensus now among the major religions is a policy of "live and let live!"
The fundamentalists, (whether they be Christian or Muslim) on the other hand, still live by the rule that they are right and everyone else is wrong. (Just like Mom!)
They, in their arrogance, believe that they have an inside track on paradise and anyone who disagrees with them is bound for hellfire and damnation.
Although Christianity has lost some if its zeal for spreading the "Word" at all costs, Islam has the distinction of not only being directed by God to convert all non-believers, but to do so by force if necessary.
This, along with a closed mind to any outside influences, makes for religions that are both stagnant and rigid. The Bible or the Koran can be held up like a shield to protect the adherents from any attempt at logical or even rational thinking.
"Nothing can sway us because we are the choosen and you are naught but infidels!"
I have, in my ignorance, debated and argued with staunch religious practitioners and the only thing I accomplished was to frustrate and aggravate myself.
No amount of logic, obvious facts or just plain common sense could sway these people from their choosen path. They will engage in all sorts of convoluted mental gymnastics and outright self-deception to avoid beign confronted with a threat to their carefully nurtured "belief system!"
The only way to go through life for them is with blinders on least their universe crumbles under them from an erosion of faith!
Rather than continue to enrage and exasperate myself I have come to the conclusion to just ignore them all and make the best of life according to my own ideals and convictions.

A patient goes to the doctor and says; " Doc, it hurts when I do this!" To which the doctor says; "Then don't do that!"

So---- you can all go to hell! :blush: (no pun intended.)

Your frustrated scribe;
Allan W Janssen

Moses has to be the third person here to pull a Cartman (the others being Doubting John and BibleWheel).

[attachment]
"*Edited by a Moderator-wannabe* you guys, I'm going home".

[Cynic Sage]

Kenite, on the special telepathic mind-link TrueChristiansTM have:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1274891&postcount=7

Whose interpretation of Scripture? Scripture does not interpret itself...

It does. People who hold to 'sola Scripture' are not incompetents; they have a record of academic distinction that overwhelms everything else religious put together.

if it did then everyone with a Bible would believe in the same things.

They do, if they are honest. Those who are born again know how others who are born again think before they have even met them.

:lmbo:

[Underlings]

Underlings, for his support of "Why does God Hate Amputees.com" (which simply offerers the a glorified version of the "If God was real prayer would be like a gumball machine" argument, and for that the website deserves a nomination itself):

Woot! Well, thank you for the honor!

The only problem is, neither I nor the Why Does God Hate Amputees website make any such claim at all. Perhaps if you'd actually read the website or my thread you'd have realized this very thing.

Well, then again, maybe not. After all, I had to tell Mountain Man several times and he still couldn't grasp it. Here's one of my quotes from the thread:

And for the umpteenth time, I never said I believed prayer is a supernatural gumball machine. I'm saying THAT'S WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS. My point isn't that prayer should work miracles, but that the Bible is WRONG.

Can you guys really not discern the difference? My point and the Amputees website point is that the Bible states in no uncertain terms and in numerous locations that ANYTHING is possible with prayer (and with faith). THE BIBLE makes the claim that prayer is a miraculous gumball machine, not me.

The only problem is...prayer obviously doesn't actually work. As I've said over and over again (and have yet to receive a rational response refuting it), if you try to pray for something that can't easily be explained away by simple coincidence or human interference--such as praying for an amputee's limbs to grow back or, better yet, praying that all the thousands of innocent children who die slowly and in agony from starvation every single day will find the food they desperately need--it NEVER happens. That's right...NEVER.

Go ahead, try it if you don't believe me. Pray your heart out that tomorrow God will spare the approximately 8,000 children who will otherwise die a horrible and painfully death from starvation. I am quite confident that he won't lift a finger to help them. I'm so confident that God won't do anything to help them, in fact, that I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is and pony up a $10,000 bet that he won't.

Go ahead, prove that I'm a screwball and take me up on that bet. Is your faith in prayer strong enough to put 10 grand on the line? Or are you going to say, "Prayer doesn't work like that. It's God's will that those thousands of innocent children suffer and die like that. Prayer never works on anything you can actually test"?

Well, if that's God's will, then God is either indifferent or evil...or he simply doesn't exist (which, amazingly, fits all the evidence perfectly!). In any case, what's the point in worshipping such a monster? A being who won't even lift a finger to save a child who's starving to death, when he's supposedly so powerful he could fix the problem without even trying, is worthy only of contempt, wouldn't you say? Come on, let's be honest now! Can you think of ANY reason why letting those innocent children suffer and die like that serves the "greater good"?

And if you can't, then isn't "trusting in the Lord" about as screwball as you can get?

Derek

[jpholding]

The only problem is, neither I nor the Why Does God Hate Amputees website make any such claim at all.

Yes, you do.

The entire website is a gross misrepresentation of what prayer is, based on the "gumball machine" model. It is not MM but YOU who have the problem grasping things, because you read the text like it was written yesterday and for you personally.

Don't try to shilly shally out of your error by claiming some difference between what you say and what the Bible says. It's YOUR ERROR in not knowing what the Bible says that is the root of the problem.

Stupid people like you don't deserve my attention other than in parody, and that is exactly what your silly little site will get from me at some time in the near future. But I do have questions for you:

such as praying for an amputee's limbs to grow back or, better yet, praying that all the thousands of innocent children who die slowly and in agony from starvation every single day will find the food they desperately need--it NEVER happens.

May I ask whether YOU have done anything about either of these problems yourself? In other words, have YOU done anything to contribute to research that might regrow limbs; or have you in any way contributed to physical therapy efforts for those who lose limbs? Have you engaged in any safety campaigns to prevent injuries resulting in lost limbs?

Have you sent anything to charities to feed these starving children? Have you done anything to depose those regimes that cause these children to starve? Have you in fact hindered such efforts in any way through some misplaced political view?

Go ahead, try it if you don't believe me. Pray your heart out that tomorrow God will spare the approximately 8,000 children who will otherwise die a horrible and painfully death from starvation

Instead of whining about it, why don't you do something so that we here in America -- who throw away enough from our finest restauants every hour to feed those 8K children for six weeks -- solve that problem?

And you have the nerve to whine about prayer "not working"?

God isn't obliged to cover for your ineptitude and foolishness, nor anyone else's. He's also not responsible for your ignorant refusal to read His Word in its proper contexts.

Well, if that's God's will, then God is either indifferent or evil..

So are you, unless you get up off your rear end and that keyboard and start picketing the Chez La Poop for wasting all that food that could go to those starving children. I'll bet you don't eat all your spiach, either. :lol: It's funny to hear you whine from your seat of redolent luxury.

Can you think of ANY reason why letting those innocent children suffer and die like that serves the "greater good"?

No, but that's not the reason normally given anyway, which just shows that you're even stupider than expected. These kids starve because stupid people like you are in power, and because stupid people like you whine and moan and kick and fuss rather than doing something about it. The money you spent on your whiney website could have fed 100 children for a year, you know that?

You do all these foolish things, then have the audacity to complain that God doesn't come when you snap your fat fingers?

It's also funny to watch you pretend to know what ancient patronage is. Amuse me a bit more -- I'm feeling masochistic. :lmbo:

[Darth Executor]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65903&page=2
Remember, he was addressing fellow Jews (not a pejorative term at that period in history), fellow "people of God," not "fundy atheists." He attacked their hypocrisy and their reliance on outward signs when their insides were rotting out. They were a people who had twisted the teachings of God into destructive attitudes and self-righteous quips and actions. If anything, the modern-day Pharisees are the card-carrying Christians who wave their cards in pagans' faces and treat them and their questions like dirt. I've heard you and Holding drop this Pharisaic argument time and again, and your inaccuracy stinks like week-old garbage. We have no right to lord our faith over in others' faces, and if we see it as our intent and purpose to "boil them in oil," we are deceived and our actions and interactions belie the transformation the gospel works to create.

:no:

[jpholding]

Never trust anyone who thinks Revelation ends with an S to give a sound exegetical argument.

[Underlings]

Yes, you do.

The entire website is a gross misrepresentation of what prayer is, based on the "gumball machine" model. It is not MM but YOU who have the problem grasping things, because you read the text like it was written yesterday and for you personally.

Don't try to shilly shally out of your error by claiming some difference between what you say and what the Bible says. It's YOUR ERROR in not knowing what the Bible says that is the root of the problem.

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong and you've missed the point entirely. Go back and actually read the thread and you'll see how I've used the Bible itself to prove it says prayer is capable of doing things such as move mountains...although there is no evidence that prayer has ever done any such thing. Darth tried to claim that such powerful prayer only applied to the apostles, but I gave other references that indicate the power of prayer (and faith) is also supposed to apply to others as well.

But even that is UTTERLY IMMATERIAL to the actual point to the argument, which is that prayer simply DOES NOT WORK...except, of course, where there's no actual evidence the prayer actually worked (such as unverifiable prayers from the past), or where it's easy to explain by coincidence (such as the surviving soldiers scenario), or where human activity is directly involved (such as using modern medicine to heal someone, or creating a hoax).

Again, if you disagree with me, there's a simple test: TRY IT OUT YOURSELF on something that's actually worthwhile, like helping starving children survive.

Stupid people like you don't deserve my attention other than in parody

Oh, terrific, another fundie who has no foundation for his arguments and so attempts to "win" through insults? Wonderful. Well, I guess that's what happens when you guys have weak arguments. It's a pity, though.

May I ask whether YOU have done anything about either of these problems yourself? In other words, have YOU done anything to contribute to research that might regrow limbs; or have you in any way contributed to physical therapy efforts for those who lose limbs? Have you engaged in any safety campaigns to prevent injuries resulting in lost limbs?

Have you sent anything to charities to feed these starving children? Have you done anything to depose those regimes that cause these children to starve? Have you in fact hindered such efforts in any way through some misplaced political view?

Haha! You must be a fan of Karl Rove: attack the messenger by using irrelevant arguments. To answer your questions, though, yes, I've contributed quite a bit, though not directly (in the Galapagos Islands I taught scientific principles to encourage others to enter scientific fields), and I frequently give to charities.

But what does ANY of that have to do with my central point? Even if I did nothing--or even if I actually hindered medical research and stole money from charities--what difference would that make in the fact that prayer DOES NOT WORK for restoring amputees' limbs or preventing millions of children from starving to death every year?

Instead of whining about it, why don't you do something so that we here in America -- who throw away enough from our finest restauants every hour to feed those 8K children for six weeks -- solve that problem?

Wow, AGAIN you completely miss the point (I'm beginning to think it's a chronic problem with fundies...but then I suppose that should be expected with people who are delusional; see http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/your-delusion.htm ). I'm not complaining about the fact that children suffer and die by the thousands every day, because I understand the reasons why such a thing would happen in a universe governed solely by natural forces. Once again, the point is that PRAYER DOES NOT WORK.

You can EASILY prove this fact to yourself by simply praying for God to save them from such a horrible fate as death by starvation. And when he utterly fails to answer your prayer (as even you deep down know he will), maybe you'll realize that the God of the Bible does not exist...and even if he did, he would be a creature unworthy of worship for just sitting idly by and watching such suffering without doing a thing about it.

God isn't obliged to cover for your ineptitude and foolishness, nor anyone else's. He's also not responsible for your ignorant refusal to read His Word in its proper contexts.

What God IS obliged to do, assuming he exists and assuming he expects people to worship him, is to prove that he isn't an indifferent or even evil monster for letting so much suffering occur for no apparent reason. And if he sends people to hell to burn for all eternity for the "sin" of concluding that anyone who would permit such suffering when they can easily do something about it but doesn't is not worthy of worship, then God is truly an evil being, wouldn't you say?

Oh, and BTW, I already knocked down Darth's arguments concerning context. Not much point in rehashing that here, especially since that's also BESIDE THE POINT that prayer does not work (maybe if I repeat this enough it'll begin to sink in).

So are you, unless you get up off your rear end and that keyboard and start picketing the Chez La Poop for wasting all that food that could go to those starving children. I'll bet you don't eat all your spiach, either. :lol: It's funny to hear you whine from your seat of redolent luxury.

If God is omnipotent, then he can prevent the suffering of 8,000 children dying of starvation every day without ANY effort whatsoever. At best my contributions save a few each year, and even if I devoted my life to saving starving kids, I could save only a few more. A drop in the bucket. But I'm not omnipotent and I certainly don't expect people to worship me. If I were, I certainly wouldn't sit idly by and watch all that suffering as God supposedly does. Doesn't it strike you as absurd that you accuse me of not doing more to help those children, yet you think it's fine that an omnipotent God does less than I do to help them? Do you also blame babies for not solving the national debt problem? Sheesh....

Well, if fundie Darth doesn't care about children starving to death and Mountain Man thinks it's for the "greater good," then I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you show no more of a sense of humanity than they do.

No, but that's not the reason normally given anyway, which just shows that you're even stupider than expected. These kids starve because stupid people like you are in power, and because stupid people like you whine and moan and kick and fuss rather than doing something about it. The money you spent on your whiney website could have fed 100 children for a year, you know that?

You do all these foolish things, then have the audacity to complain that God doesn't come when you snap your fat fingers?

It's also funny to watch you pretend to know what ancient patronage is. Amuse me a bit more -- I'm feeling masochistic. :lmbo:

I'm in power? Wow, that's news to me! And I spent money on the Amputees website? How did that happen when it's not even my website? (Are you like Darth who admits he doesn't read the information he's arguing against?)

At any rate, again, WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE if I were actually "guilty" of what you claim? Put it this way: what if I were actually the one person in the whole world responsible for causing all those children to starve to death. Sure, that would make me an evil person...but who I am would have NO bearing on the quality of my argument.

What does it say about a supposedly omnipotent God who does NOTHING to prevent such suffering of innocent children, even though there are millions of Christians who pray for them? Why would such a God deserve our worship? Why wouldn't he deserve our utter contempt? You'd surely have contempt for someone who stood idly by and watched a child starve to death before his very eyes when he could easily have helped, wouldn't you? Why should God be any different?

Finally, although you fundies claim prayer works, so far none of you have answered this question: WHICH prayers work? Praying to find your car keys? Praying for a person to survive surgery? Praying you make the right decision in a certain purchase? Maybe if we can narrow it down to something specific we can dispense with the childish character assassination and actually prove whether prayer works or whether it's just a figment of the imagination.

Derek

[jpholding]

Here comes Captain Underpants!

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong and you've missed the point entirely.

No, I thrummed your point entirely. I read the Bible AND works of scholarship on it, and that's why I know you "used" the Bible to prove your points only in the sense that a john uses a prostitute. Your interpretation and exegesis are faulty beyond all repair. The problem is in your court, not ours, little man. To wit:

But even that is UTTERLY IMMATERIAL to the actual point to the argument, which is that prayer simply DOES NOT WORK

As a gumball machine, which you think it is promised to be, it does not work. It was never meant to work that way, your attempts to wrest pathologically literal senses out of the rhetorical hyperbole that was the normal language of Semitic patronage, notwithstanding.

As a means of interaction and appeal to a patron who is under no obligation to be a gumball machine, it works exactly as it is supposed to. All your whining is premised on the "gumball machine" exegesis, and that is dead as a doornail. Time to find a new life for yourself.

Oh, terrific, another fundie who has no foundation for his arguments and so attempts to "win" through insults?

My foundation is ancient models of patronage on which the NT model is clearly based. As you clearly have no idea what patronage is, insults are about all that are needed at this point; you do no more than insult the faith of millions with your casual use of the text, with your exegesis performed by slapping open a Bible, drooling on it, then waiting for your son the strawman to be born of the wreckage.

Haha! You must be a fan of Karl Rove: attack the messenger by using irrelevant arguments. To answer your questions, though, yes, I've contributed quite a bit, though not directly (in the Galapagos Islands I taught scientific principles to encourage others to enter scientific fields), and I frequently give to charities.

In other words, you haven’t done jack dip about those issues and this is your best effort to turn a pile of bullthwip into a prize rose garden. The specifics of covering the needs of amputees and starving children, you have done nothing about. It's very relevant -- you have no right to complain if you're not doing your part. Here’s the catch, Little Man: God DID answer those prayers – we have all the resources and abilities we need to take care of these things. All you’re doing is sitting on your posterior whining that God provided the food, yeah, sure, but why isn’t He opening my mouth for me and putting it inside? Why doesn’t He pre-chew my Wheaties for me, and wipe for me in the bathroom? He’s omnipotent! Surely since God is omnipotent He can do all these things.

Good night you are stupid! :lmbo:

what difference would that make in the fact that prayer DOES NOT WORK for restoring amputees' limbs or preventing millions of children from starving to death every year?

Gumball verses patronage model. Same old tired song and dance that gets you nothing but seltzer down your pants. :lmbo:

Wow, AGAIN you completely miss the point

No, we all get the point here perfectly. You’re a whiner and a complainer with an asinine view of prayer that derives from exegetical methods you discovered while reading the back of the box with a bird on the front that shouts, “I’M COO COO FOR COCOA PUFFS!”


should be expected with people who are delusional; see http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/your-delusion.htm

I’ll deliver the appropros parody when it’s time. In the meantime try to cure that exegetical delusion of yours, and get some psychiatric help too.

Once again, the point is that PRAYER DOES NOT WORK.

Once again, the point is that your Gumball Model is a farce, not to be derived from the text except by bigoted and pathological Western literalism – not serious exegetical or contextual study of how patronage worked, or how people spoke to each other in the day and time the text was written. You’re probably also one of those nitwits who thinks that Jesus was John’s gay lover.

What God IS obliged to do, assuming he exists and assuming he expects people to worship him, is to prove that he isn't an indifferent or even evil monster for letting so much suffering occur for no apparent reason.

“Letting”??? Golly, I guess He “lets” you starve if you’re too stupid to put food in your mouth huh. :rofl:

And if he sends people to hell to burn for all eternity for the "sin" of concluding that anyone who would permit such suffering when they can easily do something about it but doesn't is not worthy of worship, then God is truly an evil being, wouldn't you say?

Beats me. I don’t hold to the “burn” view; because I read that in context, I read that as a metaphor for shame – which IS what people like you deserve for raping the text and announcing your opinion, and then deludedly spreading around your BS like some pompous windbag who thinks he discovered air.

Oh, and BTW, I already knocked down Darth's arguments concerning context.

You didn’t do jack dip to it. But I’ll let Darth pick off his side of your carcass while I take care of my side.

If God is omnipotent, then he can prevent the suffering of 8,000 children dying of starvation every day without ANY effort whatsoever. At best my contributions save a few each year, and even if I devoted my life to saving starving kids, I could save only a few more.

So what? That’s an excuse for sitting on your rear end not doing anything more about it? Now clue in: If EVERYONE did what they were supposed to, THERE WOULD BE NO STARVING CHILDREN IN THE FIRST PLACE! The goods are there, the means are there, the brains are there (well, present company excluded, it seems). God gave it, and just because you and everyone else wants to sit on your tuft at a computer and type inane complaints about how God won’t help you pay your cell phone bill, creates ZERO obligation for Him to clean up the messes that you and everyone else makes. In fact, since the messes come mainly as a result of not following the moral laws that God Himself gave, you and all others have about as much right to complain as Imelda Marcos had a need for new shoes.


Doesn't it strike you as absurd that you accuse me of not doing more to help those children, yet you think it's fine that an omnipotent God does less than I do to help them?

Nope. It strikes me as absurd that you expect God to step in to clean up messes that you either helped make or are doing not even jack to help fix. You have a computer – sell it and buy food for the poor. How much is your rent or house payment? Your could get a better deal and give the difference to the poor. Hypocrite.

Do you also blame babies for not solving the national debt problem?

Crybabies, yes. :thumb: Assuming it is a real problem in the first place.

Well, if fundie Darth doesn't care about children starving to death and Mountain Man thinks it's for the "greater good," then I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you show no more of a sense of humanity than they do.

This from a man who sits at his computer typing pious claptrap while tens of thousands starve? How gauche. :lol:

I'm in power? Wow, that's news to me!

No wonder nothing it getting done. You don’t know what the hades you’re up to.

And I spent money on the Amputees website? How did that happen when it's not even my website? (Are you like Darth who admits he doesn't read the information he's arguing against?)

Shrug. Sorry, but when you refer to “your” website and defend the Amputees website, it’s kind of hard not to reach that conclusion. Not that it matters – you’re wasting tons of money right now on electricity that could go to feed the poor in Bangladesh.

At any rate, again, WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE if I were actually "guilty" of what you claim?

The “difference” is that it makes you a roaring hypocrite who hasn’t got a leg to stand on. :lol: Your argument is dead whether from exegetical or moral points of view.

What does it say about a supposedly omnipotent God who does NOTHING to prevent such suffering of innocent children, even though there are millions of Christians who pray for them?

It says that millions of Christians have an erroneous understanding of prayer and that we’re a bunch of whiners who can’t get off our duffs with the answers and resources we already have. You’re like the moron who blames God for what happened in New Orleans even after the people there have been aware for 200+ years that they were living in a teacup, and time after time put off the necessary engineering to solve the problem so they could spend the money on Zeus knows what, like promoting tourism in the French Quarter.

Why would such a God deserve our worship? Why wouldn't he deserve our utter contempt? You'd surely have contempt for someone who stood idly by and watched a child starve to death before his very eyes when he could easily have helped, wouldn't you?

No, I’d have contempt for the idiot that let the situation get to the point where the child starved. More to the point, who is also telling your “someone” what an idiot they are and how they don’t deserve to be given any attention, while they also do nothing to help the child either. That’s called INGRATITUDE and HYPOCRISY. And you’re full of both, Little Man.


Finally, although you fundies claim prayer works,

I don’t claim anything about your gumball machine model which thinks that praying to find your car keys is something worth doing. I follow the contextualized model, and it works precisely as it is supposed to: No positive answer guaranteed. Maybe if we educate you in some fundamental scholarship, we can dispense with your childish crybabying and send you off to do something productive, like weaving baskets underwater. We already know that your gumball reading of the text is just a figment of the imagination.

Time for you to fly off and feed some amputees...

[Darth Executor]

You didn’t do jack dip to it. But I’ll let Darth pick off his side of your carcass while I take care of my side.


There isn't a carcass left to pick. It's just an annoying ghost and as soon as I get Pythagoras do do an Internet exorcism he'll be gone. :wink:

[Soundsurfr]

I follow the contextualized model, and it works precisely as it is supposed to: No positive answer guaranteed.

Hey, cool! That's the atheist model, too! :lol:

[jpholding]

Hey, cool! That's the atheist model, too! :lol:

Laugh as you wish, but ironically the deist model has certain aspects right. And that's a serious note. :rasberry:

[Darth Executor]

Shunyadragon opens his mouth and swallows a fly.


You are citing confirmed traditional Christians here and not unbiased secular scholars. Tektonics is the most dubious source.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65496&page=4

This, of course, constitutes an actual answer. :lol:

[jpholding]

By the way, folks, starting with the next set the Screwball feature will be on the tektoonics.com site. I hope as time passes to be able to add some art to them.

[TuckEverlasting]

Shunyadragon opens his mouth and swallows a fly.



http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65496&page=4

This, of course, constitutes an actual answer. :lol:

Guh! I hate that sort of thing! :no:

[Shadow Phoenix]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65934

Bagger Vance lands in the sand trap again.



It depends on what event they're being asked to verify. Sticking with Islam, could you tell people "Go where Mohammad had his vision! The cave's still there!" Of course, the cave's still there, but what would that prove? There's no connection.

What does an empty tomb prove? Absolutely nothing. It could have been anything. It wasn't the empty tomb that sold them on Jesus. It was the message of redemption and rebellion against Rome and the Pharisees that sold people on Christianity.

With the apostles though, you had the claim that the cave was empty and the challenge to go see for yourself. You have the evidence of the skeptics being converted and several people dropping key tenets of their Jewish heritage such as animal sacrifice suddenly. You had this happening in Jerusalem. (Had this been made up, the key idea would be to start as far away from the tomb as possible such as Athens, not just six blocks down from the empty tomb.) This is the difference. The apostles were stating one fact. "The tomb was empty." What fact was Mohammad stating and how would you verify it?

How do you verify that Jesus rose from the dead? An empty tomb is just as vague as the cave Allah spoke to Muhammad. I can take you to a million empty buildings where a body once rested. That means nothing. Bodies can be moved. We know this. Bodies can't rise from the dead. We know this. People can lie for something they want to believe. Seems logical to me. I still don't know how all these peasants had the time in between surviving to go and verify these claims.

Which is kind of why I said that....Sincerity does not prove truthfulness. I agree.

Great. And an empty tomb doesn't prove resurrection either.

All of these are experiences though that you have no way of verifying. The claim of the apostles on Pentecost was not "God spoke to me!" (The idea of God speaking to Christians is in history, a relatively new development. You don't find it in the NT and it's rare in the OT.) The claim of the apostles was that the tomb was empty. Now you tell me which other religion makes that claim.

Again, a tomb being empty means nothing. I don't recall many accounts of christians verifying this. They simply believed what they were told. The true question is if it was so easy to verify then why didn't everyone convert straight away? Maybe it was only the people who wanted to believe it or trusted the apostles that converted. It sure wasn't a slam dunk case that tomb empty business. Mass converts came around after they heard about the free ride to heaven and grace instead of works. Even today it is too good to be true. You can act just like a sinner and go to heaven cuz like...nobody's perfect.

Little thing called economics, the study of human action. People will do something if you give them incentive. What was the incentive for following Mohammad? You kept your head in one piece and you got a lot of money and women and even more when you died. What was the incentive for being a Christian in the beginning? You got to be chased down by Jews and the Roman Empire and could be beheaded, stoned, shot through with arrows, etc. Being a Christian was a death sentence. Being a Muslim wasn't.

They had that in the paganism before Muhammad. Muhammad's initial mass following was not at the point of a sword or because they could steal. They could steal before him and he only gained power through the mass conversions that he then used as an army. Your prejudice is showing though. Nice. The incentive for jews turning to christianity was grace, community, and freedom from overly strict and ridiculous hebrew law. What about all the commune churchs like in Acts where the poor came together and helped one another? That sense of community wasn't incentive even if you were in trouble with the establishment?

Let us not pretend that martyrdom is so unappealing for many any way. That is just a lie.

The apostles were not seeking death. They were executed, with the exception of John who died in exile, and given the chance to recant which they refused. Suicide bombers today willingly end their lives.

As for your explanations of the tomb, it's just grasping at straws. Someone stole the body! So how'd they get past the guards? How do you explain the visions? Why did an apostle who did this accept death then? Can you tell me why there are even non-believers like Pinchas Lapides who say that Jesus rose from the dead or why the evidence is so convincing that Robert Greg Cavin has to resort to a "twin theory" to explain the empty tomb?

You know Bagger, the sad thing is that you keep seeming to use this straw man of Christians believing without having any reason to and think that it works. Now you can think the reasons are bad, but they are reasons, and just saying that we don't have evidence or logic doesn't make it so.

If the evidence is so convincing for an empty tomb why did the vast majority of his jewish brethern reject that is a foolish notion? Was it the devil? Did God blind them? Talk about claims you can't verify. Why did those that knew Jesus best reject him? Jews didn't go to him en masse. If you want to pretend that the empty tomb argument was the key argument that led to conversion and that it is indisputable go ahead but history says differently. No historians say the resurrection is fact. Most will say Jesus existed but you get none that say you can historicaly verify the empty tomb.

