PDA

View Full Version : Why there is no Gender Bias in the Bible



CWH
04-03-2014, 05:22 AM
This is a refutations on Rose's article, "Gender Bias in the Bible":

Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house (PROPERTY), thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife (PROPERTY), nor his manservant (PROPERTY), nor his maidservant (PROPERTY), nor his ox (PROPERTY), nor his ass (PROPERTY), nor any thing (PROPERTY) that is thy neighbour’s. This commandment has nothing to do with property but "Do Not COVET anythig that does not belongs to you".

Zech 14:1-2 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. It is the evil men that ravishes the women just like the Russian soldiers who mass raped German women when they occupied Berlin or the Impwerial Japanese soldiers who mass raped Chinese women of Naking during WW2.

Gen.3:16-17 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Both were punished equality for disobedience just like criminals were punished equally if they break the laws.

Exo.20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo. 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
These were commanded as threats to deter from commiting things that were sinful such as bowing to idols made by man etc. Many a times as stated in the Bible, God forgave those who repented by "showing mercy and forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin" and will not do what he threatened to do; a good example is King Hezekiah.

Psalm 144:1-2 Blessed be the Lord my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight: My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me.
War is a means to get rid of evil people so as to alleviate the sufferings of good or innocent people. Why did US fought with Nazi Germany and the Imperial Japanese during WW2 and won?

To be continued (due to time constraint)......

Rose
04-03-2014, 08:05 AM
This is a refutations on Rose's article, "Gender Bias in the Bible":

Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house (PROPERTY), thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife (PROPERTY), nor his manservant (PROPERTY), nor his maidservant (PROPERTY), nor his ox (PROPERTY), nor his ass (PROPERTY), nor any thing (PROPERTY) that is thy neighbour’s. This commandment has nothing to do with property but "Do Not COVET anythig that does not belongs to you".

Zech 14:1-2 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. It is the evil men that ravishes the women just like the Russian soldiers who mass raped German women when they occupied Berlin or the Impwerial Japanese soldiers who mass raped Chinese women of Naking during WW2.

Gen.3:16-17 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Both were punished equality for disobedience just like criminals were punished equally if they break the laws.

Exo.20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo. 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
These were commanded as threats to deter from commiting things that were sinful such as bowing to idols made by man etc. Many a times as stated in the Bible, God forgave those who repented by "showing mercy and forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin" and will not do what he threatened to do; a good example is King Hezekiah.

Psalm 144:1-2 Blessed be the Lord my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight: My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me.
War is a means to get rid of evil people so as to alleviate the sufferings of good or innocent people. Why did US fought with Nazi Germany and the Imperial Japanese during WW2 and won?

To be continued (due to time constraint)......

Hello Cheow

First off, all your refutations are not in opposition to my words, rather you are trying to justify the words of Scripture which you have quoted!



1. (Exo. 20:17) This commandment has EVERYTHING to do with property! The only things that are listed are properties that belong to men.

2. (Zech. 14:1-2) Notice the words "For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle;". What these words are saying is that god is going to gather all the nations against Jerusalem, allowing the men to rape the women at will.

3. (Gen. 3:16-17) Both WERE NOT punished equally! Women not only received the curse of pain in childbirth, but also the curse of having men rule over them ... which has caused nothing but suffering for women at the hands of men throughout history.

4. (Exo. 20:5) This verse specifically says that god is a JEALOUS god and that he WILL punish the innocent children up until the fourth generation.

5. (Psalm 144:1-2) War means fighting! The Bible is filled with violence and fighting, much of which is commanded by god.





All your refutations are merely your opinions and justifications for the abominable, gender biased acts of the Biblegod.


Take care
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
04-03-2014, 06:23 PM
This is a refutations on Rose's article, "Gender Bias in the Bible":

Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house (PROPERTY), thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife (PROPERTY), nor his manservant (PROPERTY), nor his maidservant (PROPERTY), nor his ox (PROPERTY), nor his ass (PROPERTY), nor any thing (PROPERTY) that is thy neighbour’s. This commandment has nothing to do with property but "Do Not COVET anythig that does not belongs to you".

Your assertion is is not true. The text explicitly says that you are not supposed to covet "any THING that is your neighbor's." That refers to your neighbors PROPERTY.

David M
04-04-2014, 01:40 AM
Your assertion is is not true. The text explicitly says that you are not supposed to covet "any THING that is your neighbor's." That refers to your neighbors PROPERTY.

Property is "anything" that belongs to someone else. Hence, when we leave an item on the train for example, we go to the Lost Property Office to claim it back.

The word "property" usually conjures up (for me) real estate; buildings or land.

The only time anything is not in private or public ownership is when it is said to be; "common property".

CWH
04-05-2014, 09:54 AM
Hi Rose , see my replies in red:


Hello Cheow

First off, all your refutations are not in opposition to my words, rather you are trying to justify the words of Scripture which you have quoted!
Precisely, why this thread is in this Christian Apologetic section. In this section, we talk about God in the positive and why He did what He has done. Dare to try it yourself and justify that all actions done by God were positive? You will be amazed at your transformations and attitudes towards God.




1. (Exo. 20:17) This commandment has EVERYTHING to do with property! The only things that are listed are properties that belong to men.
It has nothing to do with properties, the key words are "Thou shalt not covet"i.e. Do not be greedy.

2. (Zech. 14:1-2) Notice the words "For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle;". What these words are saying is that god is going to gather all the nations against Jerusalem, allowing the men to rape the women at will.
Gather can also means draw just like Jesus and His angels "gather" all His elects or does it means that the elects are drawn towards Jesus? You need to understand book relationships and Bible lingo. Zechariah is related in many ways to Revelations... the Woman, the colored horses etc. Therefore the words "For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem for battle" is referring to the events at Armageddon whereby all nations gathered there to fight against God in Revelation 21. What it means in Bible lingo is that the nations are drawn towards Jerusalem for battle because of God just like in Armageddon.

3. (Gen. 3:16-17) Both WERE NOT punished equally! Women not only received the curse of pain in childbirth, but also the curse of having men rule over them ... which has caused nothing but suffering for women at the hands of men throughout history.
Both were punished all right; men were punished for hard labor. Women have the curse of birth pangs; men have the curse of the prostate! Women have the curse of menstruation, men have the curse of nocturnal emission!