The sad thing is that you refuse to see that other religions use the same exact "logic" and "reasons" as you do and when you step all over there reasons you trample on your own.

I'd comment, but I think it speaks for itself

[Underlings]

No, I thrummed your point entirely. I read the Bible AND works of scholarship on it, and that's why I know you "used" the Bible to prove your points only in the sense that a john uses a prostitute. Your interpretation and exegesis are faulty beyond all repair. The problem is in your court, not ours, little man.

So what? That’s an excuse for sitting on your rear end not doing anything more about it? Now clue in: If EVERYONE did what they were supposed to, THERE WOULD BE NO STARVING CHILDREN IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Wow. I really don't want to accuse you of utter stupidity...but what choice do you give me? You have so so completely missed the point and seem somehow incapable of even understanding how you've done so. Maybe you're just a teenager. I don't know. But there must be some reason for your obdurate behavior (the great irony here is that you probably consider yourself a good Christian, even with all that childish venom you spew).

So let me break it down as simply as possible in the hopes there is some way you will understand:

Forget completely about who or what I am. I could be Hitler or I could be Jesus Christ and it wouldn't change the value of the question. WHO asks a question matters not at all. The question itself deserves to be evaluated on its own merits, not on the characteristics of the person asking the question. Got that so far? If you can't even grasp that, well, then just humor me for the moment.

Now, according to Christians, God is the ultimate in goodness, justice, power and knowledge. They also believe that God answers prayers. Setting aside your irrelevant gumball machine claim for the moment, can you accept that Christians believe that God answers prayers? (If not, then you have accepted the central point of my premise that prayer does not work, and this argument is over.) If you do, then the question becomes what kind of prayers does he answer. Using the very terms used by fundies on this forum, God will answer prayers if they are "in accordance with his will" and if they "glorify" God and if they advance the "greater good."

It is a fact that thousands of children die each and every day from starvation. Many of these children are still infants and toddlers, and they certainly have done nothing to deserve such a slow, horrible death from starvation. How could they? They're innocents, incapable of sin, according to Christians. Still with me? Or are you going to say that babies deserve to die?

Now for the next step: there are certain things that virtually everyone--the vast majority of Christians included--consider pure evil. These include murder, rape, etc. High on that list is child abuse...especially child abuse that results in the child's excruciating death. It's hard to deny that allowing a child to starve to death is one of the worst forms of child abuse imaginable.

So it is logical to conclude that if prayer works on anything, surely it should work on correcting such a horrible evil as millions of innocent children dying of starvation. Wouldn't saving the innocent from such a horrible fate be "in accordance" with the will of a just and good God? Wouldn't such a prayer advance the "greater good"? Wouldn't preventing such evil "glorify" God?

Well, it won't work. Try it yourself. Pray as hard as you can, build a prayer circle, whatever it takes. God will NOT answer your prayers. He hasn't done it yet and I'll willingly bet you $10,000 that he won't do it tomorrow. Are you willing to match that bet? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Wait! I hear you cry. Prayer doesn't work like that! We don't know the will of God! For all we know there is a good reason for prayers to NEVER work for ending the constant death by starvation.

Name one. Any reason that makes any sort of sense will do. What good could possibly come of such an unending epidemic of starvation? Obviously, if God exists, and if he refuses to answer prayers to save those children, then all those children suffer and die because God WANTS them to suffer and die. Sure, you can blame humans (and blame me) all you want for not doing a better job of protecting children, but that doesn't change the fact that children are suffering and dying in epidemic proportions, does it?

If you believe God is all-powerful, then you also believe he COULD save those children without any effort whatsoever. Yet he does NOTHING to help them. Why is that? Why would God even allow such evil to befall innocents in the first place? They have done nothing to harm anyone, yet God sits by and idly watches them weaken, cry in agony, and eventually die. Why does he wait for humans to take care of something we're obviously not doing well at all? If God has a good reason for letting this happen, he's certainly not made it evident, either in the real world or in the Bible...and if something so fundamentally evil as not doing a thing to prevent children from starving to death isn't a damn good reason to question whether God is good or even exists, then what is?

Face it: if you can't answer these questions with a clear, lucid, logical answer, then you've not only lost the argument, but you've lost your brain and your humanity. And you worship a god of evil.

You scorn me for supposedly not understanding the concept of patronage. Rather than detail my many years of biblical studies, I will now humor you: Please enlighten me as to how being a patron means it's okay to allow your children to die a slow, agonizing death from starvation. Under ANY circumstances. And while you're at it, please explain how being a patron means it's okay to torment for all eternity people whose only "crime" is not seeing any evidence for your existence at all. I will be truly impressed if you can come up with some explanation that doesn't make God appear to be a cruel, petty, evil, vindictive creature that demands to be worshipped or it will torture you for all eternity. I wish you the best of luck on this; you're going to need it.

The rest of your post is just plain embarrassing. If I were you I'd be ashamed to call myself a Christian. Show a little self-respect and actually try to address the questions like an adult.

Derek

[Doubting John]

I've been watching and it sure looks to me as if you bit off more than you can chew when you nominated Underlings as a Screwball.

I'm waiting to see if it can be backed up....and from the looks of it he's trashing you guys. :lol:

Derek, it's an honor to be so nominated. It means you're getting to them.

I like the way you handle yourself in this den of dimwits.

Let's see if they'll do it again. :lmbo:

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

Oh, HAPPY THANKSGIVING to everyone. May this season be a refreshing time for all!

[TuckEverlasting]

Maybe you're just a teenager.

*shrug* I had assumed from his one-dimensional way of thinking that Underlings was, at most, college age. :shrug:

I've been watching and it sure looks to me as if you bit off more than you can chew when you nominated Underlings as a Screwball.

I'm waiting to see if it can be backed up....and from the looks of it he's trashing you guys. :lol:

Derek, it's an honor to be so nominated. It means you're getting to them.

I like the way you handle yourself in this den of dimwits.

Let's see if they'll do it again. :lmbo:

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

Oh, HAPPY THANKSGIVING to everyone. May this season be a refreshing time for all!

John, you are one of the biggest losers I have ever met, anywhere, ever. You remind me of one of those kids who always got beat up, so they develop a complex where they have to go on the internet and 'demonstrate their superiority' to people who can't (really) respond. :no:

[Darth Executor]

Wow. I really don't want to accuse you of utter stupidity...but what choice do you give me? You have so so completely missed the point and seem somehow incapable of even understanding how you've done so. Maybe you're just a teenager. I don't know. But there must be some reason for your obdurate behavior (the great irony here is that you probably consider yourself a good Christian, even with all that childish venom you spew).

So let me break it down as simply as possible in the hopes there is some way you will understand:

Forget completely about who or what I am. I could be Hitler or I could be Jesus Christ and it wouldn't change the value of the question. WHO asks a question matters not at all. The question itself deserves to be evaluated on its own merits, not on the characteristics of the person asking the question. Got that so far? If you can't even grasp that, well, then just humor me for the moment.

Now, according to Christians, God is the ultimate in goodness, justice, power and knowledge. They also believe that God answers prayers. Setting aside your irrelevant gumball machine claim for the moment, can you accept that Christians believe that God answers prayers? (If not, then you have accepted the central point of my premise that prayer does not work, and this argument is over.) If you do, then the question becomes what kind of prayers does he answer. Using the very terms used by fundies on this forum, God will answer prayers if they are "in accordance with his will" and if they "glorify" God and if they advance the "greater good."

It is a fact that thousands of children die each and every day from starvation. Many of these children are still infants and toddlers, and they certainly have done nothing to deserve such a slow, horrible death from starvation. How could they? They're innocents, incapable of sin, according to Christians. Still with me? Or are you going to say that babies deserve to die?

Now for the next step: there are certain things that virtually everyone--the vast majority of Christians included--consider pure evil. These include murder, rape, etc. High on that list is child abuse...especially child abuse that results in the child's excruciating death. It's hard to deny that allowing a child to starve to death is one of the worst forms of child abuse imaginable.

So it is logical to conclude that if prayer works on anything, surely it should work on correcting such a horrible evil as millions of innocent children dying of starvation. Wouldn't saving the innocent from such a horrible fate be "in accordance" with the will of a just and good God? Wouldn't such a prayer advance the "greater good"? Wouldn't preventing such evil "glorify" God?

Well, it won't work. Try it yourself. Pray as hard as you can, build a prayer circle, whatever it takes. God will NOT answer your prayers. He hasn't done it yet and I'll willingly bet you $10,000 that he won't do it tomorrow. Are you willing to match that bet? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Wait! I hear you cry. Prayer doesn't work like that! We don't know the will of God! For all we know there is a good reason for prayers to NEVER work for ending the constant death by starvation.

Name one. Any reason that makes any sort of sense will do. What good could possibly come of such an unending epidemic of starvation? Obviously, if God exists, and if he refuses to answer prayers to save those children, then all those children suffer and die because God WANTS them to suffer and die. Sure, you can blame humans (and blame me) all you want for not doing a better job of protecting children, but that doesn't change the fact that children are suffering and dying in epidemic proportions, does it?

If you believe God is all-powerful, then you also believe he COULD save those children without any effort whatsoever. Yet he does NOTHING to help them. Why is that? Why would God even allow such evil to befall innocents in the first place? They have done nothing to harm anyone, yet God sits by and idly watches them weaken, cry in agony, and eventually die. Why does he wait for humans to take care of something we're obviously not doing well at all? If God has a good reason for letting this happen, he's certainly not made it evident, either in the real world or in the Bible...and if something so fundamentally evil as not doing a thing to prevent children from starving to death isn't a damn good reason to question whether God is good or even exists, then what is?

Face it: if you can't answer these questions with a clear, lucid, logical answer, then you've not only lost the argument, but you've lost your brain and your humanity. And you worship a god of evil.

You scorn me for supposedly not understanding the concept of patronage. Rather than detail my many years of biblical studies, I will now humor you: Please enlighten me as to how being a patron means it's okay to allow your children to die a slow, agonizing death from starvation. Under ANY circumstances. And while you're at it, please explain how being a patron means it's okay to torment for all eternity people whose only "crime" is not seeing any evidence for your existence at all. I will be truly impressed if you can come up with some explanation that doesn't make God appear to be a cruel, petty, evil, vindictive creature that demands to be worshipped or it will torture you for all eternity. I wish you the best of luck on this; you're going to need it.

The rest of your post is just plain embarrassing. If I were you I'd be ashamed to call myself a Christian. Show a little self-respect and actually try to address the questions like an adult.

Derek


x-a-jesus

[Cynic Sage]

x-a-jesus
What?

[Cynic Sage]

Bandecoot:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=66025

Jesus Day? I thought that's what Christmas and Easter were for...

Christmas is his birthday easter is his funeral. GWB wanted something for the middle part. ( I typed that with a straight face, honest)


:lol:

[Doubting John]

John, you are one of the biggest losers I have ever met, anywhere, ever. You remind me of one of those kids who always got beat up, so they develop a complex where they have to go on the internet and 'demonstrate their superiority' to people who can't (really) respond. :no:

I don't believe we've met, have we?

And, what d'ya mean by "people who can't (really) respond?"

You responded didn't you?

And your post demonstrates that you are superior to me, doesn't it?

Keep looking down at me. That's what many Christians are known for doing to others who seem to them to be cerebrally challenged because they cannot understand the plain and obvious truth of the Christian faith.

Just deal with my arguments.

Someday we will meet in a debate. Then you can show me what a loser I really am. :lol:

You will everlastingly tuck your tail right between your legs and make a mad dash for the hills. :ahem:

[BronzeArcher]

I'd comment, but I think it speaks for itself

No Nick, it COULD HAVE BEEN ANYTHING. :smile:

[Teallaura]

What?
x-a-Jesus = exegesis

Took me most of the afternoon to figure that one out...:sigh:

[Cynic Sage]

David Ben-Ariel found some Christans joyfully celebrating the birth of Christ, so he did his divinely-established duty and tried to put a stop to it:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=66061

"Christmas is about giving." SAYS WHO? Who started that BIG LIE? Undoubtedly those with something to sell, the modern moneychangers! Look at the folks about you rushing like sheep to the slaughter, to the "sales" and such that they simply CANNOT AFFORD. Going into debt certainly isn't biblical, so why not break free from the trance? The "Christmas" rush is a "drug" pushed by commercial pimps prostituting a supposedly Christian holiday for their ungodly profits! They hold hands around the cash register and sing, "What a friend we have in Jesus."

The whole idea of giving gifts has gotten out of hand. First it's not Jesus' birthday. Second the wise men didn't exchange gifts amongst each other but gave their gifts fit for a King to the King of the Jews (two years old and living in a house at that time - which is why Herod slaughtered the children two years and under trying to abort the Messiah's ascension to David's Throne).

If Christmas is supposed to be about Christ (and some sincerely believe it is, still in denial that it's a pagan holiday God wants no part of), why let Santa steal the show? Why do folks pretend they care that Jesus was born when they deny His life the rest of the year? Why do folks get angry when you mention these facts and they're not even religious? The herd doesn't want their trance broken, so they'll go broke keeping alive pagan festivals and foolishness that will be the death of many.

"Harmless" Christmas celebrations, abominations to God and rejected by Christ, are setting the stage for our worst nightmare: our family and friends are going to be shipped off like cattle, since our countries are prophesied to suffer national defeat and deportation due to such idolatrous ideas and tinsel traditions! WAKE UP!

Christmas is an ABOMINATION. (http://christmascondemned.blogspot.com/)

:rofl:

[jpholding]

Time to carve another turkey...

Wow. I really don't want to accuse you of utter stupidity...but what choice do you give me? You have so so completely missed the point and seem somehow incapable of even understanding how you've done so.

Yawn....nothing but a pile of blustering wind as you lay senseless and defeated on the canvas watching little birds tweet over your head....whooopeee....I've seen it done better, by better, Little Man. Even Doubting John does bluster better than you do. :zzz:

I understood, defeated, and destroyed your alleged point. Game over.


Forget completely about who or what I am.

Why? Because asking this exposes you as a hypocrite and a crybaby? I don't blame you for wanting to avoid the issue. Who we are and what we do is PRECISELY the most important issue, and the key to the whole shebang you're trying to pull. It matters more than anything as it is we who are the clients in the patronage relationship. The acts of clients was a critical part of any such relationship: Their loyalty and trust was part of the circle dance of grace that also determined the patron's acts.

It is because you are dumb ignorant that you have no idea what this means or why it demolishes your whole lame-stank argument. :bawl:


Now, according to Christians, God is the ultimate in goodness, justice, power and knowledge. They also believe that God answers prayers. Setting aside your irrelevant gumball machine claim for the moment, can you accept that Christians believe that God answers prayers?

I don't care what is "believed". I care about what is accurate or true. It's too bad you've been embarrassed by the exposure of your ignorance in exegetical terms, but the fact is that your entire "argument" is premissed upon a false exegesis. That other Christians make the same false exegesis doesn't mean DIP.

You're playing with big boys here, Captain Underpants, not little old blue haired ladies who think their pastor is the King of Kahunas.

It is a fact that thousands of children die each and every day from starvation.

It is a fact that we already have the means to keep them from starving. It is a fact that sitting on your ample rear end whining about why God won't carry the food to themn in person isn't any sort of argument but a bunch of emotional wah wah worthy of a trash can. Any putative sin of infants is beside the point and not part of any point I have made, so keep the whining to yourself.

It's hard to deny that allowing a child to starve to death is one of the worst forms of child abuse imaginable.

Well, you're allowing it right now, by not doing anything about it, so that means you're pure evil. Oh well. I hear there are some openings in Grim's department you can fill.

So it is logical to conclude that if prayer works on anything,

If your "gumball machine" exegesis were true, in other words, which it isn't, so to put it simply, you're dead as a doornail and that's that. Sorry, but again, I don't resort to that "greater good" view (not here, at least) nor the "glorify" one so you'll just have to come up with something new rather than regurgitating the crapola you get off of amateur atheist websites.

So you babble on in vain against arguments I don't use and never do use in these contexts....blah blah blah....boo hoo hoo...

Sure, you can blame humans (and blame me) all you want for not doing a better job of protecting children, but that doesn't change the fact that children are suffering and dying in epidemic proportions, does it?

Yep. Because God gave all that was needed to answer the question. He';s not obliged to provide forks, spoons, a table, and a candleabra just because you and other people are too lazy, willfully stupid, selfish, or ignorant to do what you should be doing. Some say that the American fondness for beef takes up arable land that could grow crops that would feed many more people. If that's true, if you ate a hamburger recently then all you do is contribute to the problem further. So blame yourself again, Little Man.

Whine whine whine...nothing but crybaby shifting of blame from humanity, where it belongs, to God, who gave all that was needed to solve the problems. I guess you blame Exxon when you run out of gas and get stranded on the highway.

Face it: I did answer these questions with a clear, lucid, logical answer; you've not only lost the argument, but you've lost all hope of ever winning one here.

Please enlighten me as to how being a patron means it's okay to allow your children to die a slow, agonizing death from starvation.

Sorry, you missed something: It's the children's relatives that are allowing this, not the patron. The patron has laid a huge feast on the table, but the child's family is either 1) sitting at the table hogging the food, while pushing the child away with their feet; 2) preaching at the patron that he needs to actually put the food in the child's mouth personally, all the while calling him, evil, barbarous, etc for not doing that. You're doing both right now, and the patron has fulfiilled his obligation; now it's time to fulfill yours. So cut your whining and get busy.

Under ANY circumstances. And while you're at it, please explain how being a patron means it's okay to torment for all eternity people whose only "crime" is not seeing any evidence for your existence at all.

Oh I am so sure you've refuted all the theistic proofs and are the expert we need to bow and kowtow to....not. I have a suspicion you'd do no better with the Christ myth, either....off topic. We'll give you one loss at a time to deal with.

The rest of your post is just plain embarrassing. If I were you I'd be ashamed to call myself a Christian. Show a little self-respect and actually try to address the questions like an adult.

Respect is earned, not passed off gratis on a silver platter to ingrates who insult the beliefs of other and hide it behind a thin veneer of smug self-righteousness as a way of positioning themselves as the "good guy". Fly away, Captain Underpants...there are starving amputees who need you to go change the channel with their remote... :lol:

The only "humanity" you represent is selfish individualism.

[Darth Executor]

Yep. Because God gave all that was needed to answer the question. He';s not obliged to provide forks, spoons, a table, and a candleabra just because you and other people are too lazy, willfully stupid, selfish, or ignorant to do what you should be doing. Some say that the American fondness for beef takes up arable land that could grow crops that would feed many more people. If that's true, if you ate a hamburger recently then all you do is contribute to the problem further. So blame yourself again, Little Man.


There are even worse things: people buying expensive hardware and breaking it to pieces in front of other customers just for fun.

http://www.smashmyxbox.com/

[Jnthn]

Underlings' myopia brought these lyrics to mind

Ozone disappearing in the sky
Bud man asking us why ask why
If I could find my magazine this bug would die
I complain
China boy standing up to a tank
Southern boy living in the house of yanks
If I can't seem to get my motorbike to crank
I complain

Complain so much easier

Small kid begging for a crumb of bread
Next kid bloated lying nearly dead
I wonder what to take for my aching head
I complain
Lots of people crying for a little rain
Whole nation learning how to live with pain
I don't know how I'm gonna clean this little stain
I complain.

Complain so much easier

Black man singing Mississippi blues
Africa starves a little baby drools
I'm trying to figure out all the basketball rules
I complain
Mr. Rush Limbaugh giving me the facts
Treetops falling and the newsman yaks
I'm thinking about Carter and how I'm gonna be taxed
hey

complain so much easier
- Kings X, "Complain" from the album "Dogman"

J

[Cynic Sage]

I was reading Scott Adams' blog (he doesn'y deserve the Screwball). He wrote something on the whole ID vs. Naturalistic controversy that was a rather interesting read (he is an evolutionist, but he recognizes the distinction between YEC and ID).

But what was really funny weresome of the responses to him:

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2005/11/intelligent_des.html

Posted by: Cunjo (http://cunjo.deviantart.com/) | November 17, 2005 at 05:53 PM (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2005/11/intelligent_des.html#comment-11309989)
HI SCOTT, I ASKED MY MOM WHAT TO TELL THE CREATIONISTS TO GET THEM OFF MY BACK AND SHE SAID "ASK THEM WHO MADE GOD?" (AT THE TIME MY MOM WAS 83 IN A NURSING HOME RECOVERING FROM A STROKE AND I WAS 56 AND RECOVERING FROM A MARATHON. OF COURSE I WAS RAISED TO BELIEVE GOD WAS CREATED BY MAN AND THAT THIS BELIEF IS AS VALID AS ANY OTHER. I PREFER TO BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS AND CELEBRATE THE WINTER SOLSTICE.

56 and still doesn't know how to turn off caps-lock.

Posted by: Zeke Bobsom (zbobsom@yahoo.com) | November 17, 2005 at 03:27 PM (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2005/11/intelligent_des.html#comment-11306635)
Last year when I was drunk I made 2 hurricanes come over Lakeland to make things interesting. One of them (I don't keep track of the names but I think it was Jeanne) actually did a loop-di-loop in the Atlantic and made a bee-line right toward me after I did my drunken witchcraft.

I also did a protection spell to keep power and that also worked. My neighbors across my back yard all lost power (along with 85% of lakeland) but my road did not.

I actually do not believe in anything but am open to possibilities. But I am afraid I may inadvertently destroy the world while I am drunk and in a bad mood.

Also: I see 666 a LOT. Like when I was loading gasoline in my tractor trailer. The riser malfunctioned and I loaded exactly 666 gallons (instead of my intended 9000 gallons). I happened to look at my trip odometer because I was given directions to some place and yep, 666. Weird.

Anywho, thought I was seek your advice. Thanks and keep sending me your cartoons. Since the far side dude quit yours is the only one I read now.

Mike

PS I plan on experimenting with your "write something down 10 times" idea.

Don't Drink and Hex.:cheers: Curse Responsibly.

This Public service announcement has been brought to you by Mages Against Drunk Spellcasting (MADS).

Posted by: R Allum (mtree38@yahoo.com) | November 17, 2005 at 02:45 PM (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2005/11/intelligent_des.html#comment-11305444)
If Intelligent design were true then my toaster would make perfect toast each time.

[gharfish]

What's up with Vance, he started a thread titled: "Cognos is right: only 1% of Bible prophecies fulfilled. (Ouch !)":



I'm confused. Did he, or didn't he apostasize before writing this? :huh:

Vance really needs to learn about Typology.Sorry to barge-in like this so late & after-the-fact...but, Johnny EC; are you really thinking that I might have turned into an apostate overnight ? Surely not ! (and yet you wrote this.)

Cognos had stated in the OP of an earlier thread of his own that "only 1% of all Bible prophesies have come true." This, of course, is crazy talk. I quickly responded with a "whaaa ?!" I can only imagine that he was in a very grumpy mood when he wrote that; as if it was common knowledge--and it was high time Christians faced this embarrassing statistical fact.

The title of my thread opener and it's first three, at the most, paragraphs were certainly meant to be facetious -a spoof. I thought that in seeming to concede such a wild statement was indeed true, I would be able to attract non-believers into what was a good analysis of just over 20 messianic prophesies that Jesus did fulfill, and that this was a kind of objective proof that something supernatural was going on: could be Jesus was truly the foretold Christ.

I focused on only those 20 or so that I thought would be least likely to raise protests from 'the other camp' that He fulfilled intentionally/deliberately -dishonestly, then. (It turned out that 'the right people' didn't care ! Bummer.)

I had thought that certainly by the time the reader got even just half-way into the OP --if not sooner; easily-- that anybody, regardless of their worldview, would have seen "what I was up to...all along." I wanted to surprise the non-believer; finding themselves 'unknowingly' taking-in... 23 new compelling reasons to believe !

I guess I was trying to be clever and it didn't work out. I had to point-out to A Cup of Mystery that I was not going along with Cognos' assertion...so that along with JohnnyEC's misreading (yes? no? -typology?-) is probably a good indication that others too likely misunderstood my angle.

Maybe my approach was so boring that it didn't merit close attention.

I shared the good news of salvation with Cognos, when he came by. I thought he might since my thread had his name on it ! I apologized for making his 1% remark a sort of launching pad for a thread about messianic prophesies.......(pointing straight to Jesus).

At page's end I clearly was asking the doubtful reader to open their hearts and minds to considering what they had just read to be a kind of real ("Jimbo-satisfyin' kinda !) proof of Jesus miraculous identity established: the fruition of OT prophesies that predated Him by some 350-700 years. I threw-out the possibility that from there it was but a short hop to a reasonable belief that Jesus just might be divine, as He relentlously claimed to be.

Oh well. If anyone gives a flip, the/my offending OP is quoted (by Johnny EC) back on page 8, post no. 115.



Consider me still on the team, guys ! Jesus is The Lord God, Saviour.

V.

[Underlings]

Yawn....nothing but a pile of blustering wind as you lay senseless and defeated on the canvas watching little birds tweet over your head....whooopeee....I've seen it done better, by better, Little Man. Even Doubting John does bluster better than you do. :zzz:

I understood, defeated, and destroyed your alleged point. Game over.


LOL! How can you possibly claim to have defeated my points when you have yet to provide any evidence to back up your claims? The above quotes are a perfect example of all you seem able to muster. I come up with a logically laid out explanation of why God is evil, uncaring or non-existent, and all you can manage is meaningless bluster. Don't believe me? Go ahead and read over your entire past three posts and look for ANY argument that states your case. There is none, is there? All you seem able to do is throw out insults without any evidence to back up your claims. Do you just like hearing yourself talk? Why waste your breath on insults that bounce harmlessly off me? Instead, lay out your argument in a logical fashion and then maybe someone will take you seriously. Do you honestly think acting like a child is going to impress me or anyone else reading your posts? Amazing....

Why? Because asking this exposes you as a hypocrite and a crybaby? I don't blame you for wanting to avoid the issue. Who we are and what we do is PRECISELY the most important issue, and the key to the whole shebang you're trying to pull. It matters more than anything as it is we who are the clients in the patronage relationship. The acts of clients was a critical part of any such relationship: Their loyalty and trust was part of the circle dance of grace that also determined the patron's acts.

That is a load of meaningless crap and you know it. It's no different than saying nobody has a right to point out that murder is bad unless they're devoting their entire lives to preventing murder. Any one of us can point out dozens of major egregious inequities in this world and participate in meaningful discussions on their social impact and how to rectify them...and (here's the kicker) we don't have to give up our lives in order to do such a thing! If a single person of average means were to give up everything in an attempt to rectify all the problems in the world, he would accomplish virtually nothing. More on that later....

But first I would like to point out that this is a perfect example of the strength of your arguments: rather than explain why patrons must allow great suffering of innocents just because their clients screw up, you say meaningless drivel like "Their loyalty and trust was part of the circle dance of grace that also determined the patron's acts." How in the world do you think that makes an argument? If you can't explain your position in a logical process, then you've already lost the argument. Again, insults do not constitute a defended position.