4. (Exo. 20:5) This verse specifically says that god is a JEALOUS god and that he WILL punish the innocent children up until the fourth generation.
God is not a Jealous God, see my coming thread. Jealous is to be interpreted positively in which God yearned for the people to come to him instead of to their idol god. The punishment of innocent children served as deterrent and will only come into force if there is no repentence or exceptions. Asked yourself, were the ten commandments absolute? No, as long as it is justified. Jesus forgave the adulterer due to perhaps the repentence of the adulterer or some exception such as adultery was done in order to force a divorce to save herself and her children from her violent husband or to make her husband repent of his violence to the family. Jesus also broke the Sabbath in order to performed miracles of healing (Matthew 12:10). God also forgave King David and Hezekiah even when they repented for breaking one of the ten commandments.

5. (Psalm 144:1-2) War means fighting! The Bible is filled with violence and fighting, much of which is commanded by god.
Unfortunately, History shows that the majority of wars were caused by men....WW1, WW2 etc. Funny, usually good people won the wars; does it means that war is one of the means to get rid of evil people or to reduce evil in the world? I believe so. Let's not encourage evil to reign on earth.





All your refutations are merely your opinions and justifications for the abominable, gender biased acts of the Biblegod.
There is no Gender Bias in the Bible. It is due to your misguided thinking.


Take care
Rose

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
04-05-2014, 11:01 AM
Hi Rose , see my replies in red:



God Bless.:pray:

Hello Cheow,

My response will be in blue:


http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rose http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=62107#post62107)
Hello Cheow

First off, all your refutations are not in opposition to my words, rather you are trying to justify the words of Scripture which you have quoted!
Precisely, why this thread is in this Christian Apologetic section. In this section, we talk about God in the positive and why He did what He has done. Dare to try it yourself and justify that all actions done by God were positive? You will be amazed at your transformations and attitudes towards God. Sometime you should try taking off your blinders and actually read what the Bible says, without trying to cover-up all its horrendous accounts.


1. (Exo. 20:17) This commandment has EVERYTHING to do with property! The only things that are listed are properties that belong to men.
It has nothing to do with properties, the key words are "Thou shalt not covet"i.e. Do not be greedy. As I said before, it has everything to do with property, clearly showing how women were considered the property of men.

2. (Zech. 14:1-2) Notice the words "For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle;". What these words are saying is that god is going to gather all the nations against Jerusalem, allowing the men to rape the women at will.
Gather can also means draw just like Jesus and His angels "gather" all His elects or does it means that the elects are drawn towards Jesus? You need to understand book relationships and Bible lingo. Zechariah is related in many ways to Revelations... the Woman, the colored horses etc. Therefore the words "For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem for battle" is referring to the events at Armageddon whereby all nations gathered there to fight against God in Revelation 21. What it means in Bible lingo is that the nations are drawn towards Jerusalem for battle because of God just like in Armageddon. Whether it means gather or draw, you still did not address the point that god ALLOWED the women to be raped at will ... a specific act directed at women!

3. (Gen. 3:16-17) Both WERE NOT punished equally! Women not only received the curse of pain in childbirth, but also the curse of having men rule over them ... which has caused nothing but suffering for women at the hands of men throughout history.
Both were punished all right; men were punished for hard labor. Women have the curse of birth pangs; men have the curse of the prostate! Women have the curse of menstruation, men have the curse of nocturnal emission! Once again, you did not address the specific point about unequal punishment, which means bias. Women were singled out to have the cruel curse of men ruling over them, which has inflicted horrendous pain and suffering on women throughout history.

4. (Exo. 20:5) This verse specifically says that god is a JEALOUS god and that he WILL punish the innocent children up until the fourth generation.
God is not a Jealous God, see my coming thread. Jealous is to be interpreted positively in which God yearned for the people to come to him instead of to their idol god. The punishment of innocent children served as deterrent and will only come into force if there is no repentence or exceptions. Asked yourself, were the ten commandments absolute? No, as long as it is justified. Jesus forgave the adulterer due to perhaps the repentence of the adulterer or some exception such as adultery was done in order to force a divorce to save herself and her children from her violent husband or to make her husband repent of his violence to the family. Jesus also broke the Sabbath in order to performed miracles of healing (Matthew 12:10). God also forgave King David and Hezekiah even when they repented for breaking one of the ten commandments. Again, you do not address the central issue, and that is the biased and unfair nature of god. To try and justify the punishing of innocent children shows a lack of empathy and compassion. Your belief in the absolute goodness of god blinds you to the fact that the Bible is filled with horrendous immoral acts commanded by him.

5. (Psalm 144:1-2) War means fighting! The Bible is filled with violence and fighting, much of which is commanded by god.
Unfortunately, History shows that the majority of wars were caused by men....WW1, WW2 etc. Funny, usually good people won the wars; does it means that war is one of the means to get rid of evil people or to reduce evil in the world? I believe so. Let's not encourage evil to reign on earth.
Actually, all the wars of history have been caused by man. Sometimes it's because people are defending themselves against invaders and other times it's because people are trying to conquer other nations.



All your refutations are merely your opinions and justifications for the abominable, gender biased acts of the Biblegod.
There is no Gender Bias in the Bible. It is due to your misguided thinking.
You are making yourself appear silly by repeating that there is no gender bias in the Bible. If there is no gender bias in the Bible, why are you trying to justify it? You don't need to justify something that isn't there.


Bias:


1. Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.



Take care
Rose

CWH
04-15-2014, 05:37 AM
This is from a website which helps to explain my view (in Bold) why there is No Sexism in the BIble:


Question: "Is God / the Bible sexist?"

Answer: Sexism is one gender, usually male, having dominance over the other gender, usually female. The Bible contains many references to women that, to our modern mindset, sound discriminatory towards women. But we have to remember that when the Bible describes an action, it does not necessarily mean that the Bible endorses that action. The Bible describes men treating women as little more than property, but that does not mean God approves of that action. The Bible is far more focused on reforming our souls than our societies. God knows that a changed heart will result in a changed behavior.

During Old Testament times, virtually every culture in the entire world was patriarchal in structure. That status of history is very clear—not only in Scripture but also in the rules that governed most societies. By modern value systems and worldly human viewpoint, that is called “sexist.” God ordained the order in society, not man, and He is the author of the establishment principles of authority. However, like everything else, fallen man has corrupted this order. That has resulted in the inequality of the standing of men and women throughout history. The exclusion and the discrimination that we find in our world is nothing new. It is the result of the fall of man and the introduction of sin. Therefore, we can rightly say that the term and the practice of “sexism” is a result of sin. The progressive revelation of the Bible leads us to the cure for sexism and indeed all the sinful practices of the human race.