I don't care what is "believed". I care about what is accurate or true. It's too bad you've been embarrassed by the exposure of your ignorance in exegetical terms, but the fact is that your entire "argument" is premissed upon a false exegesis. That other Christians make the same false exegesis doesn't mean DIP.

Ahhh, so the vast majority of your fellow Christians are just plain WRONG, and you're one of the oh-so-privileged few who knows the REAL truth. Yeah, right, that is PRECISELY what virtually every religious person claims. That's is one of the most ridiculous things about religious belief.

The logical conclusion of your position is that only the small number of people who believe exactly as you do are going to be "saved" (otherwise there would be no point in your disagreeing with the beliefs of others, including your fellow Christians?). What does that equal? Less than 1% of the population? 5%? Maybe as much as 10% if you don't really mean half of what you say? Great, that just adds fuel to my position that you worship an evil God who will happily send 90-99%+ of the world's population--including the vast majority of all Christians who are TRYING to do what God wants but failing according to you and your infinite knowledge--to rot in Hell for not worshipping him just the way you do.

Only a teenager or a developmentally challenged adult could have such an absolutist view. Are you a teenager, by chance?

It is a fact that we already have the means to keep them from starving. It is a fact that sitting on your ample rear end whining about why God won't carry the food to themn in person isn't any sort of argument but a bunch of emotional wah wah worthy of a trash can. Any putative sin of infants is beside the point and not part of any point I have made, so keep the whining to yourself.

Okay, time to set you straight on some basic economics that should make sense even to you: the countries where those thousands of children starve to death are economically depressed. Only the economically successful countries have the luxury of making a significant positive impact on those economically-depressed regions. It takes RESOURCES to help those in need, and the wealthy have access to greater resources than the poor. A poor person can help only a few people by comparison. So far this should make perfectly logical sense even to you.

You have made some pretty stupid statements about what I should do to avoid being a "hypocrite." I should stop using electricity, sell my computer, stop driving my vehicle, etc. and put all my efforts into helping those starving kids. For the moment let's ignore the fact that you are obviously not doing such a thing yourself (although you're perfectly happy to fling such accusations and insults at me, apparently unaware of the term "irony"). What would be the logical consequence of doing what you suggest? I would be out of a job, wouldn't I? I would become poor and I would thus not have the resources to help anyone--in fact, I would become one of those in need of help. Your brilliant solution to the world's suffering children is to make me poor so that I become a net drain on the system. Bravo.

No thanks, I'll keep my computer equipment, my vehicle and my job and keep making money so I can keep sending money to charities so that they have the funding to help those in need. Of course, I haven't even mentioned how my work improves technological prowess which in turn improves the very technologies used today to improve the human condition in poor countries. The fact that a lot of resources go into areas unrelated to helping the poor and suffering does not reduce the fact that the worldwide increase in wealth has vastly reduced the percentage of poor in the world over the millennia.

So I suggest you think before advocating economic policies that would reduce the ENTIRE planet to abject poverty rather than a relatively small percent of it.

And now that that's out of the way, the fact that we have the means to prevent thousands of innocent children from dying of starvation daily is irrelevant. The fact remains that WE ARE NOT PREVENTING THOSE DEATHS. We are doing a terrible job of saving those kids, that is NOT in question, can't you get that into your thick skull? Why should God permit those children to suffer and die because of OUR failures? Seriously, tell me what good can possibly come of it?

According to you, God sees all that horrifying suffering and says, "Well, you humans have the means to prevent that suffering, yet you're not doing a very good job of it. So I'm not going to do a thing to prevent that suffering either!" You talk about hypocrisy? THAT'S hypocrisy. And it's hypocrisy made even worse by the fact that each individual human can only do so much to save these children, whereas God could supposedly help them all with a snap of his fingers. You say I want this supposed God to spoon feed me? WTF? I don't want ANYTHING from him, not a single thing. This isn't about me at all...it's about a God who sees massive suffering of babies and chooses not to do anything about it even though it's perfectly obvious we're not doing much about it. THAT is the central point of my argument. THAT is why even if I believed in God, I could never worship him. What point is there to worshipping a god who does NOTHING to provide for those children? Do you think those dying children praise God for all the good he does? Don't make me laugh.

If your "gumball machine" exegesis were true, in other words, which it isn't, so to put it simply, you're dead as a doornail and that's that. Sorry, but again, I don't resort to that "greater good" view (not here, at least) nor the "glorify" one so you'll just have to come up with something new rather than regurgitating the crapola you get off of amateur atheist websites.

Your humanity is inspiring. All right, since you evidently are incapable of even seeing the point of the argument, let's try a different approach: Forget me, forget all those "rich" people you accuse of not doing their part to save those kids. Instead, just tell me what YOU would say to those thousands of innocent children who are slowly starving to death. What would you explain to them to make them understand that God is good and just for bringing them into this world, knowing that they will spend their short, miserable lives crying in pain as their own bodies consume themselves? Oh, and you might mention that God could easily help them, of course--perhaps by providing them with food or at least easing the horribly pain of starving to death...but he won't. He refuses to do anything to help them, even though it would take no effort on his part. Obviously this doesn't help the "greater good" (particularly for the children) nor does it "glorify" God (particularly for the children). So what possible explanation is there for God to permit this to happen?

Go on, I challenge you to come up with a rational explanation that doesn't make God sound like the ultimate creature of evil.

Whine whine whine...nothing but crybaby shifting of blame from humanity, where it belongs, to God, who gave all that was needed to solve the problems.

Tell that to the millions of children who starve to death every year. Do you think they care that adults are dropping the ball in providing them with food? No, they just know that they're starving to death and they want food from anyone who can provide it. Do you believe that they should give thanks to and worship a God who doesn't lift a finger to help them? What's God's point, anyway? That he can look at half a dozen children painfully dying every minute and be as useless as the rest of humanity in preventing such calamities?

Face it: I did answer these questions with a clear, lucid, logical answer; you've not only lost the argument, but you've lost all hope of ever winning one here.

Now that's a laugh. You have yet to explain ANYTHING. Your "clear, lucid, logical" answers consist of such gems as "you're an idiot," "you obviously don't understand God," and "it's all your fault for not devoting your life to saving kids." Yeah, that explains PERFECTLY why God lets innocents suffer horribly for no fault of their own.

Sorry, you missed something: It's the children's relatives that are allowing this, not the patron. The patron has laid a huge feast on the table, but the child's family is either 1) sitting at the table hogging the food, while pushing the child away with their feet; 2) preaching at the patron that he needs to actually put the food in the child's mouth personally, all the while calling him, evil, barbarous, etc for not doing that. You're doing both right now, and the patron has fulfiilled his obligation; now it's time to fulfill yours. So cut your whining and get busy.

I must commend you for at least TRYING to formulate a logical argument for once, but again you've managed to completely sidestep the fact that God is still letting those children die of starvation. If a GOOD patron discovered that his clients were failing to feed their children, he would do something about it. He would directly confront each transgressor and explain what they are doing wrong and what they need to do. And if they failed to follow those instructions, he would care for the children himself, sending others to ensure those children were properly fed. He most certainly would not just sit there in front of the children and watch them die horribly...for that would be the act of an EVIL patron, wouldn't it?

Even your analogies fail to make sense.

Oh I am so sure you've refuted all the theistic proofs and are the expert we need to bow and kowtow to....not. I have a suspicion you'd do no better with the Christ myth, either....off topic. We'll give you one loss at a time to deal with.

Off topic? You've been arguing completely off topic all along so far, so why stop now?

Go ahead, explain to me how a GOOD God would justify torturing a non-believer in Hell for all eternity.

The only "humanity" you represent is selfish individualism.

Selfish individualism? I care very much about the fact that children die of starvation all the time, and I do what I can to help. You apparently don't care about those children and you do nothing to help (just like Darth, who directly admitted as much). As long as you're a Christian and God is going to whisk you to Heaven, everyone else can go to Hell, right? Let the children suffer a long, slow, lingering death--it's all part of God's plan so it's fine with you.

"Selfish individualism." Yeah, right.

Respect is earned, not passed off gratis on a silver platter to ingrates who insult the beliefs of other and hide it behind a thin veneer of smug self-righteousness as a way of positioning themselves as the "good guy".

And there is the sad truth: you believe that respect is earned, and until then a person can be treated with insults and disrespect. I believe a person should be treated with respect until they have earned to be treated otherwise (as you have so ably done).

If you are representative of what it means to be a Christian, then all I can say is I'm very, VERY thankful not to be one. If this is how Jesus treated others, then Christianity will never be for me. I hope any fence-sitter reading this thread is paying attention to your thoroughly ugly behavior and takes it into consideration. Just as it's true to say "you are what you eat," so too is it true that "you are what you believe." And if you believe in an evil God who sits idly by as countless children starve to death just because the rest of humanity can't do a better job, yet you still call that god "good," then it makes sense that you would have such an evil personality and still think of yourself as a "good" Christian.

I feel sorry for you.

Derek

[Underlings]

Underlings' myopia brought these lyrics to mind
- Kings X, "Complain" from the album "Dogman"


Well, that song's not relevant to the issue, but this one is:


Girl of sixteen
Whole life ahead of her
Slashed her wrists
Bored with life
Didn't succeed
Thank the Lord
For small mercies

Fighting back the tears
Mother reads the note again
Sixteen candles burn in her mind
She takes the blame
It's always the same
She goes down on her knees
And prays

I don't want to start
Any blasphemous rumours
But I think that God's
Got a sick sense of humor
And when I die
I expect to find Him laughing

Girl of eighteen
Fell in love with everything
Found new life in Jesus Christ
Hit by a car
Ended up
On a life support machine

Summer's day
As she passed away
Birds were singing
In the summer's sky
Then came the rain
And once again
A tear fell
From her mother's eye

I don't want to start
Any blasphemous rumours
But I think that God's
Got a sick sense of humor
And when I die
I expect to find Him laughing


"Blasphemous Rumours" by Depeche Mode

Derek

[Jnthn]

Well, that song's not relevant to the issue, but this one is

...

"Blasphemous Rumours" by Depeche Mode

Derek

Bad choice of lyrics, Undies. It doesn't support your argument one iota, whereas the Kings X lyric typifies your smug passivity.

From the lyric you posted, I can deduce that the suicide was the responsibility of the 16-year-old girl. Notice the key word: RESPONSIBILITY. You would do well to meditate on that for a year or six.

The second death demonstrates Mr Gahan's ignorance of basic theology. I'll let the apostle Paul respond:

For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.
Your argument is as dead as a landed fish, fitting and twitching, entirely out of its own element. I can only hope someone comes along with a metaphorical rock and puts it to death sooner rather than later.

J

[Underlings]

Bad choice of lyrics, Undies. It doesn't support your argument one iota, whereas the Kings X lyric typifies your smug passivity.

From the lyric you posted, I can deduce that the suicide was the responsibility of the 16-year-old girl. Notice the key word: RESPONSIBILITY. You would do well to meditate on that for a year or six.

The second death demonstrates Mr Gahan's ignorance of basic theology. I'll let the apostle Paul respond:

For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.
Your argument is as dead as a landed fish, fitting and twitching, entirely out of its own element. I can only hope someone comes along with a metaphorical rock and puts it to death sooner rather than later.

J

Soooo let me get this straight: just because humans can't get their act straight, you justify God's unending slaughter of children using the one of the most cruel methods of suffering possible? That is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. I suppose if you saw someone torturing puppies and you had never done anything to help or hinder puppies before, you would have no right to speak up against the person doing the torturing? Does that make any sense whatsoever? Do you really believe that just because some people may behave badly that justifies the constant slaughter of innocents?

Also, according to the Bible, God once personally killed all the first-born children (and animals) in Egypt:

Exodus 11:4 Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt:
11:5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.

Exodus 12:12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast.

As the Bible reveals, at one time just killing large numbers of children was enough to satisfy the Lord. But apparently that just isn't enough anymore. Now he kills more children EVERY SINGLE YEAR than he did in Egypt, and not only that...he uses the one of the most horrible ways to kill: starvation. The logical implication is that killing children is something God especially enjoys.

Think it through: those children aren't capable of taking care of themeselves, are they? They DEPEND on others just to live. God KNOWS that adult humans don't do a very good job at caring for those children, yet he doesn't lift a finger to help prevent the tragedy. At least most humans have an excuse, lame as it is: it takes some effort to save lives. But God doesn't even have that excuse, does he? Saving those children would require NO effort at all on his part (that's the natural consequence of being all-powerful). But he does nothing. Even if you pray hard, he will ignore your prayers entirely.

Still, why would anyone expect him prevent the horrible deaths of thousands of children each day? After all, he was happy to kill all those children in Egypt all those centuries ago, so why would he want to stop now? He apparently wants children to suffer excruciating pain even though they've done nothing to deserve it.

If you disagree with what I've said, I hope you can be more articulately relevant than JPholding and present a cogent defense of God's behavior. But if your argument is just going to be that I don't have the right to point out what I observe, then save your breath. I would speak out if I saw someone torturing puppies, murdering old ladies or raping women. The fact that I haven't devoted my life to the prevention of torture, murder and rape should have no bearing on the strength of my argument.

Derek

[jpholding]

In flies Captian Underpants to the rescue of his reputation...ooops...splat. :lol:

LOL! How can you possibly claim to have defeated my points when you have yet to provide any evidence to back up your claims?

Evidence for WHAT? I'm not the one performing a Bozo the Clown exegesis on the Bible devoid of all reference to its defining contexts. You're the one with the heavy evidential burden, Little Man, not me. :lmbo:

Go ahead and read over your entire past three posts and look for ANY argument that states your case. There is none, is there?

None within your limited comprehension, evidently. :lol: Like we're supposed to kiss your boo boos and inform your ignorance just becuz you picked up a Bible after fell on your foo foo and have no idea why God isn't there to dust you off and pat you on the head. Fits right in with your gimme a silver platter mentality, though: You bumble in and we're supposed to give you directions to the tea party. :lol: Like fer sure. Sorry -- not here to educate you from the beginning; go back to square one and start by reading a few books on ancient patronage.

Why waste your breath on insults that bounce harmlessly off me?

You mean the ones you talk about and ramble on about all the time?

Instead, lay out your argument in a logical fashion and then maybe someone will take you seriously.

As it is no one here is taking you seriously who does not already disagree with you. That's because Christians here are intelligent ones that have learned how to handle little ignoramuses like you and know just how ignorant you are -- and for us, it's like taking a trip to Bedlam to watch the insane drool on themselves, like they did in Victorian England.



That is a load of meaningless crap and you know it.

It's a load of sheet rock piled on your pointed little head and I know it.

It's no different than saying nobody has a right to point out that murder is bad unless they're devoting their entire lives to preventing murder.

Sorry, wrong number, Charlie Chan. The analogy is that you're sitting here whining about no one doing anything about murders, while you do nothing to stop them yourself and in fact hinder the police from doing their job. I can understand why you're unable to come up with a decent analogy, though -- it's one of those things that requires being able to think, and you don't do that well. You're much better at gabbing on about alleged injustices than proving them or doing anything about them.

meaningless drivel like "Their loyalty and trust was part of the circle dance of grace that also determined the patron's acts." How in the world do you think that makes an argument?

As stupid as you are, you wouldn't know. :lol: And you're the only one here other than maybe DJ who doesn't. That's why no one takes you seriously here.

Why don't you try reading up on patronage and collectivist societities so we don't have to educate you from square one?


Ahhh, so the vast majority of your fellow Christians are just plain WRONG, and you're one of the oh-so-privileged few who knows the REAL truth. Yeah, right, that is PRECISELY what virtually every religious person claims.

And it's precisely what ignorant people like you can't defend against. Besides, stupid, YOU say that ALL Christians are wrong in their belief in God and Christ, so look who's wearing his Captain Hypocrite Underoos to-day. :lol:

The logical conclusion of your position is that only the small number of people who believe exactly as you do are going to be "saved"

Boy is that a stupid demonstration of "logic". No, stupid, what the conclusion is, for those who BOTHER TO EDUCATE THEMSELVES, is that only a small number of people will have the level of fulfillment that comes with the truth. Boy are you stupid. And you wonder why you get insulted. :rofl:


Okay, time to set you straight on some basic economics that should make sense even to you: the countries where those thousands of children starve to death are economically depressed.

Oh dear yes. And that economic depression is caused by, er, what? Oh yes. It is caused my magic dancing mushrooms that no one can do anything about. I should never have thought that economics had anything to do with, er, PEOPLE doing things a certain way. I am so, so sorry. I will convert to Sufiism immediately. :rasberry:

It takes RESOURCES to help those in need, and the wealthy have access to greater resources than the poor.

The resources are THERE, are they not?

Then God has fulfilled his part. Now go do yours. Start doing something about those rich hoarders.

You have made some pretty stupid statements about what I should do to avoid being a "hypocrite." I should stop using electricity, sell my computer, stop driving my vehicle, etc. and put all my efforts into helping those starving kids.

Yes, you should -- or else stop whining about how God isn't doing anying. Hoisted by your own reductio ad absurdum. :lol:

I would be out of a job, wouldn't I?

So what? Are you so selfish that you think your own comfort is that important? Join the Peace Corps and work your way through it, stupid. :lmbo:


No thanks, I'll keep my computer equipment, my vehicle and my job and keep making money so I can keep sending money to charities so that they have the funding to help those in need.

No thanks, then -- God will keep making sure the resources are there, and that's all He has to do. Good night.

And now that that's out of the way, the fact that we have the means to prevent thousands of innocent children from dying of starvation daily is irrelevant. The fact remains that WE ARE NOT PREVENTING THOSE DEATHS.

Which is whose fault, now? :whistle:

We are doing a terrible job of saving those kids, that is NOT in question, can't you get that into your thick skull? Why should God permit those children to suffer and die because of OUR failures?

Fancy that. We fail, and it's God's fault and His job to clean up the mess. Now who made up that rule? :lol:

very good job of it. So I'm not going to do a thing to prevent that suffering either!" You talk about hypocrisy? THAT'S hypocrisy.

No, it's 100% consistency. God did His job. Now it's time to do ours. So get busy. Have you got off your duff yet?

spoon feed me? WTF? I don't want ANYTHING from him, not a single thing.

Then why do you keep whining so much? If you don't want God to do anything, then you have nothing to whine about. QED. :rofl:

How much stupider can you get this week?


Your humanity is inspiring.

Your arbitrary, self-centered defining of what constitutes "humanity" is amusing.

Forget me, forget all those "rich" people you accuse of not doing their part to save those kids.

Why? Because they kill your argument?

Instead, just tell me what YOU would say to those thousands of innocent children who are slowly starving to death.

Why? Because you can't win on objective terms and need to shift to illogical and emotional terms? They don't need to be told that they are being starved by the likes of Idi Amin who withhold food from them to feed soldiers; they know that if they are old enough. That you recommend I engage in useless babbling of that sort is another reason why your argument isn't worth dip.


Go on, I challenge you to come up with a rational explanation that doesn't make God sound like the ultimate creature of evil.

YAWN -- did it already. You're the problem. Next?



Tell that to the millions of children who starve to death every year. Do you think they care that adults are dropping the ball in providing them with food?

I expect they rather do, yes. That's why we have these things called "revolutions" sometimes. :ahem:

Do you believe that they should give thanks to and worship a God who doesn't lift a finger to help them?

Aside from having created a fertile planet more than capable of feeding them? I guess not. :zzz:

Now that's a laugh. You have yet to explain ANYTHING.

Nothing within your limited sphere of comprehension, as noted. Maybe you should box some food now and send it over.

once, but again you've managed to completely sidestep the fact that God is still letting those children die of starvation.

By the same "logic" so are you, Captian Hypocrite. So get busy.

If a GOOD patron discovered that his clients were failing to feed their children, he would do something about it.

Like provide a feast....

He would directly confront each transgressor and explain what they are doing wrong and what they need to do

Uh, gee -- that needs "explaining" all right. :huh: It's too hard to figure out without help isn't it. Did you also want instructions for the push broom you bought?

And if they failed to follow those instructions, he would care for the children himself, sending others to ensure those children were properly fed.

That's YOU. Get busy.

He most certainly would not just sit there in front of the children and watch them die horribly...for that would be the act of an EVIL patron, wouldn't it?

Nope. It would be the act of a normal patron engaging in the circle dance of grace and doing all He was obliged to do -- which doesn't mean kissing the posteriors of underpants-wearing ingrates.

Off topic? You've been arguing completely off topic all along so far, so why stop now?

Go ahead, explain to me how a GOOD God would justify torturing a non-believer in Hell for all eternity.

Already told you once that I don't buy the "torture" deal. Having a hard time paying attention? Try conceding; it will do wonders for your clarity of thought. :lol:

Selfish individualism? I care very much about the fact that children die of starvation all the time, and I do what I can to help.

No you don't. You're doing nothing of any consequence at all. A few pennies in a basket? Spare me.

Let the children suffer a long, slow, lingering death--it's all part of God's plan so it's fine with you.

YAWN -- more strawmen set aflame.

And there is the sad truth: you believe that respect is earned, and until then a person can be treated with insults and disrespect.

And there's the sad truth: You think respect is something to be given away like a prostitute to all and sundry who open their yap.

Selfish individualism.

If you are representative of what it means to be a Christian, then all I can say is I'm very, VERY thankful not to be one.

Good. We're not into having couch potatoes and whiners in the kingdom. There's no beatitude for that sort.

And if you believe in an evil God who sits idly by as countless children starve to death just because the rest of humanity can't do a better job,

I don't believe in your spin-doctored version of the truth, no. I believe in a good God who did all that was needed to keep those children from starving (forgot the amputees, did we?) and gave us all the brains and resources needed to stop that as well. I don't believe in a God who caters to whiners who won't solve problems that are within their means. Many who starve today do so because of Western imperialistic policy over the centuries. I suppose you think you have the white man's burden (even if you aren't white) to educate the savages while at the same time doing nothing to help them whatsoever other than pitching a penny or two in some faraway pot.

Hypocrisy, thy stench envelopes you. :lol:

I feel sorry for you.

I don't care for your sorrow.

[Jnthn]

Soooo let me get this straight: just because humans can't get their act straight, you justify God's unending slaughter of children using the one of the most cruel methods of suffering possible? That is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard.

Ah, the teflon shoulders defence combined with outrage induced amnesia. You seem to be hoping that if you foam on for long enough that your critics will stop shining film-premier calibre spotlights on the flaws in your argument. Trust me - the flaws are Kong-sized

I suppose if you saw someone torturing puppies and you had never done anything to help or hinder puppies before, you would have no right to speak up against the person doing the torturing? Does that make any sense whatsoever? Do you really believe that just because some people may behave badly that justifies the constant slaughter of innocents?

Actually this whole paragraph makes no sense. I can't follow your argument whatsoever, but I can smell freshly cut hay. How's the large-scale straw-man manufacture working out for you?

Also, according to the Bible, God once personally killed all the first-born children (and animals) in Egypt:

Exodus 11:4 Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt:
11:5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.

Exodus 12:12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast.

As the Bible reveals, at one time just killing large numbers of children was enough to satisfy the Lord. But apparently that just isn't enough anymore. Now he kills more children EVERY SINGLE YEAR than he did in Egypt, and not only that...he uses the one of the most horrible ways to kill: starvation. The logical implication is that killing children is something God especially enjoys.

Please rein in the faux righteous anger and have a look at this article:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/killheir.html

Here's the Readers Digest version in case you haemhorrage before clicking through: Pharoah was responsible for the death of an estimated 2.75 million Jewish infants over a period of 80 years, whereas, as punishment, God allowed the death of about 70,000 Egyptians in one single event which was forewarned.

Are you going to play to form and gloss over the 40:1 ratio?

Think it through: those children aren't capable of taking care of themeselves, are they? They DEPEND on others just to live. God KNOWS that adult humans don't do a very good job at caring for those children, yet he doesn't lift a finger to help prevent the tragedy. At least most humans have an excuse, lame as it is: it takes some effort to save lives. But God doesn't even have that excuse, does he? Saving those children would require NO effort at all on his part (that's the natural consequence of being all-powerful). But he does nothing. Even if you pray hard, he will ignore your prayers entirely.

Again with the presumption that God is abdicating responsibility, but not a shred of reason why humanity's abdication is right and proper. It reads like a "just so" story, and a tedious one at that.

I'm getting a vision of the calibre of idiocy you are advocating: a loved one of yours is lying on the floor of your front room pumping claret from an open wound, and you strain to lift your head from reclining on the sofa and intone in soap-operatic tones, "WHHHHHHHHHHHHYYYYYYY, god, WHYYYYYYYYYYYY? Ooh, Will and Grace is on!"

"Still, why would anyone expect him prevent the horrible deaths of thousands of children each day? After all, he was happy to kill all those children in Egypt all those centuries ago, so why would he want to stop now? He apparently wants children to suffer excruciating pain even though they've done nothing to deserve it."

Ooh, a chance to use the search and replace function:

"Still, why would anyone expect Humanity to prevent the horrible deaths of thousands of children each day? After all, they were happy to kill all those children in Abortion clinics all those minutes ago, so why would they want to stop now? They apparently want children to suffer excruciating pain even though they've done nothing to deserve it."

If you disagree with what I've said, I hope you can be more articulately relevant than JPholding and present a cogent defense of God's behavior. But if your argument is just going to be that I don't have the right to point out what I observe, then save your breath. I would speak out if I saw someone torturing puppies, murdering old ladies or raping women. The fact that I haven't devoted my life to the prevention of torture, murder and rape should have no bearing on the strength of my argument.

Derek

Derek, JPH owned you the minute he clicked reply, and nothing you have posted since then has made me change my mind. I'm not going to reply to you again. I have an aversion to repeating myself, and I get a feeling that you are going to cut a deeper and deeper groove in the broken record.

I hope that somehow and soon you will come to your senses.

J

[jimbo]

Howdy,

I understand that it isn't fun for Christians to contemplate the implications of a god that sits by and watches millions of little infants slowly starve to death and die in agony. But this is one of the problems that comes with accepting ancient mythology as historical truth.

The clear, obvious, simple explanation of the situation outlined by Underlings is that the Christian god simply doesn't exist.

Of course, if such a being did exist, it would be an immoral monster.

Cheers,

Jimbo

[Cynic Sage]

Howdy,

I understand that it isn't fun for Internet Infudgels to sit down and perform solid, well-reaserched exegesis of Biblical texts such as Matthew 18:19, Matthew 21:21-22, and 1 John 5:14-15. But this is one of the problems that comes with accepting Achyra S and Thomas Paine as qualified sources of information regarding the Bible.

The clear, obvious, simple explanation of the situation outlined by JP Holding is that is that Underlings hasn't done his homework and therefore doesn't understand the roles of Client and Patron in reference to Christian Theology.

Of course, if Underlings did understand this, he wouldn't have made assumed prayer was a gumball machine in the first place.

Jeers,

Johnny EC.

[ilkhani'tus]

Ok, if all god had to do was to see that the resources were there, and that he isn't a "gumball" machine, as people here call it, then why do christians themselves pray to god for stuff, like the healing or the protection of loved ones?

Doesn't the bible itself have verses where god/jesus say that the faithful can ask for something sometimes?

It seems to me that the "gumball machine" talk is just a distortion of the athiest argument as to why god doesn't answer serious prayers period, as opposed to minor "boo-boos"


Mind you, I've only skimmed through this thread. If those points have been addressed already, lemme know.



(still has ~3 posts to make elsewhere, I'll get to them eventually!)

[Darth Executor]

Doesn't the bible itself have verses where god/jesus say that the faithful can ask for something sometimes?

It seems to me that the "gumball machine" talk is just a distortion of the athiest argument as to why god doesn't answer serious prayers period, as opposed to minor "boo-boos"


No, it's not a distortion. Underpants actually expects God to answer every single prayer.

[BronzeArcher]

Okay, shunya said.. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1281310&postcount=31)

The argument of contrasting the cultures to justify scripture and the truth of the testimony of the gospels is very artificial and does not reflect the history and nature of religious movements than or today, and the motives behind those who believe. The gospel accounts may be accurate to a T, but they also maybe fabricated based on the emotional desire of the people at the time to believe. There are too many simpliar cults and religions that begin and develop in all societies regardless of the social context of the society. All of the believers cling to their beliefs and testimony through humiliation, torture and martyrdom. There is absolutely nothing unique about an artifical construct of as honor/shame society that presupose that the people believing in extraordinary or miraculous claims, would be any more reliable than anybody else in history. Religions, Religous cults and movements have arrisen in eastern societies as well, which may be considered very honor/shame oriented, based on the testimony of some to miraculous events and claims.

Long laborous lines of reasoning and logic do not help an artificially constructed argument.

The truth of God or God lieing is not the issue here. It is the testimony of fallible humans. They need not be lieing either to believe in miraculous visions that also may be illusions. The word 'mirage' closely follows miracle in the dictionary.

I expected better of him. :shrug: Vagueness upon vagueness (i.e. what is "very artificial"?)...I think by posting that he made his own deck of cards crumble. :eh:

[jimbo]

Johnnt EC: The clear, obvious, simple explanation of the situation outlined by JP Holding is that is that Underlings hasn't done his homework and therefore doesn't understand the roles of Client and Patron in reference to Christian Theology.

Of course, if Underlings did understand this, he wouldn't have made assumed prayer was a gumball machine in the first place.

Interestingly, in "JP Holding's" newsletters, he has a section for prayer requests. I wonder if he considers God to be a "gumball machine"? Here is the latest collection of prayer requests from "Holding's" newsletter:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65349

Prayer Requests.

1) For "J.L." who has asked to be placed on this list permanently.
2) For J.B's father, for salvation especially. J. B has asked that this issue be put on this list until further notice.
3) “Vince M.” – health issues and matters of personal faith. Has asked to be placed on this list permanently.
4) For K. W. and his brother – for personal issues, until further notice.
5) For T., P., and B., a family – until further notice.
6) For Duane Ragland, for salvation; requested as permanent addition.

I wonder how one could test to see if these prayer requests had any measurable effects on resolving the situations they were meant to resolve? I don't think there is any way to test this.

How convenient!

Of course the big question is why all the countless prayers for the millions of starving, dying infants obviously go unanswered.

Cheers,

Jimbo

[Underlings]

Ah, the teflon shoulders defence combined with outrage induced amnesia. You seem to be hoping that if you foam on for long enough that your critics will stop shining film-premier calibre spotlights on the flaws in your argument. Trust me - the flaws are Kong-sized

Please rein in the faux righteous anger and have a look at this article:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/killheir.html

Here's the Readers Digest version in case you haemhorrage before clicking through: Pharoah was responsible for the death of an estimated 2.75 million Jewish infants over a period of 80 years, whereas, as punishment, God allowed the death of about 70,000 Egyptians in one single event which was forewarned.

Are you going to play to form and gloss over the 40:1 ratio?


Thanks for the article. The author spends a great deal of time estimating the numbers of children killed and comes to the conclusion that God is not evil because Pharoah killed so many more than God did. That's the best argument he can muster? So I suppose Ted Bundy is a saint because he didn't kill as many people as did Hitler? That is utterly absurd.

You people are truly disturbed if you believe logic like this. That article is a terrible attempt to "prove" God is not evil; it only shows he killed fewer children than someone else. Murder is murder even if it's just one.

Again with the presumption that God is abdicating responsibility, but not a shred of reason why humanity's abdication is right and proper. It reads like a "just so" story, and a tedious one at that.

I'm getting a vision of the calibre of idiocy you are advocating: a loved one of yours is lying on the floor of your front room pumping claret from an open wound, and you strain to lift your head from reclining on the sofa and intone in soap-operatic tones, "WHHHHHHHHHHHHYYYYYYY, god, WHYYYYYYYYYYYY? Ooh, Will and Grace is on!"

And ONCE AGAIN you fixate on the one item that is besides the point. The point is NOT that humans put little effort into preventing starvation, it's that God puts in NO effort, even though he could easily fix the problem. Simply providing resources is DEMONSTRABLY INSUFFICIENT a means for ensuring those children are fed.

Look at it this way: let's say you see your neighbor keeping his children inside a cage and not feeding them, letting them starve slowly to death. Furthermore, let's say you put packages of food out on the front porch for the neighbor to find and feed to his kids, but the neighbor just eats the food himself. Sure, the neighbor is at fault, there's no question. But if realize your efforts haven't worked and you fail to call the cops, sneak over and free or feed the children personally, or some such action to help fix the situation, YOU ARE ALSO CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT. And if that very same neighbor notices your inaction and points it out, the fact that he is not taking care of his children does not in ANY way lessen the fact that you are criminally negligent.

And that is PRECISELY the situation you find with God. He puts out resources but they do not get to the children. So why does God make THEM suffer for the failures of others?

THAT is the core argument. And it's the one argument NONE of you seems capable of answering. Instead you try to shift all the blame over to humanity, saying we don't do enough. Well, duh! THAT'S A GIVEN. There is no question about that. God can no more be considered "good" by standing by and doing nothing than you can be in that above "neighbor" scenario.

Does THAT finally make some sense to you?

Ooh, a chance to use the search and replace function:

"Still, why would anyone expect Humanity to prevent the horrible deaths of thousands of children each day? After all, they were happy to kill all those children in Abortion clinics all those minutes ago, so why would they want to stop now? They apparently want children to suffer excruciating pain even though they've done nothing to deserve it."

And there you go again. Rather than wonder why God doesn't fix the situation, which he so obviously could (and not only that, he created the very situation because he knew in advance this is what would happen), you completely ignore that and ask why don't people do better? That is utterly irrelevant.

Derek, JPH owned you the minute he clicked reply, and nothing you have posted since then has made me change my mind. I'm not going to reply to you again. I have an aversion to repeating myself, and I get a feeling that you are going to cut a deeper and deeper groove in the broken record.

I hope that somehow and soon you will come to your senses.


Have you even read his comments? I explain my line of reasoning. He responds by saying I'm too stupid to understand the truth. I ask for him to then explain how my line of reasoning is wrong. He responds by saying they're stupid. Seriously, check over his posts; he only seems capable of insults and hand-wavy generalities. Not once has he thoroughly explained the logic of his position nor done me the courtesy of refuting mine. Name-calling is what children do. If that's all he's capable of doing, then I don't suppose there's much point in arguing with him.

But you are doing what every fundie does when he realizes his arguments don't make sense: he declares his opponent terminally obdurate and quits posting. That's fine, but I do hope you actually put some thought into the issue. Because if you think articles like the one you posted above address the issue satisfactorily by using the "lesser of two evils" argument as an argument for good, then you have a serious misunderstanding of ethics and morality.

Derek

[Underlings]

Evidence for WHAT? I'm not the one performing a Bozo the Clown exegesis on the Bible devoid of all reference to its defining contexts. You're the one with the heavy evidential burden, Little Man, not me.

Evidence to support your position that God is not evil, of course. What did you think I was talking about? I've explained my reasoning in clear, logical steps, and you respond with insults, not clear explanations of why I am wrong and your position is right. The best you have done so far is, "I don't buy into that line of thinking." Well, fine; please explain WHY you don't and why I am wrong for following that line of reasoning. Otherwise you are tacitly abdicating the argument. Admit defeat and move on.

None within your limited comprehension, evidently. :lol: Like we're supposed to kiss your boo boos and inform your ignorance just becuz you picked up a Bible after fell on your foo foo and have no idea why God isn't there to dust you off and pat you on the head. Fits right in with your gimme a silver platter mentality, though: You bumble in and we're supposed to give you directions to the tea party. :lol: Like fer sure. Sorry -- not here to educate you from the beginning; go back to square one and start by reading a few books on ancient patronage.

Here's a perfect example: your response to my argument is a smattering of childish insults and a suggestion to read a few books on ancient patronage. Great, I could retort by asking if you enjoy being half-armed in a battle of wits, and suggest you read a few books on ethics and morality. Would that solve the argument? Of course not; my suggestion would be utterly meaningless to you, just as yours is utterly meaningless to me.

Thus you must EXPLAIN your argument if you hope to win it. I say that if God exists, then he is evil or indifferent because he allows innocent children to die of starvation in vast numbers. The best you seem to be able to do is to say that:

1) Human adults don't do enough to prevent the starvation

and

2) I don't have the right to point out that God does nothing to stop the starvation because I don't sacrifice my life for those children

and

3) I'm complaining and should sacrifice my life to save those children

I do not in any way dispute claim #1. I say it's irrelevant because that's just another impediment to those children being fed (along with drought, flood, disease, etc.). The bottom line is that they are NOT being fed, they are dying, and although humans are guilty of not doing a better job at preventing the starvation, God is JUST AS GUILTY (actually, moreso, since he created the situation that allows for such horrors to occur, and he did it with foreknowledge that they would occur) for ALSO doing nothing to help them.

Sure, if God exists then he created the resources to feed them. But how is that "doing enough" to prevent the starvation. That's just as meaningless as me saying all those kids are welcome to eat anything in my fridge any time they want, because if they can't access those resources, then those resources might as well not as exist as far as the children are concerned. If those children are not receiving sustenance, regardless of the reason, why wouldn't a loving God step in and help them directly? Obviously providing resources is utterly inadequate to those children because they don't have access to them.

All your statement means is that humans aren't much better than God--and perhaps worse, since God could fix the problem in a heartbeat and without any effort whatsoever, whereas no human is even remotely capable of doing such a thing.

2) So you don't think a murderer has the right to point out that someone else is a murderer? Or a thief to point out that someone else is also a thief? (Well, it's a good thing the legal system doesn't think the way you do, or crime would be FAR more rampant than it is.)

I could personally devote my life to making children starve to death and it wouldn't make one difference to the quality of my argument. I could still point out that God was letting me do such a horrible thing, and I would not be wrong. The point is that ANYONE can point out a perceived injustice. As long as they're telling the truth (and I am not telling you anything about the numbers of starving children that you shouldn't already be aware of), it matters NOT ONE WHIT whether I'm Adolf Hitler or Jesus Christ.

Here's a simple proof: if someone runs up to you and tells you your house is on fire, do you ask for their criminal record and list of charities to which they contribute? No, you go check to see if your house is burning. If your house is indeed on fire, what do you care if the guy who told you about it happens to be an embezzler on the side? What difference would it make to the content of his warning?

Thus, your claim is completely irrelevant.

3) Yeah, you keep saying I'm complaining because God doesn't do everything for me. Where do you get that idea? I don't even believe he exists! To understand how absurd your accusation appears to me, it's like you complaining that Superman doesn't help you when you're in trouble. Kind of silly, isn't it?

But the main problem with this claim is that it's totally irrelevant. My problem is not that I think God should do more for me (think about it: I'd have to believe in him for that to even be possible, wouldn't I?). My problem is that Christians claim that their God is both good and all-powerful, yet every day we see the starvation deaths of thousands of children, through no fault of their own. I see this as an inconsistency--a PARADOX--not something to "complain" about. THAT is why your claim is irrelevant.

If you want to address my argument (and by now I'm beginning to think you're either too afraid to or psychologically incapable of doing so), then you need to address that paradox. Claiming I'M not doing enough to help the starving children is a smokescreen, a strawman argument that leaves the central question still unanswered.

So your job is to explain how God letting those children die is "good." Explaining how the "ancient" patron-client relationship is different from every other patron-client relationship would be a good start.

Surely God also has that patron-client relationship with those starving children, right? So does he not have the responsibility to provide them with resources for survival? Clearly, any resources he does provide are inadequate, since there is nothing those children can do to access those resources, right? So if God's responsibility is to provide resources to those children, and they are completely incapable of accessing those resources, he has essentially provided them with NO resources, right? So isn't it logical to conclude that he has failed his part of the patron-client relationship? Assuming God is all-powerful, he can provide accessible resources to those children, but he doesn't. Thus it is also logical to conclude that God wants those children to starve to death, isn't it? For if he didn't want them to...they wouldn't! Pure and simple. And finally, if God wants children to starve to death, then how can he be regarded as "good" and not "evil"?

That is the line of reasoning that forms my argument. Notice the argument has nothing to do with ME or MY wants, nor does it have anything to do with you or anyone else, just God and the starving children. THAT'S the salient point. If you can refute my above line of reasoning, please do so. Otherwise, my only logical recourse is to assume you have no rebuttle and thus concede the argument.

So what? Are you so selfish that you think your own comfort is that important? Join the Peace Corps and work your way through it, stupid.

And by that foolish statement I must conclude that you don't even have a college education. Join the Peace Corps? I already did my stint with them. Have you? And who do you think pays to keep the Peace Corps running? Taxes...paid by workers in wealthy nations...who earn money through jobs that are dependent on technological resources, such as vehicles, computers, etc. If everyone joined the Peace Corps, as you suggest, it would rapidly collapse. The US would become another third-world nation struggling and failing to feed its own.

You keep harping on me to "educate" myself, when you evidently haven't studied anything beyond high school economics and have done nothing to contribute to ending world hunger yourself. Solve the hunger crisis by having everyone quit their jobs and join the Peace Corps? That's truly a laugh.

Already told you once that I don't buy the "torture" deal. Having a hard time paying attention? Try conceding; it will do wonders for your clarity of thought.

And this is a perfect example of the depth of your arguments: "I don't buy the "torture" deal." That's it. No explanation why, no defense of your position. Are you even familiar with the concept of debate?

So let me lead you by the hand: Why don't you buy the "torture" deal? The Bible says:

Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction

Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Mark 9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.

That doesn't sound like torture to you?

Okay, I have provided the biblical evidence FOR eternal torment. What's your counter to it?

I don't care for your sorrow.

Don't worry, you amply deserve it.

Derek

[Jnthn]

I am starting to smell the scent of the underside of a bridge from you, yet I am prepared to set aside my standard response to provocateurs such as you. I will make a few more attempts to see if I can get through your thick igneous skull.

Thanks for the article. The author spends a great deal of time estimating the numbers of children killed and comes to the conclusion that God is not evil because Pharoah killed so many more than God did. That's the best argument he can muster? So I suppose Ted Bundy is a saint because he didn't kill as many people as did Hitler? That is utterly absurd.

...and once again you utterly evade the issue of human responsibility. You have singularly failed to either prove why God taking lives is unjust and why you consistently gloss over the evils of humanity with the zeal of a Holocaust denier. Even if you can presume God is evil (hey, why should you change the habit of a lifetime),

You people are truly disturbed if you believe logic like this. That article is a terrible attempt to "prove" God is not evil; it only shows he killed fewer children than someone else. Murder is murder even if it's just one.

No - murder is the unlawful taking of the life of a human by another human, so as before, you must demonstrate that (a) God's taking of a human life is unlawful and (b) why a deity is subject to laws for humanity.

And ONCE AGAIN you fixate on the one item that is besides the point. The point is NOT that humans put little effort into preventing starvation, it's that God puts in NO effort, even though he could easily fix the problem. Simply providing resources is DEMONSTRABLY INSUFFICIENT a means for ensuring those children are fed.

Ah, an accusation of fixation from someone who has a website called "God hates amputees".

Fill in the missing word: Pot, Kettle, ?????

Look at it this way: let's say you see your neighbor keeping his children inside a cage and not feeding them, letting them starve slowly to death. Furthermore, let's say you put packages of food out on the front porch for the neighbor to find and feed to his kids, but the neighbor just eats the food himself. Sure, the neighbor is at fault, there's no question. But if realize your efforts haven't worked and you fail to call the cops, sneak over and free or feed the children personally, or some such action to help fix the situation, YOU ARE ALSO CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT. And if that very same neighbor notices your inaction and points it out, the fact that he is not taking care of his children does not in ANY way lessen the fact that you are criminally negligent.

So you're a legal expert are you? Can you show me exactly how I would be criminally negligent? Please provide clear references to the appropriate statutes.

And that is PRECISELY the situation you find with God. He puts out resources but they do not get to the children. So why does God make THEM suffer for the failures of others?

You still haven't demonstrated why humanity is absolved from the responsibility for caring for their neighbour. Add that to your "to do" list.

THAT is the core argument. And it's the one argument NONE of you seems capable of answering. Instead you try to shift all the blame over to humanity, saying we don't do enough. Well, duh! THAT'S A GIVEN. There is no question about that. God can no more be considered "good" by standing by and doing nothing than you can be in that above "neighbor" scenario.

Hurm. A concession of sorts. Unfortunately that does nothing to add substance to your shell of an argument. Please answer my question about humanity's absolution of responsibility before we go further.

Have you even read his comments? I explain my line of reasoning. He responds by saying I'm too stupid to understand the truth. I ask for him to then explain how my line of reasoning is wrong. He responds by saying they're stupid. Seriously, check over his posts; he only seems capable of insults and hand-wavy generalities. Not once has he thoroughly explained the logic of his position nor done me the courtesy of refuting mine. Name-calling is what children do. If that's all he's capable of doing, then I don't suppose there's much point in arguing with him.

But you are doing what every fundie does when he realizes his arguments don't make sense: he declares his opponent terminally obdurate and quits posting. That's fine, but I do hope you actually put some thought into the issue. Because if you think articles like the one you posted above address the issue satisfactorily by using the "lesser of two evils" argument as an argument for good, then you have a serious misunderstanding of ethics and morality.

Derek

(emphasis added)

Oh, puhleeze. Your hypocrisy is nauseating, accusing others of moral deficiency when you would absolve humanity of any and all obscenities against God, Man and nature.

All you have succeeded in doing is make yourself look a deeper hue of fool. I've set you some homework. Crack open them book-things and get me a creditable answer for the questions. Then we'll talk again.

J

[ilkhani'tus]

I am starting to smell the scent of the underside of a bridge from you, yet I am prepared to set aside my standard response to provocateurs such as you. I will make a few more attempts to see if I can get through your thick igneous skull.



...and once again you utterly evade the issue of human responsibility. You have singularly failed to either prove why God taking lives is unjust and why you consistently gloss over the evils of humanity with the zeal of a Holocaust denier. Even if you can presume God is evil (hey, why should you change the habit of a lifetime),



No - murder is the unlawful taking of the life of a human by another human, so as before, you must demonstrate that (a) God's taking of a human life is unlawful and (b) why a deity is subject to laws for humanity.What would god have to do before you would say that it's unust for him to do it?

If we can't determine god's morality from when he does stuff that humans would consider "bad", then how can he be called "good" when god does something that humans consider "goood"?

To be consistent on this, one would have to say that god is amoral.


I haven't read too much of this, but I don't think that any athiest actually tries to get humanity "off the hook" for when we do something wrong. We're just asking about god in this case, not humanity. Trying to turn this back on humanity is really nothing more than trying to change the subject it looks like to me.

We know that people do bad things, and we do try to help...supporting the police, OXFAM, the Gates Foundation, etc.

[Cynic Sage]

Another thread is going to have to be opened for this subject soon.

[Doubting John]

Another thread is going to have to be opened for this subject soon.

Maybe so.

But let this whole discussion be a reminder to those of you who like so much to poke fun at "screwballs" like us skeptics, that "if you nominate us we will come." :lol:

You'd better have reasons for your so-called screwball nominations that can hold up, otherwise it is YOU who are the screwballs. :lol:

Looks to me like someone tried to grab a tiger by the tail here. Now you're getting eaten alive.

Who's fault is this? :rofl:

[Jnthn]

What would god have to do before you would say that it's unust for him to do it?

Something entirely inconsistent with his revealed character. Since that ain't going to happen...

If we can't determine god's morality from when he does stuff that humans would consider "bad", then how can he be called "good" when god does something that humans consider "goood"?

An appeal to a non-existent standard.

I haven't read too much of this, but I don't think that any athiest actually tries to get humanity "off the hook" for when we do something wrong. We're just asking about god in this case, not humanity. Trying to turn this back on humanity is really nothing more than trying to change the subject it looks like to me.

We know that people do bad things, and we do try to help...supporting the police, OXFAM, the Gates Foundation, etc.

I have to differ in this case. My main complaint is that Underlings hasn't made a case based on anything more than biblical quote mining and argument by outrage. JPH is trying to nail the jellyfish down in the realm of historic context, I'm trying to encouage an argument based on anything other than an appeal to a non-existent human moral standard. Result? Read back in the thread. Plus ca change...

J

[Jnthn]

Looks to me like someone tried to grab a tiger by the tail here. Now you're getting eaten alive.

Actually, it's more like being savaged by a dead sheep.

J

[jpholding]

Dear Dimbo,

Interestingly, in "JP Holding's" newsletters, he has a section for prayer requests. I wonder if he considers God to be a "gumball machine"?

Nope. But I'll bet you'll strain your poor little brain trying to exegete that view out of it. :lol:


Of course the big question is why all the countless prayers for the millions of starving, dying infants obviously go unanswered.

Of course the big answer is that you're asking this question while riding around on your tricycle from one Starbucks to the next wondering why God won't hand-deliver your frozen latte. :rofl:

[jpholding]

Evidence to support your position that God is not evil, of course. What did you think I was talking about?

Sure wasn't that, because I already refuted that one.

The bottom line is, your whole silly little whine-fest operates on the premise that unless God doesn't do something about all these things RIGHT NOW WHEN YOU SAY SO He's totally evil.

Well, I don't see you doing all you can RIGHT NOW to stop anything, so you're obviously totally evil and a crybaby to boot. QED. :thumbd:

I've explained my reasoning in clear, logical steps,

More like decontextualized whining steps. You're not even that good at assertive bluster.

"I did too beat you!" he says as he lies senseless on the canvas. :rofl:

Well, fine; please explain WHY you don't and why I am wrong for following that line of reasoning.

Already did it and you're dead. Go cry in the corner.


Here's a perfect example: your response to my argument is a smattering of childish insults and a suggestion to read a few books on ancient patronage

Imagine that. I asked him to do HOMEWORK so he knows what he's talking about. :lmbo:

Great, I could retort by asking if you enjoy being half-armed in a battle of wits, and suggest you read a few books on ethics and morality.

Which would be within rights, if I were stupid enough to run my gator on a topic I had never looked into, as you have here from Day 1. :bonk:


just as yours is utterly meaningless to me.

Precisely the point. I win merely by showing that you have no idea what you are talking about. If you did, you'd say, "ancient patronage doesn't change this because blah blah blah" -- all you have so far is the blah blah blah. :lol:


I do not in any way dispute claim #1. I say it's irrelevant because that's just another impediment to those children being fed

Oh, it's irrelevant huh. How evil of you.

better job at preventing the starvation, God is JUST AS GUILTY

Nope. God gave all the resources and you're whining that He's guilty if He also doesn't drive the trucks, as you sit in the driver's seat picking your teeth with the keys.

(actually, moreso, since he created the situation that allows for such horrors to occur, and he did it with foreknowledge that they would occur)

And poor helpless you and other people didn't have anything they could do about it huh. :lmbo: Sorry, that's just more crybaby shifting of blame for your own mistakes and evasion of your own responsibility.



Sure, if God exists then he created the resources to feed them. But how is that "doing enough" to prevent the starvation.

Good Zeus what a stupid question. Food = no more hunger. Is that so hard?

That's just as meaningless as me saying all those kids are welcome to eat anything in my fridge any time they want, because if they can't access those resources, then those resources might as well not as exist as far as the children are concerned.

You have a post office near you?

Send them some food.

Duh. :duh:


If those children are not receiving sustenance, regardless of the reason, why wouldn't a loving God step in and help them directly?

Why should He step in more than He has when you're such an ingrate who won't do jack dip to begin with? Obviously all you can do is sit on your hanuches and whine.


2) So you don't think a murderer has the right to point out that someone else is a murderer?

Still beside the point, red moreover smelling of fish.

3) Yeah, you keep saying I'm complaining because God doesn't do everything for me. Where do you get that idea? I don't even believe he exists!

Then why are you complaining? In other words you admit that you are without any consistency, or else have the motive of deceit.

My problem is that Christians claim that their God is both good and all-powerful

Your problem is that you are spoiled-rotten child who thinks that to be good and all powerful means that you are obliged to hand everything to everyone immediately on a silver platter.


If you want to address my argument (and by now I'm beginning to think you're either too afraid to or psychologically incapable of doing so), then you need to address that paradox

Did it. Next stupid question?



Surely God also has that patron-client relationship with those starving children, right?

Nope. There you go proving your stupidity and ignorance for us. This is why it is so pointless to start at square 1 with you. You have no idea what any of these terms mean or how they apply to people.

And you wonder why I tell you to go do some homework. :lol:

Assuming God is all-powerful, he can provide accessible resources to those children, but he doesn't. Thus it is also logical to conclude that God wants those children to starve to death, isn't it?

YAWN -- for the 6573456th time, He does provide accessible resources (just not to the spoiled-rotten lazy bone extent you childishly demand), so your "logic" dies on your deathbed with you. Pure and simple.


That is the line of reasoning that forms my argument. Notice the argument has nothing to do with ME or MY wants,

Of course not -- wouldn't want to expose your hypocrisy, would we? :lmbo: That's the salient point and the complete refutation of your "argument".

Otherwise, my only logical recourse is to assume you have no rebuttle and thus concede the argument.

Laying the groundwork for your retreat, then. Good for you.

Join the Peace Corps? I already did my stint with them.

Go do some more. And quit complaining.

Have you?


I'm not the one hypocritically complaining here.

And who do you think pays to keep the PeaceCorps running? Taxes...paid by workers in wealthy nations...who earn money through jobs that are dependent on technological resources, such as vehicles, computers, etc. If everyone joined the Peace Corps, as you suggest, it would rapidly collapse

Too bad. You want instant action. Taxes take time to get their way through the system. Obviously you are simply making excuses for your own evil. Besides, your vehicles pollute the air we breathe and also likely cause ecological destruction that creates conditions like drought in the first place. It's all your fault and we're blaming you for every bit of it.

studied anything beyond high school economics and have done nothing to contribute to ending world hunger yourself. Solve the hunger crisis

Like I said, I'm not the hypocrite complaining here. :lol:


And this is a perfect example of the depth of your arguments: "I don't buy the "torture" deal." That's it. No explanation why, no defense of your position. Are you even familiar with the concept of debate?

Have you ever heard of the concept of "off topic"?

So let me lead you by the hand: Why don't you buy the "torture" deal?