To find and maintain a spiritual balance between the God-ordained positions of authority, we must look to Scripture. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old, and in it we find principles that tell us the correct line of authority and the cure for sin, the ill of all humanity, and that includes discrimination based upon gender.

The cross of Christ is the great equalizer. John 3:16 says, “Whoever believes,” and that is an all-inclusive statement that leaves no one out on the basis of position in society, mental capacity, or gender. We also find a passage in Galatians that speaks of our equal opportunity for salvation. “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:26-28). There is no sexism at the cross.

The Bible is not sexist in its accurate portrayal of the results of sin in both men and women. The Bible records all kinds of sin: slavery and bondage and the failures of its greatest heroes. Yet it also gives us the answer and the cure for those sins against God and His established order—a right relationship with God. The Old Testament was looking forward to the supreme sacrifice, and each time a sacrifice for sin was made, it was teaching the need for reconciliation to God. In the New Testament, the “Lamb that takes away the sin of the world” was born, died, was buried and rose again, and then ascended to His place in heaven, and there He intercedes for us. It is through belief in Him that the cure for sin is found, and that includes the sin of sexism.

The charge of sexism in the Bible is based upon a lack of knowledge of Scripture. When men and women of all ages have taken their God-ordained places and lived according to “thus says the LORD,” then there is a wonderful balance between the genders. That balance is what God began with, and it is what He will end with. There is an inordinate amount of attention paid to the various products of sin and not to the root of it. It is only when there is personal reconciliation with God through the Lord Jesus Christ that we find true equality. “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).

It is also very important to understand that the Bible’s ascribing different roles to men and women does not constitute sexism. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God expects men to take the leadership role in the church and the home. Does this make women inferior? Absolutely not. Does this mean women are less intelligent, less capable, or viewed as less in God’s eyes? Absolutely not! What it means is that in our sin-stained world, there has to be structure and authority. God has instituted the roles of authority for our good. Sexism is the abuse of these roles, not the existence of these roles

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/God-Bible-sexist.html#ixzz2yxP1looi

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
04-15-2014, 05:12 PM
This is from a website which helps to explain my view (in Bold) why there is No Sexism in the BIble:



Question: "Is God / the Bible sexist?"

Answer: Sexism is one gender, usually male, having dominance over the other gender, usually female. The Bible contains many references to women that, to our modern mindset, sound discriminatory towards women. But we have to remember that when the Bible describes an action, it does not necessarily mean that the Bible endorses that action. The Bible describes men treating women as little more than property, but that does not mean God approves of that action. The Bible is far more focused on reforming our souls than our societies. God knows that a changed heart will result in a changed behavior.





It is also very important to understand that the Bible’s ascribing different roles to men and women does not constitute sexism. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God expects men to take the leadership role in the church and the home. Does this make women inferior? Absolutely not. Does this mean women are less intelligent, less capable, or viewed as less in God’s eyes? Absolutely not! What it means is that in our sin-stained world, there has to be structure and authority. God has instituted the roles of authority for our good. Sexism is the abuse of these roles, not the existence of these roles

God Bless.:pray:

Hello Cheow

From what you have bolded it is clear to see you are very confused about the meaning of the words "sexism" and "gender bias". First off the Bible is filled with sexism and gender bias, whether or not you wish to admit that the Biblegod approves of it. To be biased means to treat things and people unequally, so even if you believe that it is okay to assign men and women different roles doesn't mean that it is not biased to do so. The article you quoted doesn't say their is no sexism or bias in the Bible, it just says that god does not approve of that action.

The Bible not only assigns men and women different roles, it denies women equal human rights with men and that is called sexism. It is pure ignorance to say that there is no sexism or gender bias in the Bible. You may think it is just fine to have men rule over women, but that doesn't mean it isn't biased.

CWH
04-16-2014, 07:35 PM
Now for Part 2. As her article is too long, I am refuting Rose article Gender Bias in the Bible based on the scriptural verses found in her article. My replies are in red:

Judge 21:11-12 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.
Why killed all the males? Another example of God bias against the male? God needs to do jsutice. This was done in retailiation of what the enemy have done to the Israelites. Same as what the US government is doing towards the terrorists for the killling of innocent souls in 9/11. The pardon of the virgin ladies were for their roles in not commiting sexual sins. The women and men were killed because of their sexual sins. We need to look at the verse carefully, it says utterly destroy every male (homosexuals?) and every female that has lain with men (we do know that people of those times who worshipped Molech committed terrible perverse sexual sins). You can check it out iin the internet. God told them to kill those males and females who have perverse sexual relationships.

Deuteronomy 21:10-12 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house;
I see nothing wron with this verse. It simply says that if you desire a beautiful lady, you may marry her to be your wife.

Num.31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying…17) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
We need to look at the verse carefully. It says utterly destroy every male (homosexuals?) and every female that has lain with men (we do know that people of those times who worshipped Molech committed terrible perverse sexual sins). You can check it out iin the internet. They are to be kept for their marriage.


*Deut.6:10-11 And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full.
I don't see anything wrong with this verses if these are gifts from God to inherit all these things as rewards for their love for God as after all all things on earth belongs to God; It's God's property. Don't you think we are also tenants in everything in which God has created for us to live. How unthankful are we!

Deut 7:2-3 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
These were very evil people who worsipped Molech. The verse is funny in the sense that if everyone of their enemies were killed there won't be any son or daughter to be given or taken for marriage. It smelt of translation error or oddities in Bible lingo. Thus I believe Moses told them to kill those who were evil and spare the innocent.

*2Sam.12:13-17 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died…
It is God's way of showing justice. How to be a judge if no justice is shown. Forgiveness of sin does not mean no punishment. Yes God punished them by killing the child to show justice for Urriah's death but he can also resurrect the child back or provide a better child for them just like what happened to Job chldren when God replaced Job with better, prettier children (Job 42). God also replaced Abel with the better Seth.
12 The Lord blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. 13 And he also had seven sons and three daughters. 14 The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch. 15 Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.

*Exo.20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the 3rd and 4th generation means that the evils done by the fathers will be in the genes of their generation till the 3rd and 4th generations. BTW, anyone who committed sin and truly repented will be forgiven. Remember, repentence does not mean no punishment.