Let me lead you by the head: The world of the Bible was agonistic. Heat and flame is a metaphor for shame (ever hear of someone's face "burning"?) and for moral cleansing. If we interpreted John 3 with the same pathological literalism as you read Thess and Rev, we'd have to conclude that the Holy Spirit was made of water. :duh:

Also:

1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction

Here's an assignment for your lazy self: Look up the word for "destruction" and find it in parallel passages in the NT.


Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

And I'll bet you think Revelation is a narrative history and not an apocalypse too. :lol:


That doesn't sound like torture to you?

Nope. Because I did my homework on the ancients' dramatic orientation and use of language. All you do it sit on your rear end and announce your opinion after reading the text in English.

Better ask DJ is he can help you find a job cleaning carpets.

[Cynic Sage]

A Double Nomination for Cognos.

He actually posted this in Apologetics:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=66215

Between the ages of two-and-a-half and six, children often create imaginary friends to play with. Although this development sometimes perplexes parents, it can be a positive sign that the child is devising creative ways to deal with being alone.
...
Imaginary friends help children deal with the normal anxieties of growing up. They often come into being at times of change or stress.
...
Imaginary friends usually have names and well-developed personalities. Often, they are somewhat mischievous or naughty, allowing the child to express negative feeling and actions without having to take full ownership of them. For instance, an imaginary friend may strongly dislike certain foods, letting the child voice opinions about dinner without taking responsibility. Asked about a mess he made, a child may well blame the imaginary friend instead of confessing.
...
There is no harm in playing along with your child's imagination. In fact, trying to convince your child that an imaginary friend doesn't exist may lead to unnecessary conflict. Most children will say good-bye to their imaginary friends as soon as they feel able to deal with their fears and negative feelings by themselves.
http://familyfun.go.com/parenting/child/health/childhealth/dony79enc_ifriend (http://familyfun.go.com/parenting/child/health/childhealth/dony79enc_ifriend)

It seems that believing in imaginary entities can be useful, especially "at times of change and stress."

And, perhaps, the best way of dealing with someone who has an imaginary friend is to "play along".

But what if someone writes a book and says that it was written by a friend who is real, and that everyone has to follow the instructions in that book?

"And, perhaps, the best way of dealing with someone who has an imaginary friend is to "play along"."

If what he is implying about God being an "imaginary friend" is true, then why the heck did he go into the Apologetics forum of Tweb to post this in the first place?

The last time I heard this "argument" was from a classmate when I was in grade 5.:lol:

And another for Cognos:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=66127&page=1&pp=16

It's glaringly obvious that the various books of the Bible do not contain the answers to all the questions.
Nor do they have answers to all the "important" questions.

But if there any answers, where are they? Are they in the words in a physcial copy of one of the various translations of the various collections of the various writings? Or are they in a person's subjective evaluation and interpretation of those words?

...

The words of the Bible do not explain the world. They don't even explain why people believe what they believe.

People interpret the Bible. And they base their interpretations on many extra-Biblical sources. The Bible, on its own, is inadequate in the pursuit of truth and knowledge. And, in some ways, it interferes with that pursuit.

"Oh No! We need to actually understand context and study the Bible to learn from it."

Cog also gives us a list of questions the Bible is supposed to answer for us (note the highlighted).

Better to say that I hadn't answered it. :wink: We all have other things to do besides posting on TWeb.The list of all important questions that the Bible does not answer would not fit within the limits of a TWeb post. (The list of all questions that the Bible does not answer would not fit on the TWeb site.)

Let's start with yours. Please indicate where in the Bible I can find the definitive answers to these questions:
What is the purpose of the universe?
Why does evil and suffering exist?
What is the afterlife?
What should I eat?
What should I do to be clean?
How should I treat others?

How about some important personal issues:
Should I get married? (Actually, I am married, but you get the point.)
Should I marry this woman?
Should I marry more than once?
Which university should I choose?
Which career should I choose?
Should I start my own business?
How many children should my wife and I have?
Should I move to another country?
When should I retire, and where?

Does the Bible answer the above questions?

How about some health questions:
Which medical professionals should I consult?
Should I undergo that surgical procedure?
Which exercises should I do?

Some family issues:
When should I move away from home?
Should I hit my children?
Should my mother live with me?

Some moral questions:
When, if ever, is it right for me to lie?
Should I tell you everything that happened?
If my father is a diagonosed with Alzheimer's, should I obey him?

Some political issues:
Which political party should I vote for?
Should I run for office?
How should I vote on this proposition?
Should we got to war?
How should the government balance the budget?
What should the government do about the economy, the environment, energy, education, the arts, health, human rights, international trade, foreign affairs, and law enforcement?

Some financial issues:
Where should I invest my money?
Should I become rich?
How much life insurance should I have?
Which tax breaks should I take advantage of?
Should I move my money offshore?
How should I structure my portfolio to optimize my risk/return ratio?

Some cosmic questions:
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
What exactly is gravity?
Is time unidirectional?
Is there extra-terrestial life?

Some questions about the future:
When will I die?
When will the world run out of fossil fuels?
What will the temperature of earth's atmosphere be in 100 years?
Who will win the next election?
What will interest rates be in five years?
Which country will be the next superpower?

And, finally, questions about the Bible:
Who wrote each book of the Bible?
When was each book written?
Which books were inspired by God?

Please get back to me within a day with the particular passages in the Bible that answer these questions; otherwise, I'll assume that you are ignoring this post. :smile:

"What excercises should I do?" "What will the interest rates be in five years?" "When should I retire?" :lmbo:

[Underlings]

I am starting to smell the scent of the underside of a bridge from you, yet I am prepared to set aside my standard response to provocateurs such as you. I will make a few more attempts to see if I can get through your thick igneous skull.

I'm glad you didn't make good on your promise not to post anymore on this topic. :)

...and once again you utterly evade the issue of human responsibility. You have singularly failed to either prove why God taking lives is unjust and why you consistently gloss over the evils of humanity with the zeal of a Holocaust denier. Even if you can presume God is evil (hey, why should you change the habit of a lifetime),

Wait...so it's my job to prove that God slaughtering countless thousands of innocent children is UNJUST? Excuse me, but when did murdering innocents become the ACCEPTABLE NORM which must be proven unjust? Do you honestly believe that it's GOOD to kill children, and it is up to anyone who might question the slaughter of innocent children to prove that it's otherwise? What kind of logic is that? Ask virtually anyone if slaughtering innocent children is good and they will say of course not. In fact they would likely say that such behavior is the very paragon of pure evil. If you want to claim otherwise, YOU need to provide proof that God's actions are good.

No - murder is the unlawful taking of the life of a human by another human, so as before, you must demonstrate that (a) God's taking of a human life is unlawful and (b) why a deity is subject to laws for humanity.

So your excuse is a loophole? God is not technically a human, thus he is exempt from being considered evil for mass slaughter of innocents. Whatever happened to "practice what you preach"?

But your claim brings to light a very poignant question: What actions WOULD God have to do for you to consider him evil? If you can't answer this, then you believe that God can do ANYTHING, no matter how cruel, petty, vicious and depraved, and you would consider it "good." Do you not see the fault in your belief system?

Ah, an accusation of fixation from someone who has a website called "God hates amputees".

Fill in the missing word: Pot, Kettle, ?????

And ONCE AGAIN you evade the issue. Honestly, why can't you fundies answer that simple question? Whenever I ask why God refuses to provide starving children with the basic resources needed to survive, you go for an attack on my character. What kind of logic is that?

Children CANNOT access those resources. They are incapable of doing so, for they have neither the skills nor the control to access them. Yet even if they pray to God, he FAILS to answer their prayers. He provides them with absolutely nothing. Why would God provide resources to most adults but refuse to do so for deprived children? So I ask you, why shouldn't they think of God as a horrible force of evil who delights in their suffering?

So you're a legal expert are you? Can you show me exactly how I would be criminally negligent? Please provide clear references to the appropriate statutes.

Sure, right here: http://www.tncrimlaw.com/TPI_Crim/07_07.htm and http://www.nycourts.gov/cji/3-PenalLaw/125/125-10.pdf

"Criminal negligence" means that a person acts with criminal negligence when the person ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the alleged victim will be killed. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the accused person’s standpoint.

But I should have added "morally negligent" as well. And I noticed you didn't respond to the logic of my argument, you just once again tried to evade the topic by deliberately missing the point and fixating on a legal defintion. Sheesh. Are all you Christians this obtusely dishonest?

You still haven't demonstrated why humanity is absolved from the responsibility for caring for their neighbour. Add that to your "to do" list.

And ONCE AGAIN I'll say that humans are NOT absolved from the responsibility of carying for others. How many times must I say this? For all that it matters, every single adult could be a horrible, selfish, evil monster who delights in watching children starve to death. It STILL wouldn't explain why God ignores the needs of those starving children. They need resources. They do not have access to those resources. Thus they have no resources. Thus God does not care for them. He lets them die horribly and painfully...for what reason? What possible good comes from that?

Hurm. A concession of sorts. Unfortunately that does nothing to add substance to your shell of an argument. Please answer my question about humanity's absolution of responsibility before we go further.

Well, if you'd bothered to read the previous arguments you wouldn't be asking such an irrelevant question, since I've already stated human adults are obviously doing too little to help. But this argument isn't about adult humans; it's about children starving to death and God doing absolutely nothing to provide for them. He only gives resources to the very people he KNOWS (omniscient, right?) will not provide for those children's needs. So the children starve to death...and you blame humans for doing what God knew all along they would do. Sheesh.

Oh, puhleeze. Your hypocrisy is nauseating, accusing others of moral deficiency when you would absolve humanity of any and all obscenities against God, Man and nature.

How have I been hypocritical? At least I have helped out the Peace Corps in two countries (Mexico and Ecuador) and contribute to charities to feed poor children and work in an industry that will ultimately lift children out of poverty. What have you and JPH done?

And AGAIN, what difference does it make WHO asks the question? If it helps you understand, what if one of the starving children posed the question to you? How would you respond? You see, it doesn't matter WHO points out a perceived injustice, only that it IS brought to light.

All you have succeeded in doing is make yourself look a deeper hue of fool. I've set you some homework. Crack open them book-things and get me a creditable answer for the questions. Then we'll talk again.

Really? I've answered each of your questions with a reasonable, rational, relevant response. Can you do the same?

Derek

[Cynic Sage]

Mad Gerbil links to an article about survivors of Abortion, giving the name of one who has become a success in life (not a screwball):

The issue will be highlighted by Gianna Jessen, 28, who survived an attempt to abort her. She is to speak at a parliamentary meeting on December 6 organised by the Alive and Kicking campaign, which is lobbying for a reduction of the abortion limit to 18 weeks.


Jessen, a musician from Nashville, Tennessee, was left with cerebral palsy but is to run in the London marathon next April to raise funds for fellow sufferers.

“If abortion is about women’s rights, then what were my rights?” she asked. “If people are going to talk about abortion, then it’s important for them to know that these are babies that can be born alive and survive.”

source. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1892696_1,00.html)

Snarf then replies to MG's post:

Mistakes happen. However, her survival doesn't change my pro-choice stance.

I could just picture an abortion doctor somewhere.

"Aw Dang! I knew I shouldn't come to work with a hangover. Now it's a musician/activist/marathon runner. My bad." :doh:

[jpholding]

Looks like Captain Underpants is still pulling the same "don't blame me" string on his back. :lol:

He must be working on a reply to me now. Here, let me help. Copy and paste the following 100 times:


"I've answered each of your questions with a ultra super duper and absolutely perfect response. God is evil because I say so and I don't have to do anything else to help anyone, it's all God's fault no matter what it is, so there too. It's your job to educate me so stop evading the issue. BRRRRAPPPPP." :rant:

[Jnthn]

I'm glad you didn't make good on your promise not to post anymore on this topic. :)
Ah, well, proof positive, if needed, that you are a troll. P.s. I didn't promise anything, but at least from my return I've elicited another morsel evidence that you selectively and deceptively represent facts.

Wait...so it's my job to prove that God slaughtering countless thousands of innocent children is UNJUST? Excuse me, but when did murdering innocents become the ACCEPTABLE NORM which must be proven unjust? Do you honestly believe that it's GOOD to kill children, and it is up to anyone who might question the slaughter of innocent children to prove that it's otherwise? What kind of logic is that? Ask virtually anyone if slaughtering innocent children is good and they will say of course not. In fact they would likely say that such behavior is the very paragon of pure evil. If you want to claim otherwise, YOU need to provide proof that God's actions are good.
You really do like the ol' argument by outrage, doncha? And yes, it is up to you to make a case. Please make it free from fallacies this time.

So your excuse is a loophole? God is not technically a human, thus he is exempt from being considered evil for mass slaughter of innocents. Whatever happened to "practice what you preach"?
"Technically not human"? "Loophole"? By that pretzel logic, cars should be pasteurised despite they are "technically" not dairy products. We cant have anything sneaking through a "loophole" can we?

But your claim brings to light a very poignant question: What actions WOULD God have to do for you to consider him evil? If you can't answer this, then you believe that God can do ANYTHING, no matter how cruel, petty, vicious and depraved, and you would consider it "good." Do you not see the fault in your belief system?
I don't think poignant is the correct description, but no, I'm not going to indulge in idle speculation, because I don't need to indulge in "what if"'s because I know "what is".

And ONCE AGAIN you evade the issue. Honestly, why can't you fundies answer that simple question? Whenever I ask why God refuses to provide starving children with the basic resources needed to survive, you go for an attack on my character. What kind of logic is that?
It's not me who's skating around the issue like butter in a frying pan...

Children CANNOT access those resources. They are incapable of doing so, for they have neither the skills nor the control to access them. Yet even if they pray to God, he FAILS to answer their prayers. He provides them with absolutely nothing. Why would God provide resources to most adults but refuse to do so for deprived children? So I ask you, why shouldn't they think of God as a horrible force of evil who delights in their suffering?
Irrelevant. Please demonstrate clearly why humanity has been absolved from the responsibilty for its fellow man (women, children, planet...etc.) and why it is exempt from the consequences of failing to accept that responsibility.

Sure, right here: http://www.tncrimlaw.com/TPI_Crim/07_07.htm and http://www.nycourts.gov/cji/3-PenalLaw/125/125-10.pdf
Ah, splendid. You walked right into the trap I set up and you've responded exactly as I anticipated. I said:

" So you're a legal expert are you? Can you show me exactly how I would be criminally negligent? Please provide clear references to the appropriate statutes." (emphasis retained)

Here's the kicker - I'm not an American citizen. I'm British. You waded in without thinking about which jurisdiction I was under, didn't ask what legal system I was under, didn't check my profile for locale information, didn't draw any inferences from my use of British English.

In short you didn't seek out the facts and made yourself look an idiot. Again.

(Unless, of course, you want to make a bigger fool of yourself by trying to persuade me I am "technically" subject to the laws of the USA. Can't have anyone escaping through "loopholes", eh? :doh:)

But I should have added "morally negligent" as well. And I noticed you didn't respond to the logic of my argument, you just once again tried to evade the topic by deliberately missing the point and fixating on a legal defintion. Sheesh. Are all you Christians this obtusely dishonest?
Shoulda, coulda, didn't. Keep up the spin. You are destined for a career in PR.

And ONCE AGAIN I'll say that humans are NOT absolved from the responsibility of carying for others. How many times must I say this?
Until you demonstrate how humanity is indemnified against the consequence of their irrisponsibility.

Well, if you'd bothered to read the previous arguments you wouldn't be asking such an irrelevant question, since I've already stated human adults are obviously doing too little to help. But this argument isn't about adult humans; it's about children starving to death and God doing absolutely nothing to provide for them. He only gives resources to the very people he KNOWS (omniscient, right?) will not provide for those children's needs. So the children starve to death...and you blame humans for doing what God knew all along they would do. Sheesh.
ditto


How have I been hypocritical? At least I have helped out the Peace Corps in two countries (Mexico and Ecuador) and contribute to charities to feed poor children and work in an industry that will ultimately lift children out of poverty. What have you and JPH done?
Well, since this statement contains a veiled criticism of me, you must already know what I have or haven't done. After all you wouldn't be silly enough go try and argue without knowing the facts, huh?

J

[Underlings]

The bottom line is, your whole silly little whine-fest operates on the premise that unless God doesn't do something about all these things RIGHT NOW WHEN YOU SAY SO He's totally evil.

Well of course he should do something about it right now (assuming he exists)...because half a dozen children die horribly every single MINUTE! God's all-powerful, right? So what's the hold-up? What good does it do yesterday's or today's sufferers if he takes his sweet time about preventing further tragedy? You honestly don't think that neglect is evil?

I merely pointed out an observable injustice: children are starving to death in huge numbers. You believe that God's responsibility is to provide them with the resources they need to survive. Fine, I agree that a good God would do that. But instead, God provides the resources to OTHER people and gives NOTHING to those starving children. So they slowly die in horrible pain, many undoubtedly praying to God for food and asking him to ease their suffering, and he answers their prayers with...nothing. Absolutely nothing. He just watches them rot and die in excruciating pain. Oh, yeah, THAT'S a good God. You've convinced me I should worship him! :ahem:

And poor helpless you and other people didn't have anything they could do about it huh. :lmbo: Sorry, that's just more crybaby shifting of blame for your own mistakes and evasion of your own responsibility.

I've helped out the Peace Corps in two different countries, I contribute regularly to charities with far more money than someone who lives in a non-First World country can possibly muster, and I work in an industry that will likely eventually end starvation. And you blame me for not doing a thing to help. You call me a hypocrite? Let me ask you...what do YOU do to help starving children? Anything? Anything?

But you seem incapable of addressing the point. You want to blame ME (and presumably all humanity) for not doing enough. Well, fine, if that's what you need to answer my questions, go ahead and blame me, I don't mind. I've already agreed that we as a species do not do enough to help prevent starvation. You seem to keep forgetting this point.

Now let's address God's blame: His job is to provide resources to all humanity, right? So why does he fail to provide ANY resources for those children who are starving to death? Yes, I know what you're going to say, that God intends the rest of us to share our resources with children. But we're not, are we? What's more, he KNEW we wouldn't even before we were born, didn't he? (He's supposedly omniscient, after all, right?) So he KNOWS those children will be born in resource-poor regions, he KNOWS they will struggle with disease and malnutrition throughout their short lives, and he KNOWS they will die a long, slow, lingering, painful death. But he does nothing to provide for their needs. They can pray as long and as hard as they like, but they will still starve to death...because although OTHERS are provided with resources, THEY are not. And there's nothing they can do about it.

So, in summary, WE'RE guilty of not providing badly needed resources to starving children. And GOD is JUST AS GUILTY of not providing badly needed resources to starving children.

And you, with your finely honed sense of justice, blame ONLY the humans. But the ONE individual who could actually FIX the problem with NO effort at all on his part gets a free pass from you, doesn't he?

If you did, you'd say, "ancient patronage doesn't change this because blah blah blah" -- all you have so far is the blah blah blah.

I am only familiar with the standard concept of patronage, not "ancient patronage," and I have found no references to "ancient patronage" being any different than current patronage. So I ask you to explain how "ancient" patronage makes it perfectly fine for a patron to provide for one segment of his clients while completely ignoring the most vulnerable and helpless segment. And your response is to tell me to do my "homework." What kind of an asinine response is that? If you're not going to provide answers for honest questions asked in the course of a debate, then why are you even here?

The logical conclusion is that you don't know what "ancient patronage" means either. Perhaps you even made up the term. Regardless, you can't explain how it would be any different from current concepts of patronage.

Good Zeus what a stupid question. Food = no more hunger. Is that so hard?

If God put all the resources we need for survival on another planet, it wouldn't do us any good whatsoever, would it? We couldn't access those resources and thus they might as well not exist, right?

Well that is essentially what God has done for the starving children. God put all their resources into the hands of people who will not provide those resources to those children. They can't access those resources and thus those resources might as well not exist, right?

Is THAT so hard to understand?

Then why are you complaining? In other words you admit that you are without any consistency, or else have the motive of deceit.

In what way am I complaining? Go ahead, explain. I'm merely pointing out a major inconsistency in Christian fundamentalist thinking: that God is both all-good and all-powerful, yet we see starvation on a massive scale occurring constantly. I'd be complaining if I expected God to fix it. But I don't expect God to fix it because I don't believe he exists. Your whining over and over again that I'm blaming God for my own faults is entirely irrelevant, because I can't blame a non-existent being, can I?

No, I'm saying that IF the God of Christian fundamentalists existed, he would be guilty of mass murder and torture. Then I most certainly would blame him for all the horrors he puts innocent children through, by not lifting a finger to protect these most helpless of his clients from the negligence of other humans.

Laying the groundwork for your retreat, then. Good for you.

Sorry, but I have no intention of retreating. I'm happy to continue this argument until you finally understand the fallacies of your position. In fact, I'll be happy to start another thread with a deeper focus on the very topic you refuse to answer in the hopes that you will quit your childish evasion and actually address the topic.

Too bad. You want instant action. Taxes take time to get their way through the system. Obviously you are simply making excuses for your own evil. Besides, your vehicles pollute the air we breathe and also likely cause ecological destruction that creates conditions like drought in the first place. It's all your fault and we're blaming you for every bit of it.

Of course vehicles pollute the air. Every technological advance has its costs, but because of technology poverty as a percentage of the world's population is far lower than it was in pre-industrial times. Technology builds wealth where otherwise wealth wouldn't exist, and the wealth that makes its way to poor countries is much greater than would exist without technological trappings.

Again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of economic theory. And by your pointedly ignoring my question, may I assume you indeed never even completed college? Yet you presume to lecture me on economics? Oh, that's right...you blame me for everything. :lol: Trust a fundie to take a glaring fault in his belief system and try to heap blame on the one delivering the message. Let me guess...you blame me for nailing Christ on the cross, don't you: ;)

You freely call me a hypocrite, yet you obviously use computers, vehicles, etc. I guess that makes you a...oh, what's the word? I can't seem to think of it. It's on the tip of my tongue....

Let me lead you by the head: The world of the Bible was agonistic. Heat and flame is a metaphor for shame (ever hear of someone's face "burning"?) and for moral cleansing. If we interpreted John 3 with the same pathological literalism as you read Thess and Rev, we'd have to conclude that the Holy Spirit was made of water.

Oh, you fundies are too much! When the Bible states something that's an obvious mistake, you say "it's a metaphor!" And when it states something that supports your personal agenda, you say "it's literal fact!"

Sorry, but when every Christian I ask says Hell is a literal place of eternal torment, and when the Bible states it in no uncertain terms that Hell is eternal torment--Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever (a passage I noticed you conveniently left out)--then I'm forced to conclude that you do not represent the views of most Christians (or even most fundies, for that matter). You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Nope. Because I did my homework on the ancients' dramatic orientation and use of language. All you do it sit on your rear end and announce your opinion after reading the text in English.

So you speak ancient Hebrew and Greek? Don't make me laugh. You have to access translations of translations, just like everyone else does. We don't even have a clear understanding of the contextual use of ANY ancient language. Of course, if God exists he would have known this would happen, wouldn't he? He surely would have come up with something more efficient than a book that is soooo easy to mistranslate (as you yourself have indicated it has been). (Then again, if primitive humans wrote the books of the Bible, as there is every indication they did, then there's no guarantee that any of it is true anyway.)

Sorry, bub, but if you say the current translations of the Bible are mistranslated, then you're admitting they're WRONG. And that means hundreds of millions of Christians hold false beliefs they take directly out of their incorrect Bibles. If YOUR PERSONAL translations are the only ones that are true, then all those Christians are going to Hell despite all their best intentions. You're going to be awfully lonely in Heaven. :) Of course, if God will cut them some slack for only being able to read imperfect translations of the Bible, then your "perfect" translations don't matter at all, do they? Catch-22.

Derek

[Underlings]

You really do like the ol' argument by outrage, doncha? And yes, it is up to you to make a case. Please make it free from fallacies this time.

So it's an argument from outrage, call it what you want. What difference does it make? Respond to the questions: why is it "okay" for God to slaughter all the children he wants? And why would ANYONE want to worship such a sick being?

"Technically not human"? "Loophole"? By that pretzel logic, cars should be pasteurised despite they are "technically" not dairy products. We cant have anything sneaking through a "loophole" can we?

He's supposedly a sentient being. Just as a parent killing his offspring is regarded as a terrible evil, so is God killing his sentient creations.

I don't think poignant is the correct description, but no, I'm not going to indulge in idle speculation, because I don't need to indulge in "what if"'s because I know "what is".

OF COURSE you won't answer that question! No fundie EVER does. Why is that? Because ANYTHING truly evil that you can think of, God has committed, according to the Bible. So by believing that ANYTHING God does is good, you automatically prove an inability to distinguish good behavior from evil.

I guess that's why fundies do insane things like fly planes into buildings and blow up abortion clinics.

Irrelevant. Please demonstrate clearly why humanity has been absolved from the responsibilty for its fellow man (women, children, planet...etc.) and why it is exempt from the consequences of failing to accept that responsibility.

I DON'T claim that humanity is absolved of that responsibility. How many times must I tell you? Humanity is as guilty as God is for the neglect.

So I say again, Children CANNOT access those resources. They are incapable of doing so, for they have neither the skills nor the control to access them. Yet even if they pray to God, he FAILS to answer their prayers. He provides them with absolutely nothing. Why would God provide resources to most adults but refuse to do so for deprived children? So I ask you, why shouldn't they think of God as a horrible force of evil who delights in their suffering?

Ah, splendid. You walked right into the trap I set up and you've responded exactly as I anticipated. I said:

"So you're a legal expert are you? Can you show me exactly how I would be criminally negligent? Please provide clear references to the appropriate statutes." (emphasis retained)

Here's the kicker - I'm not an American citizen. I'm British. You waded in without thinking about which jurisdiction I was under, didn't ask what legal system I was under, didn't check my profile for locale information, didn't draw any inferences from my use of British English.

Haha, you sound so proud of yourself! Good job! If you are a British citizen, then you know that British law follows the EXACT SAME PRINCIPLE. If you see a child being starved to death and you do not report it, you are criminally negligent in BOTH the US and UK. I believe that's true all over Europe, actually. But it makes no difference because I gave you an ANALOGY of why it is wrong to watch a child starve to death, and in that analogy I'm using the assumption the observer is a US citizen. I also made the assumption that you have neighbors, when clearly I cannot be certain of that.

But your petty attempt to trap me with legal definitions is utterly besides the point, isn't it? You're arguing that it's OKAY to watch a child starve to death. The more important point is moral negligence, which I'm sure even you would not deny is what you would be guilty of if you watched a child die of starvation without doing a thing to help. Why are you purposely evading the point?

Instead of explaining WHY my point is supposedly wrong, you respond with, "Shoulda, coulda, didn't. Keep up the spin. You are destined for a career in PR." What, are you taking irrelevancy and meaninglessness lessons from JPH now? Honestly, you two (along with Darth) seem to have an aversion to addressing the actual issues presented to you and actually delight in running off on irrelevant tangents.

Until you demonstrate how humanity is indemnified against the consequence of their irrisponsibility.