* Gen.2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
I see nothing wrong with this. The male has the XY chromosome is more suitable for "cloning" than the female who only has the X chromosome, The rib was chosen for creating Eve because it was the best for such "cloning". See my thread on "why God used Adam's rib to create Eve".

To be continued.....

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
04-17-2014, 09:22 AM
Now for Part 2. As her article is too long, I am refuting Rose article Gender Bias in the Bible based on the scriptural verses found in her article. My replies are in red:

Your post is the perfect example of how religion corrupts a persons morals. I am astounded at your callus attitude and justification of atrocious immoral acts, all because the god you believe in commanded them. I will reply to your comments in blue.


Judge 21:11-12 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.
Why killed all the males? Another example of God bias against the male? God needs to do jsutice. This was done in retailiation of what the enemy have done to the Israelites. Same as what the US government is doing towards the terrorists for the killling of innocent souls in 9/11. The pardon of the virgin ladies were for their roles in not commiting sexual sins. The women and men were killed because of their sexual sins. We need to look at the verse carefully, it says utterly destroy every male (homosexuals?) and every female that has lain with men (we do know that people of those times who worshipped Molech committed terrible perverse sexual sins). You can check it out iin the internet. God told them to kill those males and females who have perverse sexual relationships. You are actually trying to say that in god's justice the virgins were spared because of their lack of sexual sins? How insane is that? The real reason the virgins were kept alive is because of the lust of the men who wanted the women for their own sexual desires. Also, what about all the male children and babies who were slaughtered ... what evil did they do? Are you condoning that too as part of god's justice?


Deuteronomy 21:10-12 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house;
I see nothing wrong with this verse. It simply says that if you desire a beautiful lady, you may marry her to be your wife. You actually think that is okay for a man to capture a beautiful woman he lusts after and marry her? Your morals truly have been totally corrupted!


Num.31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying…17) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
We need to look at the verse carefully. It says utterly destroy every male (homosexuals?) and every female that has lain with men (we do know that people of those times who worshipped Molech committed terrible perverse sexual sins). You can check it out iin the internet. They are to be kept for their marriage. It sounds like you are saying every male was a homosexual including the male children and babies ... how utterly immoral is that? You are also justifying the act of slaughtering a whole population except for virgin girls, so the lusty men can have wives! :eek: Religion has totally corrupted your mind and your morals. According to your standards it's okay to slaughter a whole population, because a bunch of lusty men want women to marry! How sick and pathetic is that!?!?



*Deut.6:10-11 And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full.
I don't see anything wrong with this verses if these are gifts from God to inherit all these things as rewards for their love for God as after all all things on earth belongs to God; It's God's property. Don't you think we are also tenants in everything in which God has created for us to live. How unthankful are we! You actually don't see anything wrong with slaughtering a whole population in order to take all their possessions because the Biblegod commands it? Another perfect example of the extreme harm religion does to people minds.


Deut 7:2-3 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
These were very evil people who worsipped Molech. The verse is funny in the sense that if everyone of their enemies were killed there won't be any son or daughter to be given or taken for marriage. It smelt of translation error or oddities in Bible lingo. Thus I believe Moses told them to kill those who were evil and spare the innocent. Yeah, right! All those children and babies were very evil and deserving of death because their parents worshiped Molech. In this verse the capricious Biblegod didn't even let the virgins live.



*2Sam.12:13-17 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died…
It is God's way of showing justice. How to be a judge if no justice is shown. Forgiveness of sin does not mean no punishment. Yes God punished them by killing the child to show justice for Urriah's death but he can also resurrect the child back or provide a better child for them just like what happened to Job chldren when God replaced Job with better, prettier children (Job 42). God also replaced Abel with the better Seth. Once again, your justification of atrocious immoral acts done by the Biblegod leaves me in shock :eek: You actually think that it is morally just to cause a baby to suffer for seven days before dying to pay for the his fathers wrong doing? Meanwhile David get away with having Uriah killed and gets to marry Bathsheba, and you think that is justice!?!?


12 The Lord blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. 13 And he also had seven sons and three daughters. 14 The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch. 15 Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.

*Exo.20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the 3rd and 4th generation means that the evils done by the fathers will be in the genes of their generation till the 3rd and 4th generations. BTW, anyone who committed sin and truly repented will be forgiven. Remember, repentence does not mean no punishment. I think your Biblegod is a little confused :confused2::confused2: Sometimes he says he will punish the children for the sins of their fathers and other times he says he won't.



* Gen.2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
I see nothing wrong with this. The male has the XY chromosome is more suitable for "cloning" than the female who only has the X chromosome, The rib was chosen for creating Eve because it was the best for such "cloning". See my thread on "why God used Adam's rib to create Eve". Neither really makes any sense :p If you start with the male then you have to delete the Y chromosome to make a female, and if you start with the female you have to insert a Y chromosome to make a male ... same difference either way.

To the modern mind, trying to make moral sense of the Bible requires a tremendous amount of justification and reasoning away of stuff that is just downright immoral and wrong!


To be continued.....

God Bless.:pray:

CWH
04-17-2014, 08:28 PM
Hi Rose,

If you have evidence from the Bible, show us. Several questions need to be answered if you want your article to be credible:

Judge 21:11-12 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.
1. From the passage above, show us that God killed all the children and evry male.
2. What does every male ............that have lain by man means? Obviously homosexuals. Do you support homosexuality?
3. What does every woman that hath lain by man means? Obviously, prostitutes, fornications, orgies, pedophlias etc. Do you support these as well? The evil men did all sorts of perverted sexual practices.
4. Don't you want those 400 young virgins to be saved?
5. Do you support the god Molech, which was known to burnt children alive as sacrifice and encouraged or forced women to be temple prostitutes and other perverted sexual practices? Are you happy with such practices?
6. Anything in the passages that says innocent children and males were killed?

Num.31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying…17) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
1. What evidence is there in this passage that says children were killed?
2. What does "Kill every men among the little ones" means? It simply means kill the adult males but spare the kids.
3. Don't you feel happy that all the evil perverted men and women were killed and the innocent children and women spared?


*Deut.6:10-11 And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full.
1. Anything wrong with taking someone's properties which actually belongs to God? ...or do you prefer such properties to go into waste or be destroyed?
2. It is said clearly in the passage that the land was already given to Abraham, Jacob and Isaac. Now who robbed these land from them in the first place? Do you support thieves and robbers?