Amazing. Truly amazing. The rest of humanity isn't suffering for the consequences of their irresponsibility...it's the CHILDREN who are! What did THEY do to deserve such a horrifying fate? Again and again you keep blaming the rest of humanity for their situation. FINE, I AGREE. But that's not the question. Why does GOD do NOTHING at all to help the CHILDREN?

How much more simple can a question be? Do you have some built-in inability to answer simple questions? Yikes.

Well, since this statement contains a veiled criticism of me, you must already know what I have or haven't done. After all you wouldn't be silly enough go try and argue without knowing the facts, huh?

Don't be silly. I asked a question; I didn't state a fact.

Derek

[Underlings]

I think it's time to pull this topic back on subject. JPH and Jnthn have worked hard to avoid the central point of this argument and take it in irrelevant directions.

So let me try to focus it by posing a simple re-statement of my question. Try to directly answer the question constructively. Let's not assume I'M the audience...let's assume there are fence-sitters out there who are reading this and trying to understand why they should worship God.

Furthermore, let's also assume that I am not the one asking the question. Instead, the person asking the question is a child who is starving to death in a poor African country (that way we can hopefully focus the topic on the child's question, rather than a series of irrelevant personal attacks).

The child says, "I am starving to death. My body is in constant agony as I lie here in this filthy hut, my body eating its own muscles just to hang on a little longer. I want to live! But my government won't let aid in, none of us can leave our village, and all of us are starving to death. My brother died yesterday. My sister died last week. I pray to God that he provides us with enough food to survive. I pray to God that he alleviates this constant, gnawing pain. But he does nothing. I still lie here starving to death, along with all the other children in my town. So I ask you, why isn't God helping me? How can he be considered 'good' if he does nothing to provide us with food or stop our suffering? He's all-powerful, isn't he? If so, then does he WANT us to starve to death? Why should we worship a being capable of such evil?"

Okay, that's the scenario. My question to you is, how would you respond to that child?

Derek

[Jnthn]

So it's an argument from outrage, call it what you want. What difference does it make? Respond to the questions: why is it "okay" for God to slaughter all the children he wants? And why would ANYONE want to worship such a sick being?
Splendid. You've just admitted that you argue by logical fallacy.

He's supposedly a sentient being. Just as a parent killing his offspring is regarded as a terrible evil, so is God killing his sentient creations.
Non-answer. Why is a deity subject to laws that are framed to apply to humans?

OF COURSE you won't answer that question! No fundie EVER does. Why is that? Because ANYTHING truly evil that you can think of, God has committed, according to the Bible. So by believing that ANYTHING God does is good, you automatically prove an inability to distinguish good behavior from evil.
Oh, so you've talked to every "fundie" (sic) have you? You must be rushed off your feet. Hint: crass generalisations are A Bad Thing ™.

I guess that's why fundies do insane things like fly planes into buildings and blow up abortion clinics.
...and there's another one. You're argument is so impoverished you have to pull on Muslim extremists to try and score a point against Christianity! :lol: Tell you what - you show me Biblical support for bombing abortion clinics and I'll strap on the semtex and a T-shirt saying "Underlings wuz right" :duh:

I DON'T claim that humanity is absolved of that responsibility. How many times must I tell you? Humanity is as guilty as God is for the neglect.

So I say again, Children CANNOT access those resources. They are incapable of doing so, for they have neither the skills nor the control to access them. Yet even if they pray to God, he FAILS to answer their prayers. He provides them with absolutely nothing. Why would God provide resources to most adults but refuse to do so for deprived children? So I ask you, why shouldn't they think of God as a horrible force of evil who delights in their suffering?
Yep...repeating myself is tedious.

One more time for the hard of understanding: Responsibility sits with humanity. Please demonstrate how this responsibility can be shirked without consequence or where/when/how the responsibility was lifted. The argument stands or falls by this question.

Haha, you sound so proud of yourself! Good job! If you are a British citizen, then you know that British law follows the EXACT SAME PRINCIPLE. If you see a child being starved to death and you do not report it, you are criminally negligent in BOTH the US and UK. I believe that's true all over Europe, actually. But it makes no difference because I gave you an ANALOGY of why it is wrong to watch a child starve to death, and in that analogy I'm using the assumption the observer is a US citizen. I also made the assumption that you have neighbors, when clearly I cannot be certain of that.
British subject, actually. Constitutional Monarchy. I didn't ask for vague general wavings about principles. I posed an exact question which you failed to research and answer. Ship has sailed. You lose.

But your petty attempt to trap me with legal definitions is utterly besides the point, isn't it? You're arguing that it's OKAY to watch a child starve to death. The more important point is moral negligence, which I'm sure even you would not deny is what you would be guilty of if you watched a child die of starvation without doing a thing to help. Why are you purposely evading the point?
Oh that's rich. Accused of legalism by someone who introduced the legal dimension to this discussion! :lol:

I sense your argument is entering the "flaming death spiral" stage!

Instead of explaining WHY my point is supposedly wrong, you respond with, "Shoulda, coulda, didn't. Keep up the spin. You are destined for a career in PR." What, are you taking irrelevancy and meaninglessness lessons from JPH now? Honestly, you two (along with Darth) seem to have an aversion to addressing the actual issues presented to you and actually delight in running off on irrelevant tangents.
Ah, yes, another example of contextual dismemberment. My "coulda..." comment was a response to you trying, albeit too late, to qualify your criminal negligence canard.


Amazing. Truly amazing. The rest of humanity isn't suffering for the consequences of their irresponsibility...it's the CHILDREN who are! What did THEY do to deserve such a horrifying fate? Again and again you keep blaming the rest of humanity for their situation. FINE, I AGREE. But that's not the question. Why does GOD do NOTHING at all to help the CHILDREN?
Starvation affects more than just children, you ignoramus. If you hadn't insisted on gettig your money's worth out of the outrage fallacy you might have acknowledged this fact.

Starvation, in a world of grain mountains, milk lakes, international debt, trade protectionism, overindulgence and food waste testify against the culpable negligence that humanity exhibits and you are an apologist for

J

[jimbo]

Jnthn,

Underlings: So it's an argument from outrage, call it what you want. What difference does it make? Respond to the questions: why is it "okay" for God to slaughter all the children he wants? And why would ANYONE want to worship such a sick being?

Jnthn: Splendid. You've just admitted that you argue by logical fallacy.

A logical fallacy? As far as I know, the phrase "argument by outrage" was made up by "JP Holding" in response to claims that the Biblical god condones, commands and commits moral atrocities. Whenever people point out the immorality of the biblical god or his chosen people, "JP Holding" will wave his hand and dismiss this as "argument from outrage." It is just a meaningless phrase used to fend off troubling questions.

There is certainly nothing wrong with pointing out that the biblical god's actions appear to contradict the Christian claim that the biblical god is morally good. Of course when Christians are asked to state exactly what God would have to do for them to call him immoral or evil, they have no answer. What this shows is that they really have no standard by which to judge God's actions and that therefore their claims that God is "good" are meaningless.

Cheers,

Jimbo

[ilkhani'tus]

Quote: Originally posted by ilkhani'tus
What would god have to do before you would say that it's unust for him to do it?


Something entirely inconsistent with his revealed character. Since that ain't going to happen...Could you give any examples, and while you're at it, could you explain what kind of moral character the bible "reveals" about god?


Quote:
If we can't determine god's morality from when he does stuff that humans would consider "bad", then how can he be called "good" when god does something that humans consider "goood"?


An appeal to a non-existent standard.In that case, there truly is no such thing as "absolute morality" and no one can judge anyone to be "good" or "bad" based on their actions.



Quote:
I haven't read too much of this, but I don't think that any athiest actually tries to get humanity "off the hook" for when we do something wrong. We're just asking about god in this case, not humanity. Trying to turn this back on humanity is really nothing more than trying to change the subject it looks like to me.[

We know that people do bad things, and we do try to help...supporting the police, OXFAM, the Gates Foundation, etc.


I have to differ in this case. My main complaint is that Underlings hasn't made a case based on anything more than biblical quote mining and argument by outrage. JPH is trying to nail the jellyfish down in the realm of historic context, I'm trying to encouage an argument based on anything other than an appeal to a non-existent human moral standard. Result? Read back in the thread. Plus ca change...
I figure, that argument by outrage can't really be used to figure out if any god does exist, but maybe it can be used when we're trying to determine the character of said god, for arguments' sake?




Who knows? I'm just bumping this thread again to annoy everyone, and to make things generally irritating.

[Darth Executor]

I figure, that argument by outrage can't really be used to figure out if any god does exist, but maybe it can be used when we're trying to determine the character of said god, for arguments' sake?


You can't actually. Argument by outrage is fallacious because it's purely subjective. If you drop the outrage and give a logical reason for it nobody would have a problem. I had a headbutting duel with soundsurfr a while ago when I asked him why God killing babies in the OT is wrong, especially when he is a moral relativist. After mumbling for a while he says it's because it contradicts Jesus and the NT. I thought this explanation was very peculiar because nobody had even mentioned Jesus or the NT in that thread.

[ilkhani'tus]

You can't actually. Argument by outrage is fallacious because it's purely subjective. If you drop the outrage and give a logical reason for it nobody would have a problem.In that case, what is god's "logical reason" for judging us when we do that kind of thing? Or is he just going by his own outrage? Either way, people and kids are still dead, regardless of who had it done. Only one side gets condemned for doing it, the other does not. It's about moral consistency to me.

I had a headbutting duel with soundsurfr a while ago when I asked him why God killing babies in the OT is wrong, especially when he is a moral relativist. After mumbling for a while he says it's because it contradicts Jesus and the NT. I thought this explanation was very peculiar because nobody had even mentioned Jesus or the NT in that thread.

[Darth Executor]

In that case, what is god's "logical reason" for judging us when we do that kind of thing?

Do you provide eternal life for the children you kill?

[Doubting John]

I just can't help responding. Next time remember this:

IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, THEY WILL COME.



Get the point. Get the point. Get the point!

This is fun....really fun.

:popcorn:

[jimbo]

Hey,

Before the Christians here start liberally throwing around the phrase "argument by outrage" as if it is a bona fide logical fallacy, explain what it means and tell us who invented the phrase.

Thanks.

Jimbo

[Darth Executor]

Hey,

Before the Christians here start liberally throwing around the phrase "argument by outrage" as if it is a bona fide logical fallacy, explain what it means and tell us who invented the phrase.

Thanks.

Jimbo

It's the logical fallacy of parading your opinion around as fact. You'd have to be pretty thick not to get it.

[ilkhani'tus]

Do you provide eternal life for the children you kill?So, let's see: If somone steals money from you by force, but gives you some more money later, that makes it all ok?

We don't really have any evidence for "eternal life", btw. That, and even aborted babies (presumably) go to heaven, so they also get "eternal life".

(mind you, there is a bible verse that says only accepting christ can get you into heaven? I wonder how many fetuses have had that chance?) Or maybe since they haven't "sinned" yet, who knows?



So then, if it's OK for god to kill, then what would it NOT be OK for him to do? What would he have to do before you would say that it's wrong for him to do it?

Hopefully, you can be more specific than Jnthn was!

It's easy to be the "perfect" sinless being if your actions are always being excused.

[Darth Executor]

So, let's see: If somone steals money from you by force, but gives you some more money later, that makes it all ok?

Sure. If somebody takes ten bucks now and comes back later and gives me an access to Bill Gates' bank account I'd be extatic.

We don't really have any evidence for "eternal life", btw. That, and even aborted babies (presumably) go to heaven, so they also get "eternal life".

Ok. We don't really have any evidence that God killed anybody. Don't pull the agnostic card when we're discussing God's nature please.

(mind you, there is a bible verse that says only accepting christ can get you into heaven? I wonder how many fetuses have had that chance?) Or maybe since they haven't "sinned" yet, who knows?

When your argument begins with "there is a bible verse" you know there's something wrong. The bible isn't yesterday's newspaper. There are many verses in the Bible. It's good to read them all to have a good understanding of what the text says. Reading a few books by credentialed experts regarding the society it was written in helps too.


So then, if it's OK for god to kill, then what would it NOT be OK for him to do? What would he have to do before you would say that it's wrong for him to do it?

Not give people the afterlife he promised them. You could argue that if God really is evil I'm gonna find out too late but when you think about it, it's always too late, because you're gonna burn anyway and there is nothing you can do about it.

Hopefully, you can be more specific than Jnthn was!

Hopefully I was specific enough.

[ilkhani'tus]

Sure. If somebody takes ten bucks now and comes back later and gives me an access to Bill Gates' bank account I'd be extatic.Even if they had to brutalize you first, and you had no idea that you'd be getting Bill Gates' money until after it was done?

Remember, those kids were not told that they'd go to heaven before they were killed.


Ok. We don't really have any evidence that God killed anybody. Don't pull the agnostic card when we're discussing God's nature please.Fair enough


When your argument begins with "there is a bible verse" you know there's something wrong. The bible isn't yesterday's newspaper. There are many verses in the Bible. It's good to read them all to have a good understanding of what the text says. Reading a few books by credentialed experts regarding the society it was written in helps too.True, but then again not that many preachers I've seen use anything but the bible itself from the pulpit. After all, one has to be careful in diluting "god's word" with man's fallible opinion, don't we?

That, and you've not actually addressed the point jesus was supposed to have said, that no one gets to heaven except through him.


Not give people the afterlife he promised them.When did he promise that the amalekite children would have an afterlife in heaven after they and their mothers were killed?

You could argue that if God really is evil I'm gonna find out too late but when you think about it, it's always too late, because you're gonna burn anyway and there is nothing you can do about it.


Hopefully I was specific enough.Actually, yes. A LOT better than that other guy.

:thumb:

[Darth Executor]

Even if they had to brutalize you first, and you had no idea that you'd be getting Bill Gates' money until after it was done?

Remember, those kids were not told that they'd go to heaven before they were killed.

What difference does it make if they were told or not? In the situation you described I'd be mad at first but be more than happy in the end. Perhaps some of us learn from the past instead of brooding over it and lambasting people on the Internet over the affairs of a God they don't believe in and his whacky adventures with an ancient tribe...

True, but then again not that many preachers I've seen use anything but the bible itself from the pulpit. After all, one has to be careful in diluting "god's word" with man's fallible opinion, don't we?

What many preachers do isn't my concern. You're not talking to many preachers, you're talking to me.

That, and you've not actually addressed the point jesus was supposed to have said, that no one gets to heaven except through him.

Which, to me, means that Jesus picks who goes in and who doesn't. He has promised believers they'll get in. What he does with the rest is up to him. In fact, the Bible tells you HOW Jesus handles everybody in quite a few of his parables.

When did he promise that the amalekite children would have an afterlife in heaven after they and their mothers were killed?

Did he have to? The children were not old enough to sin. Since Jesus judges people by what they were given and the children were not given anything then they are not judged.

[ilkhani'tus]

What difference does it make if they were told or not?It would have made the uh, "transition" maybe a little easier to bear, or at least not so terrifying.

In the situation you described I'd be mad at first but be more than happy in the end. Perhaps some of us learn from the past instead of brooding over it and lambasting people on the Internet over the affairs of a God they don't believe in and his whacky adventures with an ancient tribe...It's your OT, it's your god, and BTW, it's your "10 commandments" that he gave to THOSE people that we're supposed to live by today...mind you, other cultures have been able to figure those out pretty much. It's just that it's xians who keep making the claims of absolute morality.

Why blame us when we point out examples to the contrary?



What many preachers do isn't my concern. You're not talking to many preachers, you're talking to me.Just pointing out that many people, most xians, I suspect, are being converted and spoon fed the "lightweight" stuff. EDIT: I'm arguing against the type of xianity as most christians understand it. It's also why I don't listen to preachers! :teeth:



Which, to me, means that Jesus picks who goes in and who doesn't. He has promised believers they'll get in.Yes, those who have already chosen!

What he does with the rest is up to him.That's the problem: If that's truly the case, that jesus just "picks" who goes in, then what really is the use of "proselytizing"? This sounds close to "calvinism".

In fact, the Bible tells you HOW Jesus handles everybody in quite a few of his parables.And it's usually how well the characters in the parables choose to react.


(Good ground produces bountiful harvest, the bad ground produces weeds which get burned up, the wise virgins vs. the foolish virgins, etc.)


Did he have to? The children were not old enough to sin. Since Jesus judges people by what they were given and the children were not given anything then they are not judged.I'd like to believe that, but as the bible says, it's only through jesus that anyone gets into heaven, while one is left wondering if a person has someone killed, just how trustworthy can they be with the eternal welfare of that person...


Agh. It's getting late, and I can't think on this anymore! (A free shot for your to take, DE!)

[Underlings]

Splendid. You've just admitted that you argue by logical fallacy.

Wrong again. Who wouldn't be outraged by a perceived injustice? As long as a person logically detail the conditions that lead to that outrage--such as God supposedly being "good" yet not evincing the slightest care for his most vulnerable creations--what difference does it make? You assume that argument by outrage presupposes there is not also an argument by logic.

Non-answer. Why is a deity subject to laws that are framed to apply to humans?

Oh, so now you're a moral relativist? Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't fundies generally despise moral relativism? Either God is subject to the same moral constraints as humanity, or you're admitting morals vary depending on situation.

Oh, so you've talked to every "fundie" (sic) have you? You must be rushed off your feet. Hint: crass generalisations are A Bad Thing ™.

<G> Then prove me wrong and answer my question. What specific behaviors would God have to be guilty of for you to consider him evil?

...and there's another one. You're argument is so impoverished you have to pull on Muslim extremists to try and score a point against Christianity! :lol: Tell you what - you show me Biblical support for bombing abortion clinics and I'll strap on the semtex and a T-shirt saying "Underlings wuz right" :duh:

Excuse me, but didn't I specify "fundies"? It's not RELIGION that breeds terrorism (and other sociopathic behavior), it's FUNDAMENTALISM. There is far less difference between the mentality of the 9/11 terrorists, the abortion clinic bombers and the women who drown their children to save them from Satan than there is between Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Religion isn't a curse. Fundamentalism is. Why do you think I bother arguing with you people? It's not the Christianity part that bothers me at all. It's the FUNDAMENTALIST part--the part that puts religion before science, freedom, the environment and simple human decency.

One more time for the hard of understanding: Responsibility sits with humanity. Please demonstrate how this responsibility can be shirked without consequence or where/when/how the responsibility was lifted. The argument stands or falls by this question.

And one more time for the slow of wit: I AGREE responsibility sits with humanity. Please get that into your thick head. But just as care for children sits with parents, others must step in when parents fail to do their jobs. The same principle applies to God, ASSUMING God is good, loving and caring of his people. If people fail to do their bit to save starving children, does it make sense that a good, loving God would be content to just sit back and watch those children starve to death? You can't have it both ways; either God is good and he does his best to save those children, or he is evil/indifferent/nonexistent and does nothing.

British subject, actually. Constitutional Monarchy. I didn't ask for vague general wavings about principles. I posed an exact question which you failed to research and answer. Ship has sailed. You lose.

You asked for a specific ruling and I gave you one. The fact that it wasn't British is beside the point. In my analogy, you're a US citizen. Problem solved. If you're going to foolishly claim I lost because I didn't know you're British, then I could simply claim you lost because you and JPH made statements about me that were false--like claiming I've done nothing to help prevent starvation. See? Hiding a piece of information and claiming victory when someone doesn't find it is childish and pointless.

Of course, the real point is that you just defended--with glee, I might add--allowing children to starve by resorting to a (false) legal technicality. Anyone who would even try to do such a thing while still believing himself to be a moral Christian is a hypocrite of the worst kind.

Oh that's rich. Accused of legalism by someone who introduced the legal dimension to this discussion! :lol:

I sense your argument is entering the "flaming death spiral" stage!

Ah, I see your problem. You assume by "criminally negligent" that it MUST refer to something legal. Well, you're wrong yet again. The definition of crime has always included:

"A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition."

And you blame me for failing to notice you're a Brit? :lol: You should have known this one without even having to resort to a dictionary. And if you'd just thought about it a moment you should have realized that because I was using an analogy your argument had no basis in the first place. You do know what an analogy is, right? It's using similarity in some aspects between things that are otherwise different to make a point. Whether or not you're a Brit is irrelevant to this.

Oh, so I guess you're a little bit off on the claim of a death spiral. ;)

Starvation affects more than just children, you ignoramus. If you hadn't insisted on gettig your money's worth out of the outrage fallacy you might have acknowledged this fact.

Starvation, in a world of grain mountains, milk lakes, international debt, trade protectionism, overindulgence and food waste testify against the culpable negligence that humanity exhibits and you are an apologist for

First off, let me personally thank you for FINALLY addressing the starvation issue. You're the first one to do it so far. Congratulations.

But let me get the rest of your statement straight: your defense is that God lets children painfully starve to death in massive numbers...just to highlight human negligence?

Oh, yeah, THAT makes GREAT sense! Since humans aren't preventing the epidemic of starvation of innocents, it's PERFECTLY OKAY for a loving God to let them suffer too! Oh, yeah, that'll show us! Never mind that millions of children suffer and die, never mind that God could prevent their suffering and then simply TELL us DIRECTLY that he won't stand for such negligence. No, better that he just let their bodies consume themselves in agony and show us what bad, bad people we are. That plan is really working well, isn't it?

If your God exists, all evidence points to him being evil or just not caring. Of course, if he doesn't exist, then WE are the only ones to blame. All fault rests on OUR shoulders, not God's. Does that sound like I'm an apologist for the world? Or are you just wrong once again? Oh, wait...should I just declare you lose because you made the mistake of assuming I defend the practices of the modern world? :lol: Nah, don't worry, I'd never be THAT stupid.

Derek

[Jnthn]

Wrong again. Who wouldn't be outraged by a perceived injustice?[
...someone who doesn't equate SHOUTING with QUALITY of ARGUMENT. I have tried to push you down the route of providing substance to your accusation but you persist in using appeals to emotion rather than FACT.

As long as a person logically detail the conditions that lead to that outrage
...which you have singularly failed to do despite prompts from myself, JPH and no doubt others in this forum

...such as God supposedly being "good" yet not evincing the slightest care for his most vulnerable creations...
...which you have not proven and chosen not to attempt to prove...

You assume that argument by outrage presupposes there is not also an argument by logic.
I don't presume, I assert the fact that your argument is utterly insubstantial. Welcome to the world of logical fallacies.

Oh, so now you're a moral relativist? Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't fundies generally despise moral relativism? Either God is subject to the same moral constraints as humanity, or you're admitting morals vary depending on situation.
Non answer number two. You have no appreciation of scope of application at all. Please demonstrate how a deity is subject to a law targeted at humans.

Then prove me wrong and answer my question. What specific behaviors would God have to be guilty of for you to consider him evil?

Asked and anwered.

Excuse me, but didn't I specify "fundies"? It's not RELIGION that breeds terrorism (and other sociopathic behavior), it's FUNDAMENTALISM. There is far less difference between the mentality of the 9/11 terrorists, the abortion clinic bombers and the women who drown their children to save them from Satan than there is between Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Religion isn't a curse. Fundamentalism is. Why do you think I bother arguing with you people? It's not the Christianity part that bothers me at all. It's the FUNDAMENTALIST part--the part that puts religion before science, freedom, the environment and simple human decency.
Nice try, but you still swung out. Fundamentalism has a very specific meaning within recent Christian history, but it has been co-opted by idiots such as yourself looking for a bludgeon.

And one more time for the slow of wit: I AGREE responsibility sits with humanity. Please get that into your thick head. But just as care for children sits with parents, others must step in when parents fail to do their jobs.
Ah, a breakthrough. Please demonstrate why humanity is indemnified against the consequence of shirking responsibility.

The same principle applies to God, ASSUMING God is good, loving and caring of his people. If people fail to do their bit to save starving children, does it make sense that a good, loving God would be content to just sit back and watch those children starve to death? You can't have it both ways; either God is good and he does his best to save those children, or he is evil/indifferent/nonexistent and does nothing.
Prove it.

You asked for a specific ruling and I gave you one. The fact that it wasn't British is beside the point. In my analogy, you're a US citizen. Problem solved. If you're going to foolishly claim I lost because I didn't know you're British, then I could simply claim you lost because you and JPH made statements about me that were false--like claiming I've done nothing to help prevent starvation. See? Hiding a piece of information and claiming victory when someone doesn't find it is childish and pointless.
Stop squirming. You're embarrassing yourself. I framed that question precisely including emboldening key terms, yet you still played to form and assumed yourself into a deeper position of foolishness. And no, trying to spin the situation into a hypothetical won't save you.

Of course, the real point is that you just defended--with glee, I might add--allowing children to starve by resorting to a (false) legal technicality. Anyone who would even try to do such a thing while still believing himself to be a moral Christian is a hypocrite of the worst kind.
And no matter how much you try and spin it a fact is not a technicality.

Ah, I see your problem. You assume by "criminally negligent" that it MUST refer to something legal. Well, you're wrong yet again. The definition of crime has always included:
Gee, I wonder why you posting links to laws and statutes made me think we were discussing legal criminality...:doh:. It's obvious you realised that this meaning of criminality was in effect when you tried the damage reduction exercise of introducing moral negligence in the subsequent post.

Backpedal, backpedal...

And you blame me for failing to notice you're a Brit? :lol: You should have known this one without even having to resort to a dictionary. And if you'd just thought about it a moment you should have realized that because I was using an analogy your argument had no basis in the first place. You do know what an analogy is, right? It's using similarity in some aspects between things that are otherwise different to make a point. Whether or not you're a Brit is irrelevant to this.
More spin. My question was precise and exact. I asked you:

So you're a legal expert are you? Can you show me exactly how I would be criminally negligent? Please provide clear references to the appropriate statutes.
No "hypothetically speaking", no "what if", no "assuming I was living in America", just a clear, simple request for you to demonstrate a point of law that applied to my current situation. You failed miserably.

Oh, so I guess you're a little bit off on the claim of a death spiral. ;)
Naah. The ground's getting perilously close, eh?

But let me get the rest of your statement straight: your defense is that God lets children painfully starve to death in massive numbers...just to highlight human negligence?
If you haven't picked up my argument by now, you've not been paying the simplest of attention to what I've written. My argument is that humanity is responsible for the care of its "neighbour". Please demonstrate why this responsibility has evaporated and defaulted to God.

Oh, yeah, THAT makes GREAT sense! Since humans aren't preventing the epidemic of starvation of innocents, it's PERFECTLY OKAY for a loving God to let them suffer too! Oh, yeah, that'll show us!
Control-C, Control-V:

"Oh, yeah, THAT makes GREAT sense! Since the Great Vending Machine isn't preventing the epidemic of starvation of innocents, it's PERFECTLY OKAY for an enlightend humanity to let them suffer too!"

(P.s "epidemic" is the wrong term - it refers to contagion)

If your God exists, all evidence points to him being evil or just not caring. Of course, if he doesn't exist, then WE are the only ones to blame. All fault rests on OUR shoulders, not God's. Does that sound like I'm an apologist for the world? Or are you just wrong once again? Oh, wait...should I just declare you lose because you made the mistake of assuming I defend the practices of the modern world? :lol: Nah, don't worry, I'd never be THAT stupid.

Derek
What evidence? In every post, I have asked you for evidence, but in it's stead, you belch out emotional arguments and vague assertions that "it ain't us yoomans fault, guv". It's all well and good conceding fault as if humanity had been a bit naughty, but what doesn't get through is that there are consequences for this gross failing.