*2Sam.12:13-17 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died…
1. Are you glad that God forgive peoole's sin when they repented?
2. Are you glad that justice is done for Urriah?
3. Are you glad that God can replace or reincarnate anyone killed for the better?
4. Do you support children born from sinful reunion?

*Exo.20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
1. Show us proof in the Bible that God killed or punished the evil generations to the 3rd and 4th generations.
2. What does "visitIng the iniquities of the fathers to the children till 4rd and 4th generations means? It simply means that the evils of the fathers will haunt their generations till the 3rd and 4th generations

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
04-17-2014, 09:50 PM
Hi Rose,

If you have evidence from the Bible, show us. Several questions need to be answered if you want your article to be credible:

Hello Cheow,

The only evidence I need from the Bible are the words that are written in it! My responses to your questions are in blue.


Judge 21:11-12 And this is the thing that ye shall do Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.

1. From the passage above, show us that God killed all the children and every male. The verse says "Ye shall utterly destroy EVERY MALE". Every male means every man, boy child and baby!
2. What does every male ............that have lain by man means? Obviously homosexuals. Do you support homosexuality? It doesn't say every male that has lain with a man ... it say every woman that has lain with a man. I have no problem with people who practice homosexuality ... it is each individuals right to choose the partner they wish to live with and none of my business or yours.
3. What does every woman that hath lain by man means? Obviously, prostitutes, fornications, orgies, pedophlias etc. Do you support these as well? The evil men did all sorts of perverted sexual practices. Every woman that has lain with a man means every woman who is not a virgin ... like all the married women.
4. Don't you want those 400 young virgins to be saved? Of course I want all the virgins saved, along with all the other men, women and children!
5. Do you support the god Molech, which was known to burnt children alive as sacrifice and encouraged or forced women to be temple prostitutes and other perverted sexual practices? Are you happy with such practices? Your questions are not relevant to the extreme immorality in slaughtering all the people in Jabesh-Gilead, except the 400 virgins, so the Benjamite men could have wives.
6. Anything in the passages that says innocent children and males were killed? Yes! It says "YE SHALL UTTERLY DESTROY EVERY MALE!" that means every male child was killed! The only people left alive in the entire city of Jabesh-gilead were 400 virgin girls.

Num.31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying…17) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

1. What evidence is there in this passage that says children were killed? Are you insane, or are you just pretending to be stupid? The verse plainly states "kill every male among the little ones" what else can I say?
2. What does "Kill every men among the little ones" means? It simply means kill the adult males but spare the kids. It says to kill every MALE among the little ones, meaning the little virgin girls were not to be killed, only the little boys. The Hebrew word for male is zakar ... men are males, boys are males and baby boys are males. Males does not just mean men.
3. Don't you feel happy that all the evil perverted men and women were killed and the innocent children and women spared? I think the whole account is horribly immoral!


*Deut.6:10-11 And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full.

1. Anything wrong with taking someone's properties which actually belongs to God? ...or do you prefer such properties to go into waste or be destroyed? Yes, there is plenty wrong with slaughtering a whole population and taking their possessions and anyone who thinks differently has something seriously wrong with their sense of morality.
2. It is said clearly in the passage that the land was already given to Abraham, Jacob and Isaac. Now who robbed these land from them in the first place? Do you support thieves and robbers? That land was inhabited long before it was supposedly given to Abraham and besides that the Hebrews were commanded to slaughter the whole population and show them no mercy! How cruel and inhumane is that?

*2Sam.12:13-17 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died…

1. Are you glad that God forgive peoole's sin when they repented? I don't believe in the Biblegod, therefore I don't believe in the concept of being born in sin.
2. Are you glad that justice is done for Urriah? There was no justice done for Uriah! All that was accomplished was the suffering and death of an innocent child.
3. Are you glad that God can replace or reincarnate anyone killed for the better? Once again, I don't believe in the Biblegod and besides that no one can ever be replaced ... that's what's so insane about the story of Job.
4. Do you support children born from sinful reunion? I don't believe there is such a thing as a sinful reunion. The idea of sin is a concept made up in the minds of primitive men.

*Exo.20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

1. Show us proof in the Bible that God killed or punished the evil generations to the 3rd and 4th generations. The Bible states it in black and white.
2. What does "visitIng the iniquities of the fathers to the children till 4rd and 4th generations means? It simply means that the evils of the fathers will haunt their generations till the 3rd and 4th generations. The Bible was written by primitive men who said and believed all sorts of barbaric and immoral things.

God Bless.:pray:

David M
04-18-2014, 01:55 AM
Hello Cheow,

The only evidence I need from the Bible are the words that are written in it! My responses to your questions are in blue.

Hello Rose
You are not considering ALL the evidence in the Bible, you are selective in what you choose. OK, so we can all be selective of what we choose. I am prepared to make an exposition of every verse with you, to get to the truth. That means we have to look at every word and every possible meaning. That will give us a selection to choose from. Ultimately, to get a best fit of all the verses, we have to then select the meanings that give us the best fit.

OK, so we end up with a few verses that are difficult to fit, that maybe because we have not found the correct meaning of the words in the verse, or error has crept in which is throwing us off track.

To do an in depth analysis of all verses, we can ask ourselves all possible questions. You cannot be as dismissive of questions as you like to be. You have said to Cheow; "Your questions are not relevant to the extreme immorality in slaughtering all the people in Jabesh-Gilead, except the 400 virgins, so the Benjamite men could have wives". Cheow's questions are relevant.

You say; "I have no problem with people who practice homosexuality ... it is each individuals right to choose the partner they wish to live with and none of my business or yours." You have strayed so far from the Bible, that you are not heeding the instruction of God. Homosexuality is an abomination to God. (Lev 20:13) 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. You might not believe in the God of the bible demoting him to the biblegod, but you are not taking note of what is written. As an exercise, you can start by listing all the things which God says are an abomination to him. The ideal, is for every man and woman to be "clean". Clean in mind, and body. That is an ideal, but in practice, human intercourse has to take place in order to be fruitful and multiply as God instructed man and woman to be. However, just as those who devoted their lives to God and kept themselves as virgins, was keeping to the ideal. For a God that is requiring perfection and the only one who attained that perfection in mind and body was Jesus. God is vindicated, and no-one can say it was impossible for a man (human) to lead a sinless and pure life. That is the ideal we should aim to replicate, but we all fail, as God knows we shall fail, but then, God has given us a way out.


Once you know what the abominations are and what constitutes a person being "clean" we get to understand the decisions made. Remember, that if you read the text correctly, it was Moses that saved the 32,000 virgins. They were regarded as "clean" in a society that was not "clean" and was an abomination to God. Abominable societies do not clean themselves up. If man as a whole was capable of getting cleaned up, he could have done so by now. The majority of mankind has no intention of following God's instructions and does that which is right in its own eyes. This is the backdrop to all of God's actions. Even his chosen people (descendents of Abraham, whom God made a covenant, the people broke the covenant straight after it was made. (Exod 24:7) All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. God's people did not keep their promise and we have a catalog of mistakes. A people who had the advantage of being given rules to ensure they stayed healthy in body and mind, and should have been held up as examples to follow, showed their fickleness and not being better than anyone else. (Deut 7:7) The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: 8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, That is important to remember; God keeps his word. God is also the righteous judge and is in a position to know the thoughts and intents of all hearts. Since you cannot do what God can do, that does not put you in a position to judge as God judges. However, some things are obvious and we begin with those things which are an abomination to God and anything which can be considered as unclean to God.

Your statements are so anti the God of the Bible, and your heart is so hardened against him, I shall not dwell on how wrong the rest of your statements are.

Cheow asks for proof; "Show us proof in the Bible that God killed or punished the evil generations to the 3rd and 4th generations" and you reply; "The Bible states it in black and white".

The following might be a fruitless exercise, but for the sake of those yet to find the truth, I will give my thoughts on how I interpret the following verse;
(Numbers 14:18) The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

This verse has two parts. The first part is saying the LORD is longsuffering and forgives iniquity and transgression. That is a characteristic of God you totally ignore and give no credit to the biblegod you refer to. What then do we consider longsuffering to mean? Would three of four generations be considered longsuffering? God is not letting the guilty off from receiving God's punishment. That is the same for all generations and all who do not meet God's requirements. God is judge and it is up to us to ensure we stay within the will of God and receive his mercy. God is giving people time to "clean up their act" as we would say in modern parlance. It is in this context, we can understand the second part of the verse. NOTE: it is the wrongful acts of the parents that are allowed to continue to the third and fourth generation. "Like father, like son" has the ring of truth about it. God is not punishing the second, third and fourth generations for the sins of the first generation. God will hold to account each generation for their own sins. God is longsuffering waiting until the third and fourth generation before he steps in. Do you not think that if by the third and fourth generations, they have not cleaned up their act and stopped doing the abominable things that God hates, then those people are not going to stop, but will continue ad infinitum throughout all generations? I expect you will not answer these questions.

The fact is Rose, you are not reading into the word of God the things that God intends us to know and learn. It is convenient for you to take the slanted view that you think builds up your case against God. The fact is, that your slanted/biased view can be torn apart, by correctly doing an exposition of each verse to get to the truth of what the verse is telling us. As in another thread; the problem is one of attitude. Unless your attitude changes and you begin to see a chink of light, you will be forever confined to your own darkness. You are locked in your own abyss, in the rooms of darkness. The fact that I can use such phrases to describe your position does not mean I believe in that myth. I do so, to make another point about the myths and lies that have been constructed by man and which you are a follower.

All the best
David

CWH
04-18-2014, 04:30 AM
Hi all,

I would sometimes used what I call "Reverse Psychology" to understand passages in the Bible. Such methods have been taught in school in which if you want to perceive a problem better or if you want to solve a problem , try and see the problem by going backwards or in the opposite way. If the the reverse psychology method produces ridiculous or hilarious results then it is likely that our understanding or logic of the issue at hand is wrong. I used this method at times during my Bible study. Give your comments if you want to. I am now applying this method of reverse psychology on some of Rose's views in her article on the Gender Bias in the Bible:


Rose's View:
Six anti-woman claims that the Bible promotes:

1. Women are considered the property of the man.
2. Women are ruled over by men solely based on their gender.
3. Women do not share equal rights with men.
4. Women are considered of less value than men.
5. Progeny is claimed to be carried through the loins of the male.
6. The Biblegod is exclusively portrayed with “male” attributes.

Cheow's Reverse Psychology method using reversal of gender:

1. Men are considered the property of the Woman.
2. Men are ruled over by women solely based on their gender.
3. Women do not share equal rights with men.
4. Men are considered of less value than women.
5. Progeny is claimed to be carried through the loins of the female.
6. The Biblegod is exclusively portrayed with “female” attributes.

Comment: Well, men will have a good life as they will be potected, supported and managed by their wife. They will not mind to be constantly sold by their wife. :lol:



Rose's Views
Once again, as I have pointed out there is a double standard prevalent throughout the entire Bible with issues pertaining to women.
1. Men could choose their wives/ women were sold to men for wives.
2. Men could have multiple wives and concubines/ women could have one husband.
3. Men could divorce their wives at will/ women were bound to their husbands for as long as their husbands lived.
4. Men could marry virgins they raped/ women were sold to their abusers.

Cheow's reverse psychology method based on gender reversal:
1. Women could choose their husbands/ men were sold to women for husbands.
2. Women could have multiple husbands and male concubines/ Men could have one wife.
3. Women could divorce their husbands at will/ men were bound to their wife for as long as their wife lived.
4. Women could marry male virgins they raped/ men were sold to their abusers.

Comment: Poor women, they will die of oversex, multiple births, childcare and abortions from their husbands. Poor children, mothers will not have much time to look after them, much of their time spend on pregnancy and childcare. They will not be sure who are their actual fathers. Poor husbands, they have to take turns or get queue number to have sex with their wife or spend time with her. :lol: I wonder how the women raped men! They are on the losing end...the men will let the women raped as much as they want and happily divorce as much as they want. Men will be very happy to be for sale to be the women's concubines.:lol:

How's that for Equality of Gender, Rose?....Double standards?

God is Wise. :)

God Bless. :pray:

Rose
04-18-2014, 10:06 AM
Hello Rose
You are not considering ALL the evidence in the Bible, you are selective in what you choose. OK, so we can all be selective of what we choose. I am prepared to make an exposition of every verse with you, to get to the truth. That means we have to look at every word and every possible meaning. That will give us a selection to choose from. Ultimately, to get a best fit of all the verses, we have to then select the meanings that give us the best fit.

OK, so we end up with a few verses that are difficult to fit, that maybe because we have not found the correct meaning of the words in the verse, or error has crept in which is throwing us off track.

Hello David

The topic of my article Gender Bias in the Bible is specifically about all the male-bias in the Bible, so that is what my focus is on. If you want to focus on some other topic go ahead, but that in no-wise discounts all the gender bias contained in the Bible.