Responsibility sits with humanity. You can't shirk this off because it makes you uncomfortable.

J

[Darth Executor]

It would have made the uh, "transition" maybe a little easier to bear, or at least not so terrifying.

Not really.

"Hey Timmy, can you pass the butter..."
*slice throat*
"Chaaasgurglegurlegurgle"


It's your OT, it's your god, and BTW, it's your "10 commandments" that he gave to THOSE people that we're supposed to live by today...

Perhaps you should refrain from commenting on Christian theology?

mind you, other cultures have been able to figure those out pretty much. It's just that it's xians who keep making the claims of absolute morality.

Why blame us when we point out examples to the contrary?

I don't recall blaming you for anything, nor do I know what examples to the contrary you're talking about. You seem satisfied with saying "God killed babies" as if that's supposed to mean something to me. As an "evilutionist" I believe God had physical death in this world from the very beginning. I also don't think death is automatically bad. Since you think that Christians are bound by the ten commandments I don't really expect a complaint above fart level from you.



Just pointing out that many people, most xians, I suspect, are being converted and spoon fed the "lightweight" stuff. EDIT: I'm arguing against the type of xianity as most christians understand it. It's also why I don't listen to preachers! :teeth:

They probably are. Which is good since most people can't think through the hard parts and we wouldn't want more atheists like you or Soundsurfr running around.

Yes, those who have already chosen!

Exclusively? I'd be wary of making Jesus's choices for him.

That's the problem: If that's truly the case, that jesus just "picks" who goes in, then what really is the use of "proselytizing"? This sounds close to "calvinism".

Maybe you shouldn't post this late at night? Did you even read everything I said? It sure doesn't look like it.

And it's usually how well the characters in the parables choose to react.

Eead the parable of the talents and Luke 12:42-48


(Good ground produces bountiful harvest, the bad ground produces weeds which get burned up, the wise virgins vs. the foolish virgins, etc.)

See above.


I'd like to believe that, but as the bible says, it's only through jesus that anyone gets into heaven, while one is left wondering if a person has someone killed, just how trustworthy can they be with the eternal welfare of that person...

And one is left wondering why God cannot take the life he gave back...


Agh. It's getting late, and I can't think on this anymore!

Good. You write your most magnificent masterpieces when you're not using your brain. :rasberry:

[jpholding]

Here comes Captain Underpants
Hopping down the red herring trail... :lol:

Well of course he should do something about it right now (assuming he exists)...because half a dozen children die horribly every single MINUTE!

Then logically, so should you do something right now; otherwise, you are totally evil. You can do it. So what's the hold-up? What good does it do yesterday's or today's sufferers if you take your sweet time about preventing further tragedy? You honestly don't think that your neglect is evil?

What a hypocrite. :lol:

But instead, God provides the resources to OTHER people and gives NOTHING to those starving children.

Eg, the old "gimme on a silver platter" crybaby whinge. Precisely as I have said all along: You whine because God doesn't personally put the food in their mouths. Sorry -- for the 75637th time, it's not anyone's obligation to make up for the lazy and irresponsible. Try another complaint.

Absolutely nothing. He just watches them rot and die in excruciating pain.

And you just sit here typing stupid messages whining about it. :lmbo:

Hypocrisy...phew!

I've helped out the Peace Corps in two different countries, I contribute regularly to charities with far more money than someone who lives

Big deal. You could do more and you could do it right now.

You call me a hypocrite? Let me ask you...what do YOU do to help starving children? Anything? Anything?

I don't, no. But I'm not the one whining. Hypocrisy is someone who says one thing and does another. I'm consistent because I'm not whining about someone not doing what I could be.

Right now your life appears to be the enacted parable about four people named Somebody, Anybody, Everybody and Nobody. :bonk:

But you seem incapable of addressing the point

I not only addressed it but flattened it into a valley.

are starving to death? Yes, I know what you're going to say, that God intends the rest of us to share our resources with children. But we're not, are we?

And that's whose fault, now?

What's more, he KNEW we wouldn't even before we were born, didn't he?

So what? That doesn't shift an iota of blame to God or away from humanity, nor change who is responsible for doing the job. What a lame excuse. Try burgling a house where the locks were left undone, and then saying, "Well they KNEW there were burglars in the neighborhood, so you have to find me innocent of all charges!"

What a maroon. :lmbo:

And GOD is JUST AS GUILTY of not providing badly needed resources to starving children.

Whine it to the sky, chump. It's all you have as "argument" -- whining, kicking, fussing, screaming, and playing the hypocrite.

But the ONE individual who could actually FIX the problem with NO effort at all on his part gets a free pass from you, doesn't he?

Yep, as long as that individual is being addressed by ingrates like you in the manner being done, the pass is on the docket and you ain't got clip to say about it.

I am only familiar with the standard concept of patronage, not "ancient patronage," and I have found no references to "ancient patronage" being any different than current patronage.

Then it's time to put down the Where's Waldo books and do some serious research, sonny boy. Go ahead, tell us about the ancient concept of grace first. Show us you know something about the quid pro quo aspects.

And your response is to tell me to do my "homework." What kind of an asinine response is that? If you're not going to provide answers for honest questions asked in the course of a debate, then why are you even here?

To expose stupid people like you who think that is is "asinine" to tell stupid people like you that you need to do homework. Try that in a college course sometime. We've been dealing with idiots like you here for months who bring up the same stupid arguments again and again and again and never want to learn a jammed thing. Enough of that. Go fulfill your burden and stop whining at us with issues you create in your own ignorance.

The logical conclusion is that you don't know what "ancient patronage" means either. Perhaps you even made up the term

Pfft. :lol: You have no idea how stupid you're making yourself look on this one. I'd rather keep it up, though, and let you jam all 50 of your feet in your mouth simultaenously.


If God put all the resources we need for survival on another planet, it wouldn't do us any good whatsoever, would it?

Good thing it's all here on this planet ready to go by truck, train, foot, or galloping hippo then. All we need is for lazy people like you to spend less time complaining and more time bringing it. Is THAT so hard to understand? Or maybe you need to check your Little Golden Book of Planes and Trains to see how it's done.


In what way am I complaining?

The high density speaks for itself. :lol: The old "IF" smokescreen doesn't cut it here.



Sorry, but I have no intention of retreating.

But every intention of "repeating". :lol: That's what my last 300 opponents said before their tails went up in flames. (check mark)


Of course vehicles pollute the air. Every technological advance has its costs, but because of technology poverty as a percentage of the world's population is far lower than it was in pre-industrial times.

Sorry, I don't buy it. That's just spin-doctoring done by a selfish Westerner who wants to be able to drive his Sherman tank out to get a gallon of milk as it spews out enough poison to kill a village. You horde your wealth and don't share it besides the bare pittance you shovel out from your upturned nostrils. So don't give us that crap about how you're actually helping poor countries by having a cell phone.

Again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of economic theory.

Why don't you explain "economic theory" to those starving children you claim to feel so sorry for?

Let me guess...you blame me for nailing Christ on the cross, don't you: ;)

Nah. You don't have the competence to hold a hammer straight.


You freely call me a hypocrite, yet you obviously use computers, vehicles, etc. I guess that makes you a...oh, what's the word? I can't seem to think of it. It's on the tip of my tongue....

"Consistent" -- because I'm not the one whining here.

Oh, you fundies are too much! When the Bible states something that's an obvious mistake, you say "it's a metaphor!" And when it states something that supports your personal agenda, you say "it's literal fact!"

Oh, you fundy atheists are too much! When scholarship tells you that the people of the Bible had a dramatic orientation, and that the use of figures of speech was more common in Semitic cultures, you drool out the side of your mouth, scratch your side like an ape, and hoist out the old "bias" and "gee, that's not what Joe Christian walking down the street says". :lol:

eternal torment--Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever (a passage I noticed you conveniently left out)

No, I told you to go look the word up. Try it.


So you speak ancient Hebrew and Greek?

No, I make use of scholars who do. And they would laugh you out of the room for stupid statements like, "We don't even have a clear understanding of the contextual use of ANY ancient language" and at your childish blaming of God for your ignorance. What's wrong, Sonny? Did Sister Mary Elephant whack you with a ruler too much?

Sorry, bub, but if you say the current translations of the Bible are mistranslated, then you're admitting they're WRONG. And that means hundreds of millions of Christians hold false beliefs they take directly out of their incorrect Bibles.

The funny thing is, 1) you think that you will actually bother me if you point this out; 2) you hypocritcally think that all Christians are wrong anyway! :rofl:

If YOUR PERSONAL translations are the only ones that are true, then all those Christians are going to Hell despite all their best intentions.

They are? Where'd you get that explanation of doctrine? From Pastor Harry Hornbutt's Big Book O' Systematic Theology? :lolo:

How stupid guy. Be more stupider. And make it fast; this thread closes tomorrow which means you'll soon get your formal Screwball Award.

[jpholding]

Okay, that's the scenario. My question to you is, how would you respond to that child?

I'd stop wasting time flapping my trap and get him some food.

Dork. :lolo:

[ilkhani'tus]

It would have made the uh, "transition" maybe a little easier to bear, or at least not so terrifying.

Not really.

"Hey Timmy, can you pass the butter..."
*slice throat*
"Chaaasgurglegurlegurgle"Well, that's your god....



It's your OT, it's your god, and BTW, it's your "10 commandments" that he gave to THOSE people that we're supposed to live by today...
Perhaps you should refrain from commenting on Christian theology?No, rather I just don't believe in or bow to, your imaginary god. I will, however, point out his morally inconsistent behaviour as part of the reason why I don't think xians are right.



Quote:
mind you, other cultures have been able to figure those out pretty much. It's just that it's xians who keep making the claims of absolute morality.

Why blame us when we point out examples to the contrary?I don't recall blaming you for anything, nor do I know what examples to the contrary you're talking about.I'm talking about how xians get angry when we point out that your biblical morality has itself evolved over time due to the different circumstances that the different civilizations have found themselves in...for example in the OT it was alright for god to command the killing of babies of different tribles, yet no xian would advocate baby killing now, even though you worship the same "god".

You seem satisfied with saying "God killed babies" as if that's supposed to mean something to me. As an "evilutionist" I believe God had physical death in this world from the very beginning.There's a difference between "letting one's clock run out" and smashing the clock before it's worn out naturally.

I also don't think death is automatically bad. Since you think that Christians are bound by the ten commandments I don't really expect a complaint above fart level from you.





They probably are. Which is good since most people can't think through the hard parts and we wouldn't want more atheists like you or Soundsurfr running around.Yeah, people who give a bleep about human life, unlike you who seems to think that god killing people is ok since they'll have "eternal life" in heaven.

Guess what other religous group thinks like that? Hint: They're not good at landing airplanes. Oh yeah, we need more people who think like that.



Exclusively? I'd be wary of making Jesus's choices for him.Hey, I'm justs going by what he said. You're the one interpreting his statments to mean that he picks and chooses who goes to heaven like those kids; I'm just going by the more plain reading of the text, as well as the interpretation of it that I've always heard from apologists; namely that one has to actively "accept" christ to get to heaven.



Maybe you shouldn't post this late at night? Did you even read everything I said? It sure doesn't look like it.Yep, I've read and understood it all. I've even analyzed some more of your stuff just above.



Eead the parable of the talents and Luke 12:42-48Except both parables deal with people who have either chosen to work for christ, or those who have actively decided to be "lazy servants". Same thing with the talents. Babies never get a chance to use their "talents", now, do they?

But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; he gets tossed, naturally.

I'm not talking about people who choose to do one thing or the other; I'm talking about those who never got a chance to "choose" in the first place. Maybe you're the one who shouldn't post late at night?






And one is left wondering why God cannot take the life he gave back...Do parents have the right to kill their kids? This whole problem arose because xians are tyring to adapt an ancient ME barbaric diety into something that's supposed to the the paragon of virtue; so when circumstances arose in the ancient world that required the people to act harshly they used their god to justify it.

In our culture where such measures haven't been necessary for a long time we have developed both laws and morals that contradict those kinds of actions (killing babies, slavery, etc). Only thing is, xians still worship that same god so they have to rationalize away the different standards of behaviour.




Good. You write your most magnificent masterpieces when you're not using your brain. :rasberry:A situation that you're intimately familiar with.

[ilkhani'tus]

I'd stop wasting time flapping my trap and get him some food.

Dork. :lolo:What makes you think that he wouldn't do both?

[Darth Executor]

No, rather I just don't believe in or bow to, your imaginary god. I will, however, point out his morally inconsistent behaviour as part of the reason why I don't think xians are right.

I'm not sure that you have pointed out exactly how he is morally inconsistent...

I'm talking about how xians get angry when we point out that your biblical morality has itself evolved over time due to the different circumstances that the different civilizations have found themselves in...for example in the OT it was alright for god to command the killing of babies of different tribles, yet no xian would advocate baby killing now, even though you worship the same "god".

Sorry, I don't see any "evolution of morality". Murder was wrong back then and it's murder now. The only babies that died then were the ones who died because God willed it. I don't recall that changing. This is nothing more than a manifestation of your incompetence when it comes to understanding the bible.

There's a difference between "letting one's clock run out" and smashing the clock before it's worn out naturally.

And who made it wear out naturally genius? Santa Clause? God smashes everybody's clock.

Yeah, people who give a bleep about human life, unlike you who seems to think that god killing people is ok since they'll have "eternal life" in heaven.

Yes. Feel free to point out the inconsistency in that. Or is this another emotional appeal?

Guess what other religous group thinks like that? Hint: They're not good atlanding airplanes. Oh yeah, we need more people who think like that.

Muslim terrorists think their victims go to heaven? Gee Ace, you're a wealth of information.



Hey, I'm justs going by what he said. You're the one interpreting his statments to mean that he picks and chooses who goes to heaven like those kids; I'm just going by the more plain reading of the text,

Both readings are plain as day. Mine however is formed from reading more than one verse.

as well as the interpretation of it that I've always heard from apologists; namely that one has to actively "accept" christ to get to heaven.

What part of "I'm not apologists" is so hard to get?


Yep, I've read and understood it all. I've even analyzed some more of your stuff just above.

Then I assume you'll say something smart for once in the rest of your post.

Except both parables deal with people who have either chosen to work for christ, or those who have actively decided to be "lazy servants". Same thing with the talents. Babies never get a chance to use their "talents", now, do they?

:argh:

Look at the meaning behind the words. The slaves are punished or rewarded based on what they were given. If the babies never had anything to begin with, why would God punish them? They are sinless. They did not transgress God's law.

I'm not talking about people who choose to do one thing or the other; I'm talking about those who never got a chance to "choose" in the first place. Maybe you're the one who shouldn't post late at night?

Maybe you should think things through before posting?


Do parents have the right to kill their kids?

What a broad, worthless question lacking any context whatsoever.

This whole problem arose because xians are tyring to adapt an ancient ME barbaric diety into something that's supposed to the the paragon of virtue; so when circumstances arose in the ancient world that required the people to act harshly they used their god to justify it.

Well, I never got my virtue from my diet. All I get from those are calories.

In our culture where such measures haven't been necessary for a long time we have developed both laws and morals that contradict those kinds of actions (killing babies, slavery, etc). Only thing is, xians still worship that same god so they have to rationalize away the different standards of behaviour.

Rationalize? Oh no, big bad modern day morality is coming to get me. Our scum of a society murders unborn children out of convenience and expects us to be threatened by its sky high moral standard? :lol: Spare me.


A situation that you're intimately familiar with.

Yeah, I've been hanging around you quite a bit lately.

[jpholding]

What makes you think that he wouldn't do both?

Well I guess we could make lip meatloaf and spittle bread, along with a nice braised tongue. :tongue:

[ilkhani'tus]

I'm not sure that you have pointed out exactly how he is morally inconsistent...God knows I've been trying...



Sorry, I don't see any "evolution of morality". Murder was wrong back then and it's murder now. The only babies that died then were the ones who died because God willed it.In other words, it wasn't always wrong for them to kill babies then, was it? As I said: evolving morality. All you've done is change the meaning of "murder" to: the killing of someone god doesn't want to have killed.

Why did this happen? Lack of resources back then and there. The isrealites were not the only people to do that. They just used their religion to justify it, and apologists use that "resource reason" to justify what "god" ordered done.

In more recent times, we developed the resources to to take care of them, so we no longer had that reason to kill them, so killing children became unacceptable and illegal (we have to get our next generation from somewhere after all).

I don't recall that changing. This is nothing more than a manifestation of your incompetence when it comes to understanding the bible.More like your stubborness to see something that's right in front of your face.



And who made it wear out naturally genius? Santa Clause? God smashes everybody's clock.You can't tell the different between senescence and the sudden killing of a heatly person who could otherwise keep on living??



Yes. Feel free to point out the inconsistency in that. Or is this another emotional appeal?No less an emotional appeal when you whine about all the abortions that happen in our society...Funny, isn't it, how when god does it you defend him, but when we do it, you get a bug up your rear!




Muslim terrorists think their victims go to heaven? Gee Ace, you're a wealth of information.No, they think that THEY go to heaven. I'm referring to the fact that they believe in an eternal afterlife like you. I assumed that you were smart enough to understand what I was talking about...

Mind you, you DO believe that the babies that god killed in the OT also go to heaven, right?



Both readings are plain as day. Mine however is formed from reading more than one verse.So's mine. I just put less spin on them.



What part of "I'm not apologists" is so hard to get?None. You seem out of touch with at least some of the things they say, no big loss.




Then I assume you'll say something smart for once in the rest of your post.That's an assumption I've learned to never make when I read your posts.


Look at the meaning behind the words. The slaves are punished or rewarded based on what they were given. If the babies never had anything to begin with, why would God punish them? They are sinless. They did not transgress God's law.I HAVE looked at the meanings behind the words...all those people had choices on what to do with what they had. Babies never even had that. They don't even enter into the equation. Yours so far, is a unique interpretation of those parables.



Maybe you should think things through before posting?Try that advice yourself.




What a broad, worthless question lacking any context whatsoever.



Well, I never got my virtue from my diet. All I get from those are calories.



Rationalize? Oh no, big bad modern day morality is coming to get me. Our scum of a society murders unborn children out of convenience and expects us to be threatened by its sky high moral standard? :lol: Spare me.See? You whine about abortion (justly so, in my opinion) but when god had it done you support the action.

Why? According to you and JPH, it's about 'context'. There wasn't enough food and resources to support the extra people so it was better to just kill the amalekite kids off.

In our society we can at least theoretically, take care of more kids, so we don't kill them off for that purpose, and indeed, it's not only frowned upon, but is once they're out of the womb and are unarguably babies, illegal.

So, what caused the difference in moral views? Evolving circumstances led to evolving rules of behaviour.


Yeah, I've been hanging around you quite a bit lately.Maybe you'll pick up some bigger words than "doo doo" then!

[Darth Executor]

In other words, it wasn't always wrong for them to kill babies then, was it? As I said: evolving morality. All you've done is change the meaning of "murder" to: the killing of someone god doesn't want to have killed.

That's what murder means to me. :duh:

Why did this happen? Lack of resources back then and there. The isrealites were not the only people to do that. They just used their religion to justify it, and apologists use that "resource reason" to justify what "god" ordered done.

Why did they need to justify killing their enemies' children? Maybe they would felt guilty about it as a result of introspection? :lol:

In more recent times, we developed the resources to to take care of them, so we no longer had that reason to kill them, so killing children became unacceptable and illegal (we have to get our next generation from somewhere after all).

What kind of stupidity is this? The Israelis didn't kill their own children (renering your getting our next generation comment dead stupid) and our armies still kill enemy children. Do you think they calibrate bombs to only kill people over a certain age? Attitudes today have changed and people no longer fight to the death and live their family to the wolves anymore.

More like your stubborness to see something that's right in front of your face.

Ahh yes, it's plainly and clearly bla bla bla.

You can't tell the different between senescence and the sudden killing of a heatly person who could otherwise keep on living??

Did you read what I said?

No less an emotional appeal when you whine about all the abortions that happen in our society...Funny, isn't it, how when god does it you defend him, but when we do it, you get a bug up your rear!

Do you provide an afterlife for the children you kill? Do you give the children you kill lives? Haven't we been through this already? Haven't I slit your throat, buried your corpse, laughed at your funeral and turned your grave into a public toilet already? Give it a rest, I'm getting bored with having to answer huge posts full of the same regurgitated bile.

No, they think that THEY go to heaven. I'm referring to the fact that they believe in an eternal afterlife like you. I assumed that you were smart enough to understand what I was talking about...

So you admit that you were simply poisoning the well? :thumb:

Mind you, you DO believe that the babies that god killed in the OT also go to heaven, right?

Yes.


So's mine. I just put less spin on them.

No, you quoted one verse. I told you to read a couple of parables that put things into perspective.


None. You seem out of touch with at least some of the things they say, no big loss.

Good.


That's an assumption I've learned to never make when I read your posts.

Of course. You need to translate my posts to stupidese before you can read them. :lol:


I HAVE looked at the meanings behind the words...all those people had choices on what to do with what they had. Babies never even had that. They don't even enter into the equation. Yours so far, is a unique interpretation of those parables.

Really? I've run into it on several apologetics sites in my past. Maybe if you stopped reading AiG you'd learn more.



Try that advice yourself.

I know you are but what am I? Are you in kindergarten?

See? You whine about abortion (justly so, in my opinion) but when god had it done you support the action.

I don't "whine" about abortion, I explain why I believe it is wrong. You did not explain why God was wrong, you just whined and left it at that.

Why? According to you and JPH, it's about 'context'. There wasn't enough food and resources to support the extra people so it was better to just kill the amalekite kids off.

In our society we can at least theoretically, take care of more kids, so we don't kill them off for that purpose, and indeed, it's not only frowned upon, but is once they're out of the womb and are unarguably babies, illegal.

Apples and oranges. You're talking about what we do with our own population's children while the Israelites killed the ENEMY's children.

So, what caused the difference in moral views? Evolving circumstances led to evolving rules of behaviour.

Given that you can't even figure out that the moral dilemmas are different I don't see why I should trust you on this.


Maybe you'll pick up some bigger words than "doo doo" then!

Yeah, I can pick up big tear inducing words like "genocide".

[ilkhani'tus]

Quote: Originally posted by ilkhani'tus
In other words, it wasn't always wrong for them to kill babies then, was it? As I said: evolving morality. All you've done is change the meaning of "murder" to: the killing of someone god doesn't want to have killed.


That's what murder means to me.So when god commands that a baby be killed, it's NOT murder? I hope you never get voices in your head later on then...that's the problem with massaging definitions like that. See Susan Smith.



Quote:
Why did this happen? Lack of resources back then and there. The isrealites were not the only people to do that. They just used their religion to justify it, and apologists use that "resource reason" to justify what "god" ordered done.


Why did they need to justify killing their enemies' children? Maybe they would felt guilty about it as a result of introspection? Could be, it at least shows that they felt that it may have been a bad thing to do, even if it was "necessary" in their minds.



Quote:
In more recent times, we developed the resources to to take care of them, so we no longer had that reason to kill them, so killing children became unacceptable and illegal (we have to get our next generation from somewhere after all).


What kind of stupidity is this? The Israelis didn't kill their own children (renering your getting our next generation comment dead stupid)It's the typical Darth Executor-Screwing-Up-Other-Person's-Meaning type of stupidty...I'm talking about our society, as indicated by the phrase "recent times" and "we developed the resources"

and our armies still kill enemy children. Do you think they calibrate bombs to only kill people over a certain age?And your stupidity continues..when they drop bombs on their targets they are not actively targeting children.

Maybe an analogy will help get this into your head: If they targeted NURSERIES, knowing that the buildings were just nurseries THEN it would be equivalent to them running kids through with swords as the OT had it portrayed.

Attitudes today have changed and people no longer fight to the death and live their family to the wolves anymore.Good.



Quote:
More like your stubborness to see something that's right in front of your face.


Ahh yes, it's plainly and clearly bla bla bla.Done analyzing your posts yet?



Quote:
You can't tell the different between senescence and the sudden killing of a heatly person who could otherwise keep on living??


Did you read what I said?Yes, did you understand what I said?



Quote:
No less an emotional appeal when you whine about all the abortions that happen in our society...Funny, isn't it, how when god does it you defend him, but when we do it, you get a bug up your rear!


Do you provide an afterlife for the children you kill? Do you give the children you kill lives? Haven't we been through this already? Haven't I slit your throat, buried your corpse, laughed at your funeral and turned your grave into a public toilet already? Give it a rest, I'm getting bored with having to answer huge posts full of the same regurgitated bile.That nonsense about "eternal life" was already dealt with....how can it possibly make any moral diffrence? If someone beats you up and robs you, then gives you more money later on the cops would still have to arrest him.

Besides, if god has someone killed, that's a pretty good indicator that he may not necessarily have their best interests at heart!



Quote:
No, they think that THEY go to heaven. I'm referring to the fact that they believe in an eternal afterlife like you. I assumed that you were smart enough to understand what I was talking about...


So you admit that you were simply poisoning the well?No such thing...I'm simply pointing out that those people have a similar line of thinking that you do.

I guess you're not smart enough to understand what I was talking about.



Quote:
Mind you, you DO believe that the babies that god killed in the OT also go to heaven, right?


Yes.So why sqwack when an abortion doctor does it?




Quote:
So's mine. I just put less spin on them.


No, you quoted one verse. I told you to read a couple of parables that put things into perspective.I read more than one parable...are you that stupid as to think that just because I only quoted on verse, (and talked about some other parables <~~something you didn't mention in your reply) that I only read just the one parable?




Quote:
None. You seem out of touch with at least some of the things they say, no big loss.


Good.Amen, we don't need any more like you running around




Quote:
That's an assumption I've learned to never make when I read your posts.


Of course. You need to translate my posts to stupidese before you can read them.All part of trying to understand how you think. Fortunately it's not hard to put your ideas back into english before I compose a reply.




Quote:
I HAVE looked at the meanings behind the words...all those people had choices on what to do with what they had. Babies never even had that. They don't even enter into the equation. Yours so far, is a unique interpretation of those parables.


Really? I've run into it on several apologetics sites in my past. Maybe if you stopped reading AiG you'd learn more.I have, a long time ago. Thing is, no one seems to really have anything than their own interpretation, as opposed to actual verses that has god/jesus saying that babies go to heaven.





Quote:
Try that advice yourself.


I know you are but what am I? Are you in kindergarten?If THIS was kindergaten it would explain much of your behavour.



Quote:
See? You whine about abortion (justly so, in my opinion) but when god had it done you support the action.


I don't "whine" about abortion, I explain why I believe it is wrong. You did not explain why God was wrong, you just whined and left it at that.No, you did not really explain why you believe it is wrong. You just said that it's wrong because "god" said it is...then you offered nothing but guess work as to why "god" himself would find it 'wrong" in the first place, and then said that you'd find out when you die.

At least when I oppose abortion it's for a good reason: the continuation of the human race...that, and there are couples out there who'd like to have children but can't.

Then, there is the (in your mind) "arbitrary" golden rule.