To do an in depth analysis of all verses, we can ask ourselves all possible questions. You cannot be as dismissive of questions as you like to be. You have said to Cheow; "Your questions are not relevant to the extreme immorality in slaughtering all the people in Jabesh-Gilead, except the 400 virgins, so the Benjamite men could have wives". Cheow's questions are relevant.

Cheow was asking me what my personal opinions were on Molech and child sacrifice which was not relevant to the slaughter of inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead. "5. Do you support the god Molech, which was known to burnt children alive as sacrifice and encouraged or forced women to be temple prostitutes and other perverted sexual practices? Are you happy with such practices?"


You say; "I have no problem with people who practice homosexuality ... it is each individuals right to choose the partner they wish to live with and none of my business or yours." You have strayed so far from the Bible, that you are not heeding the instruction of God. Homosexuality is an abomination to God. (Lev 20:13) 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. You might not believe in the God of the bible demoting him to the biblegod, but you are not taking note of what is written. As an exercise, you can start by listing all the things which God says are an abomination to him. The ideal, is for every man and woman to be "clean". Clean in mind, and body. That is an ideal, but in practice, human intercourse has to take place in order to be fruitful and multiply as God instructed man and woman to be. However, just as those who devoted their lives to God and kept themselves as virgins, was keeping to the ideal. For a God that is requiring perfection and the only one who attained that perfection in mind and body was Jesus. God is vindicated, and no-one can say it was impossible for a man (human) to lead a sinless and pure life. That is the ideal we should aim to replicate, but we all fail, as God knows we shall fail, but then, God has given us a way out.

The things that the Biblegod says are an abomination to him are what men have created in their own minds. Men throughout history in many cultures have thought that homosexuality was wrong ... that does not mean it is. Men have also thought that slavery was right and that treating women as second class citizens was okay, but that does not mean it is. The Bible is filled with all sorts of immoral and wrong ideas, that is why it is so obvious it was written by men from their own biased imaginings. Sex in and of itself is not unclean, no matter what ones orientation is. It is only when sex is abused like in cases of rape and pedophilia that it becomes bad. Also, there is no need to be fruitful and multiply ... reproduction should be solely up to the choice of the individual, not the dictates from some imaginary deity. It is no better to have children than not to have children.



5. Do you support the god Molech, which was known to burnt children alive as sacrifice and encouraged or forced women to be temple prostitutes and other perverted sexual practices? Are you happy with such practices?Once you know what the abominations are and what constitutes a person being "clean" we get to understand the decisions made. Remember, that if you read the text correctly, it was Moses that saved the 32,000 virgins. They were regarded as "clean" in a society that was not "clean" and was an abomination to God. Abominable societies do not clean themselves up. If man as a whole was capable of getting cleaned up, he could have done so by now. The majority of mankind has no intention of following God's instructions and does that which is right in its own eyes. This is the backdrop to all of God's actions. Even his chosen people (descendents of Abraham, whom God made a covenant, the people broke the covenant straight after it was made. (Exod 24:7) All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. God's people did not keep their promise and we have a catalog of mistakes. A people who had the advantage of being given rules to ensure they stayed healthy in body and mind, and should have been held up as examples to follow, showed their fickleness and not being better than anyone else. (Deut 7:7) The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: 8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, That is important to remember; God keeps his word. God is also the righteous judge and is in a position to know the thoughts and intents of all hearts. Since you cannot do what God can do, that does not put you in a position to judge as God judges. However, some things are obvious and we begin with those things which are an abomination to God and anything which can be considered as unclean to God.

Your statements are so anti the God of the Bible, and your heart is so hardened against him, I shall not dwell on how wrong the rest of your statements are.

Since when do two wrongs make a right? Throughout Scripture the Biblegod's solution to every bad situation is to do something bad in return ... that is pretty flawed reasoning.




The following might be a fruitless exercise, but for the sake of those yet to find the truth, I will give my thoughts on how I interpret the following verse;
(Numbers 14:18) The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

This verse has two parts. The first part is saying the LORD is longsuffering and forgives iniquity and transgression. That is a characteristic of God you totally ignore and give no credit to the biblegod you refer to. What then do we consider longsuffering to mean? Would three of four generations be considered longsuffering? God is not letting the guilty off from receiving God's punishment. That is the same for all generations and all who do not meet God's requirements. God is judge and it is up to us to ensure we stay within the will of God and receive his mercy. God is giving people time to "clean up their act" as we would say in modern parlance. It is in this context, we can understand the second part of the verse. NOTE: it is the wrongful acts of the parents that are allowed to continue to the third and fourth generation. "Like father, like son" has the ring of truth about it. God is not punishing the second, third and fourth generations for the sins of the first generation. God will hold to account each generation for their own sins. God is longsuffering waiting until the third and fourth generation before he steps in. Do you not think that if by the third and fourth generations, they have not cleaned up their act and stopped doing the abominable things that God hates, then those people are not going to stop, but will continue ad infinitum throughout all generations? I expect you will not answer these questions.

You failed to address the contradictory nature of the Biblegod's long-suffering and forgiveness. On one hand the Bible says god forgives and is long-suffering and on the other hand he loses patience and kills everyone, like in the Flood story or Sodom and Gomorrah. On one hand the Biblegod says not to marry any foreign women, and on the other hand it's okay for men to keep captive virgins to satisfy their lusty desires! How contradictory is that?!?


The fact is Rose, you are not reading into the word of God the things that God intends us to know and learn. It is convenient for you to take the slanted view that you think builds up your case against God. The fact is, that your slanted/biased view can be torn apart, by correctly doing an exposition of each verse to get to the truth of what the verse is telling us. As in another thread; the problem is one of attitude. Unless your attitude changes and you begin to see a chink of light, you will be forever confined to your own darkness. You are locked in your own abyss, in the rooms of darkness. The fact that I can use such phrases to describe your position does not mean I believe in that myth. I do so, to make another point about the myths and lies that have been constructed by man and which you are a follower.

All the best
David

My main point in exposing all the gender bias in the Bible is to show its man-made nature. It is evident that throughout history and in every culture men have been biased and that is reflected in the writings in the Bible. One of the big questions I have asked over and over again, yet have not received a credible answer to is; why should I believe the Bible was inspired by god, when it is so male-biased and full of errors?