Quote:
Why? According to you and JPH, it's about 'context'. There wasn't enough food and resources to support the extra people so it was better to just kill the amalekite kids off.

In our society we can at least theoretically, take care of more kids, so we don't kill them off for that purpose, and indeed, it's not only frowned upon, but is once they're out of the womb and are unarguably babies, illegal.


Apples and oranges. You're talking about what we do with our own population's children while the Israelites killed the ENEMY's children.Ah, so because those children were born to the wrong people they deserved to die?

As a side point: after WWII we helped rebuild Europe, we didn't go in and kill off everyone left in there.



Quote:
So, what caused the difference in moral views? Evolving circumstances led to evolving rules of behaviour.


Given that you can't even figure out that the moral dilemmas are different I don't see why I should trust you on this.I do know that the moral dilemmas are different, that's what brought up this "evolving circumstances" in the first place.




Quote:
Maybe you'll pick up some bigger words than "doo doo" then!


Yeah, I can pick up big tear inducing words like "genocide".You are an idiot..."geneocide" is a colder and less tear-jerking than an actual description of the actions done would have been. Which is less emotional? The word "abortion" of the description of the process?

I'll let you figure that out.


EDIT: Even if "Genocide" isn't technically the right word, we all know what was done!
==================================================


On the lighter side of things, JP: The ferret is doing fine. She's chased off every salesman who's come to my door. Well, if you can call hanging by your teeth from the seat of their pants while they run off "chasing"!

[Darth Executor]

So when god commands that a baby be killed, it's NOT murder? I hope you never get voices in your head later on then...that's the problem with massaging definitions like that. See Susan Smith.

You seem to have an awful problem figuring out that God isn't man and judging the creator and ruler of the universe as such always produces a belly laugh before I force myself to respond to your idiotic posts.


Could be,

No moron, it couldn't be.

it at least shows that they felt that it may have been a bad thing to do, even if it was "necessary" in their minds.

Which assumes that atheism is correct. If they were right you'll be blown to kingdom come.


It's the typical Darth Executor-Screwing-Up-Other-Person's-Meaning type of stupidty...I'm talking about our society, as indicated by the phrase "recent times" and "we developed the resources"

Screw up? You're the one hurling gigantic red herring/elephant mutant hybrids. You're too stupid to even keep track of a simple conversation. :lol:

And your stupidity continues..when they drop bombs on their targets they are not actively targeting children.

You said killing children is "unnacceptable" and "illegal". Aparently it isn't because we're doing it. Moron.

Maybe an analogy will help get this into your head: If they targeted NURSERIES, knowing that the buildings were just nurseries THEN it would be equivalent to them running kids through with swords as the OT had it portrayed.

Who said anything about the OT? I commented on your stupid comment and now you're trying to shift attention to the bible.

Yes, did you understand what I said?

Yes. I said God is responsible for all death. You said that in one case they die on their own while in the other god kills them which proves you didn't read what you said. Idiot.


That nonsense about "eternal life" was already dealt with....how can it possibly make any moral diffrence? If someone beats you up and robs you, then gives you more money later on the cops would still have to arrest him.


Not if I refuse to press charges. And I'd love to see the cops try to arrest God. In fact, I'd love to know whose judgement is above God's. :lol:

Besides, if god has someone killed, that's a pretty good indicator that he may not necessarily have their best interests at heart!

If God has somebody killed and they go to heaven instead of going through a miserable life he doesn't have their best interests at heart? Why? Because ATHEISTS see death as the end? :lol: Your thoughts are a mess.


No such thing...I'm simply pointing out that those people have a similar line of thinking that you do.

In other words you're poisoning the well.

I guess you're not smart enough to understand what I was talking about.

Yeah, I am. You were poisoning the well. "Hey look, terrorits believe in an afterlife too". Guess what moron, so does Mother Theresa. Maybe you'd like to grab a paint can and spray "terrorist" on her grave.


So why sqwack when an abortion doctor does it?

An abortion doctor did not give the fetus life and an abortion doctor does not provide for the child's afterlife.

I read more than one parable...are you that stupid as to think that just because I only quoted on verse, (and talked about some other parables <~~something you didn't mention in your reply) that I only read just the one parable?

So you're a pure bred LIAR now? Where did I say you only read one parable? The parables you quoted in your reply were the ones I asked you to read and their point flew over your head and landed on the moon.


All part of trying to understand how you think. Fortunately it's not hard to put your ideas back into english before I compose a reply.

Your translator seems to be malfunctioning because your replies have "stupid" all over them.


I have, a long time ago. Thing is, no one seems to really have anything than their own interpretation, as opposed to actual verses that has god/jesus saying that babies go to heaven.

Oh my you need a specific verse that says babies go to heaven because the little illithid is too stupid to figure out anything on its own. Would you like daddy to give you your milk bottle now?

If THIS was kindergaten it would explain much of your behavour.

My insults are top notch comedy. Your pathetic replies on the other hand...

No, you did not really explain why you believe it is wrong. You just said that it's wrong because "god" said it is...

What more needs to be said? God's world, God's rules.

then you offered nothing but guess work as to why "god" himself would find it 'wrong" in the first place,

What difference does it make?

and then said that you'd find out when you die.

Your point being what? I don't need to know why it's wrong to know it is wrong simply because the universe's creator would know what is and isn't wrong in his own universe.

At least when I oppose abortion it's for a good reason: the continuation of the human race...

We have abortions now and the US population is still growing. Even if it wasn't the case, you'd have to explain why the continuation of the human race matters.

that, and there are couples out there who'd like to have children but can't.

There are many children they can adopt. Even if it wasn't the case you'd have to explain why it matters? Do you feel SORRY for them? As in, an emotional response?

Then, there is the (in your mind) "arbitrary" golden rule.

It's only arbitrary if it's man made.


Ah, so because those children were born to the wrong people they deserved to die?

You have the attention span of a Fox News reporter.

1.I never said they "deserve" to die. That's lie number 2 in this post already.
2. Your comparison is idiotic and you failed to deal with that.

As a side point: after WWII we helped rebuild Europe, we didn't go in and kill off everyone left in there.

Germany was ruled by a dictator and Germany surrendered.

I do know that the moral dilemmas are different, that's what brought up this "evolving circumstances" in the first place.

If the dilemmas are different then you can't point out any "evolution" because it's not the same thing and wouldn't have been back then either. :duh:


You are an idiot..."geneocide" is a colder and less tear-jerking than an actual description of the actions done would have been.

War casualties is the word you're looking for.

Which is less emotional? The word "abortion" of the description of the process?

To me? Neither.

EDIT: Even if "Genocide" isn't technically the right word, we all know what was done!

Euthanasia? Who cares. I'll be gone for a week and don't feel like going through the jibberish you posted in Pol Sci so don't be surprised if I don't respond.

On the lighter side of things, JP: The ferret is doing fine. She's chased off every salesman who's come to my door. Well, if you can call hanging by your teeth from the seat of their pants while they run off "chasing"!

You might want to put that in a separate post, I doubt JP reads all these huge posts.

[ilkhani'tus]

You seem to have an awful problem figuring out that God isn't man and judging the creator and ruler of the universe as such always produces a belly laugh before I force myself to respond to your idiotic posts.No, I know that...I'm just interested in which rules he's supposed to be following. After all, xians keep saying "god is good" so that's judgement right there.




No moron, it couldn't be.



Which assumes that atheism is correct. If they were right you'll be blown to kingdom come.




Screw up? You're the one hurling gigantic red herring/elephant mutant hybrids. You're too stupid to even keep track of a simple conversation. :lol:I've had to correct you numerous times already. If you're that stupid, so be it.



You said killing children is "unnacceptable" and "illegal". Aparently it isn't because we're doing it. Moron.Something else that you're too stupid to understand, is that the abortion people for whatever reason don't consider the fetus to be a real "baby". In order for your observation to work, you'd have to find a society that advocates killing off of healthy babies who are already born.



Who said anything about the OT? I commented on your stupid comment and now you're trying to shift attention to the bible.It's the bible that has the examples of god's killing off of kids.



Yes. I said God is responsible for all death. You said that in one case they die on their own while in the other god kills them which proves you didn't read what you said. Idiot.You don't know the difference between allowing one to die, and actively killing someone, do you? Remember the Terry Shiavolo case?


Not if I refuse to press charges. And I'd love to see the cops try to arrest God. In fact, I'd love to know whose judgement is above God's. :lol:Spoken like a true "sheeple".



If God has somebody killed and they go to heaven instead of going through a miserable life he doesn't have their best interests at heart? Why? Because ATHEISTS see death as the end? :lol: Your thoughts are a mess.What biblical verse can you find that says that those kids so-killed actually go to heaven?




In other words you're poisoning the well.No, just pointing out how you're acting. If anyone's poisoning anything, it's you with your constant kindergarten name-calling.



Yeah, I am. You were poisoning the well. "Hey look, terrorits believe in an afterlife too". Guess what moron, so does Mother Theresa. Maybe you'd like to grab a paint can and spray "terrorist" on her grave.It's more than that...you and the terrorists both believe that it's OK for someone to get whacked and go to heaven than it is to be left alive on earth.



An abortion doctor did not give the fetus life and an abortion doctor does not provide for the child's afterlife.Assuming that god lets them into heaven in the first place...BTW, what about doctors who do abortions to save the woman's life?



So you're a pure bred LIAR now? Where did I say you only read one parable? The parables you quoted in your reply were the ones I asked you to read and their point flew over your head and landed on the moon.It's implied here in your last post:
No, you quoted one verse. I told you to read a couple of parables that put things into perspective.

and pretty much stated right here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1284332&postcount=202)

Both readings are plain as day. Mine however is formed from reading more than one verse.Who's the liar now?


If you didn't think that I only read one parable then why did you make the point above about "telling me to read a couple of parables".

No, the point was caught perfectly. You're just having a hissy fit because your interpretation of them may not be the only one.




Your translator seems to be malfunctioning because your replies have "stupid" all over them.Well, I am quoting you in most of my replies, so it's to be expected.




Oh my you need a specific verse that says babies go to heaven because the little illithid is too stupid to figure out anything on its own. Would you like daddy to give you your milk bottle now?If that's your attitude than why do xians even NEED a bible at all? What's the bible FOR if not to give them some instruction. Sheesh. I doubt that ONE extra verse asked for means that I'm "too stupid to figure anything on my own".

All I'm aksing is for you to BACK UP YOUR ASSERTIONS! If that's too much to ask of you just say so.


My insults are top notch comedy. Your pathetic replies on the other hand...Yeah, your replies are a bloody joke.



What more needs to be said? God's world, God's rules.Fine, but how can xians judge god to be "good" then if we can't judge him at all?



What difference does it make?



Your point being what? I don't need to know why it's wrong to know it is wrong simply because the universe's creator would know what is and isn't wrong in his own universe.So now you refuse to give a logical reason why killing babies is wrong other than the child-like "god said so" argument. And you hypocritically demand that I give a "logical reason"? I at least did.



We have abortions now and the US population is still growing. Even if it wasn't the case, you'd have to explain why the continuation of the human race matters.If you don't think that the human race matters than why are you so interested in "solving" our problems?

Easy. I'm human. What else needs more to be said? Of course as usual, you'll just yell "emotional response" or some such crap while giving no justification for your "morals" other than "god said so" and having NO understand as to why "god said so".

At least atheists TRY to find reasons for such things.



There are many children they can adopt. Even if it wasn't the case you'd have to explain why it matters? Do you feel SORRY for them? As in, an emotional response?Gee, BIG SURPRISE. Partially emotional, partially a realization of the potential mindset that abortionists have that if carried too far would have the potential to mess humanity up over the long term.

What do you call your outrage over abortions, then, hypcorite?



It's only arbitrary if it's man made.What makes you think that?

Besides, I was referring to your decision to choose to worship this "god" and accept his rules as opposed to any other "god" out there.

But, if you want to roll along with your idea: so it wasn't arbitrary then for "god" to choose the jews as his "chosen people"? It wasn't arbitrary when god said that "jacob I have loved, esau I have hated"?




You have the attention span of a Fox News reporter.

1.I never said they "deserve" to die. That's lie number 2 in this post already.Yeah, yours. You had implied that in the other thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1284433&postcount=47):
And I pointed out that the arbitrary limits you set make no sense. Give me an objective definition of "providing enough". Then tell me why He only has to provide enough so that the wiping out of entire nations of people (by the way moron, they were wiped out because they were evil, not because they didn't have enough food)? Why stop there? Because some nameless mind flayer is emotionally satisfied?So unless god figured that those kids were evil, we're stuck with the idea of a "just" god having a bunch of innocent kids intentionallly whacked just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.


2. Your comparison is idiotic and you failed to deal with that.Beleive what you want...



Germany was ruled by a dictator and Germany surrendered.And NO lives were lost, right



If the dilemmas are different then you can't point out any "evolution" because it's not the same thing and wouldn't have been back then either. :duh:The different dilemmas came about because of the changes in society's ability to take care for itself led to them being able to make moral choices based on different circumstances.



War casualties is the word you're looking for.Good, deliberate of accidental?



To me? Neither.



Euthanasia? Who cares. I'll be gone for a week and don't feel like going through the jibberish you posted in Pol Sci so don't be surprised if I don't respond.[/quote]I'll mourn the loss of your valuable input.



You might want to put that in a separate post, I doubt JP reads all these huge posts.

[jpholding]

On the lighter side of things, JP: The ferret is doing fine. She's chased off every salesman who's come to my door. Well, if you can call hanging by your teeth from the seat of their pants while they run off "chasing"!

DE's right, but I happened to see my initials.

I suppose I ought to draw up a new ferret superheroine to help Sheila take care of those Sk'lan bad guys, eh? :teeth: Since I now have a scanner I'll have it here tomorrow.

[OU812]

No, I know that...I'm just interested in which rules he's supposed to be following. After all, xians keep saying "god is good" so that's judgement right there.



I've had to correct you numerous times already. If you're that stupid, so be it.



Something else that you're too stupid to understand, is that the abortion people for whatever reason don't consider the fetus to be a real "baby". In order for your observation to work, you'd have to find a society that advocates killing off of healthy babies who are already born.



It's the bible that has the examples of god's killing off of kids.



You don't know the difference between allowing one to die, and actively killing someone, do you? Remember the Terry Shiavolo case?


Spoken like a true "sheeple".



What biblical verse can you find that says that those kids so-killed actually go to heaven?




No, just pointing out how you're acting. If anyone's poisoning anything, it's you with your constant kindergarten name-calling.



It's more than that...you and the terrorists both believe that it's OK for someone to get whacked and go to heaven than it is to be left alive on earth.



Assuming that god lets them into heaven in the first place...BTW, what about doctors who do abortions to save the woman's life?



It's implied here in your last post:


and pretty much stated right here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1284332&postcount=202)
Who's the liar now?


If you didn't think that I only read one parable then why did you make the point above about "telling me to read a couple of parables".

No, the point was caught perfectly. You're just having a hissy fit because your interpretation of them may not be the only one.




Well, I am quoting you in most of my replies, so it's to be expected.




If that's your attitude than why do xians even NEED a bible at all? What's the bible FOR if not to give them some instruction. Sheesh. I doubt that ONE extra verse asked for means that I'm "too stupid to figure anything on my own".

All I'm aksing is for you to BACK UP YOUR ASSERTIONS! If that's too much to ask of you just say so.


Yeah, your replies are a bloody joke.



Fine, but how can xians judge god to be "good" then if we can't judge him at all?



So now you refuse to give a logical reason why killing babies is wrong other than the child-like "god said so" argument. And you hypocritically demand that I give a "logical reason"? I at least did.



If you don't think that the human race matters than why are you so interested in "solving" our problems?

Easy. I'm human. What else needs more to be said? Of course as usual, you'll just yell "emotional response" or some such crap while giving no justification for your "morals" other than "god said so" and having NO understand as to why "god said so".

At least atheists TRY to find reasons for such things.



Gee, BIG SURPRISE. Partially emotional, partially a realization of the potential mindset that abortionists have that if carried too far would have the potential to mess humanity up over the long term.

What do you call your outrage over abortions, then, hypcorite?



What makes you think that?

Besides, I was referring to your decision to choose to worship this "god" and accept his rules as opposed to any other "god" out there.

But, if you want to roll along with your idea: so it wasn't arbitrary then for "god" to choose the jews as his "chosen people"? It wasn't arbitrary when god said that "jacob I have loved, esau I have hated"?




Yeah, yours. You had implied that in the other thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1284433&postcount=47):
So unless god figured that those kids were evil, we're stuck with the idea of a "just" god having a bunch of innocent kids intentionallly whacked just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.


Beleive what you want...



And NO lives were lost, right



The different dilemmas came about because of the changes in society's ability to take care for itself led to them being able to make moral choices based on different circumstances.



Good, deliberate of accidental?



To me? Neither.



Euthanasia? Who cares. I'll be gone for a week and don't feel like going through the jibberish you posted in Pol Sci so don't be surprised if I don't respond.I'll mourn the loss of your valuable input.[/QUOTE]
It's more than that...you and the terrorists both believe that it's OK for someone to get whacked and go to heaven than it is to be left alive on earth.

The terrorists may believe that about themselves - going to heaven - but definitely not about their 'targets'. In fact, they believe that their targets are going to hell......

[Underlings]

...someone who doesn't equate SHOUTING with QUALITY of ARGUMENT. I have tried to push you down the route of providing substance to your accusation but you persist in using appeals to emotion rather than FACT.

If you need evidence to know that letting children starve to death is morally repugnant, then your moral compass is off. But you can easily provide that evidence for yourself: ask the next 20 people you meet if it is morally reprehensible to sit back and watch children starve to death, regardless of who you happen to be. Unless they're fundies like yourself, I'll bet they all say it is morally reprehensible. Additionally, virtually every civilized society has laws against such behavior. Do you need further evidence? Would you need further evidence that murder, rape and theft are bad too? Yes, I'm making a HUGE assumption that you agree that they are evil, but with most people it's a safe assumption that they understand the reasons why they are considered evil behaviors.

...which you have not proven and chosen not to attempt to prove...

Look, it's simple: if God believes we should worship him then he should behave in accordance to a morality that is GOOD for humanity. Unless you can come up with some reasonable rationale for allowing all those children to starve to death, then why should anyone regard God as anything but an evil creature? We certainly wouldn't think highly of any human who behaved so callously, so why should we think of God any differently? Just because he's supposedly powerful? Just because he supposedly provides us with resources? How would that make God any different than the sadistic bully in the playground, or than the abusive father?

God WANTS something from us; we don't want anything from him. Therefore HE needs to prove himself worthy of that which he wants from us. Does that not make perfect sense to you?

I don't presume, I assert the fact that your argument is utterly insubstantial. Welcome to the world of logical fallacies.

Well, obviously you don't even know the definition of a logical fallacy. Please explain where I EVEN ONCE made a single logical fallacy.

Non answer number two. You have no appreciation of scope of application at all. Please demonstrate how a deity is subject to a law targeted at humans.

Who said ANYTHING about a deity being subject to human laws? Don't be absurd. He IS, however, subject to human regard concerning moral behavior. I don't care who the person or thing may be, if he slaughters innocents without an obvious, clear, necessary reason, he is a murderer and should be regarded as such.

Within the next 20 years (perhaps as few as 14 years) we will almost certainly create true artificial intelligence, as fully capable (and soon thereafter far more capable) as the human brain. When we create such an intelligence, it will be regarded as a thinking, feeling, sentient being. Destroying it would become tantamount to murder, and the destroyer would be considered a murderer.

Similarly, God supposedly created humanity. His treatment of humans has been terrible. He has murdered humans, deceived them, condoned rape and slavery, abused children...in other words, he has behaved like a bully in a playground writ large. His status as "deity" should no more exempt him from being regarded as a murderer than would a human who killed an artificial intelligence.

Asked and anwered.

Actually, no you haven't. I ask again: What specific behaviors would God have to be guilty of for you to consider him evil?

Nice try, but you still swung out. Fundamentalism has a very specific meaning within recent Christian history, but it has been co-opted by idiots such as yourself looking for a bludgeon.

Surely you are not that foolish. Fundamentalism has two meanings, of course. The one you refer to is the second one, spelled with a capital F. But "fundies" definitely refers to the first definition: "A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism." That's certainly what I mean and oppose.

Most Christians are peaceful, non-fundamentalists. The same is true for Muslims. But just as some fundamentalist Muslims advocate terrorism, so do fundamentalist Christians. Fanaticism breeds terror, because by definition they do not respect the rights of others as being equal.

Ah, a breakthrough. Please demonstrate why humanity is indemnified against the consequence of shirking responsibility.

A breakthrough. :lol: I told you this time and time again. Go back and read my posts if you don't believe me. Sheesh.

And whether or not humanity should suffer for shirking responsibility is BESIDE THE POINT. Because it's not about us...it's about the starving children. Can't you grasp that point? If WE'RE at fault, WE should be punished (assuming God has a right to do so, of course), but why should the CHILDREN be punished for something THEY didn't do? God letting the children starve punishes no one EXCEPT the children. Do you really have that much trouble grasping this basic concept?

Prove it.

Easy: While evil is a subjective term, virtually everyone in civilized society regards murder, rape, child abuse, etc. as evil. Those who commit such behavior are thus regarded as evil (and if you don't regard such behavior as evil, then once again you've revealed your poor moral standards). A good God, therefore, would by definition not commit or condone such evil behavior. However, the Bible describes God as committing and condoning such behavior, and indeed the existence of suffering of innocents that he can prevent (through his supposed omnipotence) continues to this very day. Thus, logically, God is not good. QED.

Stop squirming. You're embarrassing yourself. I framed that question precisely including emboldening key terms, yet you still played to form and assumed yourself into a deeper position of foolishness. And no, trying to spin the situation into a hypothetical won't save you.

Haha! So you realize you screwed up now, don't you? I recognize bluster when I see it. :-) I stated in my post, "But if realize your efforts haven't worked and you fail to call the cops, sneak over and free or feed the children personally, or some such action to help fix the situation, YOU ARE ALSO CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT." That statement remains true whether you are a US citizen, a British subject, or a member of virtually any civilized country. This is true both in legal terms AND moral terms. So I'm sorry if I stole your thunder by undermining your thrill of concealing the fact that you're a Brit, but it makes no difference. I stand by my statement and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

But the part that disgusts me the most is that you deliberately tried to siderail the point of my analogy in an attempt to avoid explaining how allowing children to starve to death is good. That's not just disgusting...it's disturbing to think that anyone would be so petty over such a serious issue.

If you haven't picked up my argument by now, you've not been paying the simplest of attention to what I've written. My argument is that humanity is responsible for the care of its "neighbour". Please demonstrate why this responsibility has evaporated and defaulted to God.

Do you have brain damage, or something? Seriously...how many times do I have to say I AGREE HUMANS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING CARE OF STARVING CHILDREN? And why won't you acknowledge that WE ARE FAILING TO DO SO? Given that we fail to save those children, God is the ONLY one left to step in to ensure they do survive, right? Who else is going to do it? If not us, then WHO? Obviously God doesn't either. Therefore he is ALSO guilty of neglect. Can you not understand basic logic? Yikes....

(P.s "epidemic" is the wrong term - it refers to contagion)

Would you at least LOOK at a dictionary before you make mistakes like this? You've done this several times already, most notably with criminal neglect and analogy. An epidemic refers to disease AND it also means "widely prevalent."

What evidence? In every post, I have asked you for evidence, but in it's stead, you belch out emotional arguments and vague assertions that "it ain't us yoomans fault, guv". It's all well and good conceding fault as if humanity had been a bit naughty, but what doesn't get through is that there are consequences for this gross failing.

Responsibility sits with humanity. You can't shirk this off because it makes you uncomfortable.

Wow, it's really like beating one's head against the wall. But I'll say it again: Yes, responsibility sits with humanity. I've said it over and over again, yet you keep coming back and insist that I admit this. Look, if you have a serious mental condition, please advise me so I don't make fun of you for not being able to grasp this concept.

But no matter how much responsibility humanity has, you CANNOT doubt that we have failed to deliver on that responsibility, because if we did our job there would be no starving children. Right? Can you grasp this much?

Now just try to carry it one step further: since WE'RE doing a piss-poor job of preventing starvation, those children are DYING. For God to shrug his shoulders and ignore their plight, saying it's all our responsibility and he washes his hands of the whole issue, is CRIMINALLY NEGLECTFUL. If he exists, then he has the power to fix the problem, doesn't he? DOESN'T HE? Yet if he doesn't help those children, why should those children regard him with anything but contempt? They don't care who feeds them, just so long as they are fed. They have full right to hate humanity for abandoning them, but they also have full right to hate God for abandoning them too.

Am I really going to have to explain this YET AGAIN? Yikes....

Derek

[Underlings]

Then logically, so should you do something right now; otherwise, you are totally evil. You can do it. So what's the hold-up? What good does it do yesterday's or today's sufferers if you take your sweet time about preventing further tragedy? You honestly don't think that your neglect is evil?

What a hypocrite. :lol:

And you're an idiot. :lol: Let's say I am TOTALLY evil. Let's say I actually revel in making children starve. Let's say I am the SOLE cause of starvation. So...what? It's utterly beside the point. Like Jnthn, you seem completely obtuse to the question.

The point is that those children are not being fed, are they? They're still starving to death. If I'm the evil force who is starving them, obviously I'm not going to save them, right? Who is the ONLY one capable of doing saving all the kids who are going to die of starvation tomorrow?

Yeah, that's right: God! But he won't do it. Tell me, JPH, why does God hate children so much?

Eg, the old "gimme on a silver platter" crybaby whinge. Precisely as I have said all along: You whine because God doesn't personally put the food in their mouths. Sorry -- for the 75637th time, it's not anyone's obligation to make up for the lazy and irresponsible. Try another complaint.

You are a complete idiot. I'm sorry to have to come to that conclusion, but you leave me no choice. If children are crying in starvation, you'd insult them for crying for food? Do you think they should love God any more than they love the humans who fail to provide for them? Blame humanity all you want for it's neglect, but blame God as well for failing to provide for the children.

Tomorrow thousands will die. Even if humanity all banded together right now and did everything in their power to save them, they could not possibly get to them in time, and some are too far gone already. Only God could possibly save them; only God could possibly ease their suffering. But he won't. Why is that? Well, you have three choices: he's indifferent, he's evil or he doesn't exist. Take your pick. I'm betting on choice #3, but that's just me.

I don't, no. But I'm not the one whining. Hypocrisy is someone who says one thing and does another. I'm consistent because I'm not whining about someone not doing what I could be.

Haha! You think I'm whining? Don't you understand the difference between pointing out a logical fallacy and whining? Whining is complaining, saying something should be the way I want it. Have I ever said that? Nossir, all I've done is point out that Christians claim God is good and all-powerful and he answers prayers, yet we see innocents starving to death daily. Prayers for them go completely ignored. I see that as a major inconsistency, for a good God would NEVER let children painfully starve to death in such droves. Am I asking him to feed them? Of course not! I don't even believe he exists! How can I whine about the lack of action by a nonexistent being? :lol:

I'm just interested in how YOU would justify calling God "good" when he lets children starve to death. But after all this time it's evident you don't have an answer for this. And it sim