Why would a creator god ever allow the message he wanted to share with humankind, to be so mixed up with obvious primitive, biased man-made ideas like the Bible contains? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Take care,
Rose

David M
04-18-2014, 02:24 PM
Hello Rose




Quote Originally Posted by David M

..... Do you not think that if by the third and fourth generations, they have not cleaned up their act and stopped doing the abominable things that God hates, then those people are not going to stop, but will continue ad infinitum throughout all generations? I expect you will not answer these questions.

You failed to address the contradictory nature of the Biblegod's long-suffering and forgiveness. On one hand the Bible says god forgives and is long-suffering and on the other hand he loses patience and kills everyone, like in the Flood story or Sodom and Gomorrah. On one hand the Biblegod says not to marry any foreign women, and on the other hand it's okay for men to keep captive virgins to satisfy their lusty desires! How contradictory is that?!? I could answer these questions. I did address the the matter and it is not contradictory. I will answer your questions, once you answer mine. I suggest you separate out the questions and then answer them. It is futile me continuing if you will not answer specific questions,




My main point in exposing all the gender bias in the Bible is to show its man-made nature. It is evident that throughout history and in every culture men have been biased and that is reflected in the writings in the Bible. One of the big questions I have asked over and over again, yet have not received a credible answer to is; why should I believe the Bible was inspired by god, when it is so male-biased and full of errors? I know what your agenda is and the fact that you deny the Bible is God's inspired word. You can only reason that man must have written it and made the whole thing up. I doubt a fiction writer could not make up the intertwined themes and the correlation that is found by which the Bible supports itself.


Why would a creator god ever allow the message he wanted to share with humankind, to be so mixed up with obvious primitive, biased man-made ideas like the Bible contains? It makes no sense whatsoever. I agree that there is much confusion which is not helped by mistranslations and deliberately adding to and taking away that is done. It just makes the task a more difficult to uncover the truth, but the truth is still there despite the errors.
You would not believe now under any circumstances. Jesus said as much to those who wanted a signs to prove he was the Son of God. Jesus said (Luke 16:31); If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Not even the resurrection of Lazarus, or Jesus himself was enough to persuade the dissenters of his day.

All the best
David

Rose
04-18-2014, 03:01 PM
Hello Rose

I could answer these questions. I did address the the matter and it is not contradictory. I will answer your questions, once you answer mine. I suggest you separate out the questions and then answer them. It is futile me continuing if you will not answer specific questions.

Hello David,

It is a futile effort to address each specific issue, when given the Bible as a whole is so full of bias, contradictions, errors and falsehoods ... that is why the only conclusion I can come to is that the Bible is a purely human book, perfectly reflecting the mindset of the time period in which it was written.




I know what your agenda is and the fact that you deny the Bible is God's inspired word. You can only reason that man must have written it and made the whole thing up. I doubt a fiction writer could not make up the intertwined themes and the correlation that is found by which the Bible supports itself.

Yes, the only conclusion that I can come to when I take the Bible as a whole, and seeing its perfect reflection in the thinking of humans is that it is entirely made up in the minds of men. Remember it wasn't just one writer who wrote the Bible, the many scribes had hundreds of years to perfect its themes and stories, and still there are many problems and missing pieces.


I agree that there is much confusion which is not helped by mistranslations and deliberately adding to and taking away that is done. It just makes the task a more difficult to uncover the truth, but the truth is still there despite the errors.
You would not believe now under any circumstances. Jesus said as much to those who wanted a signs to prove he was the Son of God. Jesus said (Luke 16:31); If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Not even the resurrection of Lazarus, or Jesus himself was enough to persuade the dissenters of his day.

All the best
David

Why would a book so full of errors lead you to believe that it is filled with truth? I will say that the Bible does have truth in it, just as it has errors in it ... exactly what one would expect from human writers.

Take care,
Rose

Gambini
04-19-2014, 09:25 PM
"Religion corrupts a persons morals"

That's a flat out LIE. Meta-studies show the exact OPPOSITE. Religiosity ENHANCES a persons moral character ...

A 2001 Meta-analysis by C.J. Baier and B.R. Wright (which looked at 60 different studies) concludes that religious people are LESS likely to engage in criminal acts of violence (or criminal activity in general) ...

A 2006 Meta-analysis by Alexander Moreira-Almeida, Francisco Lotufo Neto and Harold G. Koering (which looked at 850 different studies) concludes that people who are MORE religious are LESS likely to use drugs or abuse alcohol (and less likely to suffer from depression or attempt suicide as well) ...

A COMPREHENSIVE study released in 2007 by Harvard Professor Robert Putnam and University of Notre Dame associate Professor David Campbell reveals that religious people are MUCH more likely to give to charity and that 40% of regular churchgoers volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly (compared to only 15% who NEVER attend religious services) ...

So your assertion that "religion corrupts morals" is absolute bullshit. In fact, there are hundreds of thousands of people around the world who have CHANGED their lives for the better and credit it to their RELIGIOUS CONVERSION. Where are all the gangbangers, drug dealers and drug addicts who credit their radical change with them ABANDONING their religious beliefs??? ...

The fact of the matter is that you're NOT the harmless smiley face atheist that you (and Richard) try and portray. You're a RADICAL anti-theist with extremely leftist views. You spout off bullshit about Christianity doing more harm than good when Christians CREATED hospitals over 1500 years ago. Christians brought LITERACY to the world. Slavery, which PREDATES Christianity (and even the bible) was abolished BY CHRISTIANS, who then influenced the rest of the world to get on board. The DEMOCRATS were too busy creating the KLU KLUX KLAN as a military wing of the Democratic party (do you even know this?) who went around terrorizing Christians who fought against discrimination against black folks. And then they turned their guns on THE CHRISTIAN CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT led by a Baptist MINISTER and the black CHURCH community.

White geeky secularists are the biggest racists on earth. Your hero, the flaky founder of Planned Parenthood, started her organization with the goal of DEPOPULATING the black community! THIS IS YOUR HERO??? No wonder Planned Parenthood centers are overwhelmingly found in the inner cities. Matter fact, THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS ANYTHING AS "RACES" UNTIL THE SECULARIST LEANING "ENLIGHTENMENT" PERIOD. The idea of different "races" was birthed in the early 1700's. Even the theory of evolution itself was formulated under the assumption that blacks are closer (in time) to our lower beastly ancestors (and therefore "inferior"). Darwin himself was a flat out racist piece of shit (another one of your heroes) ...

Virtually every single positive in our modern society is a NATURAL biological child of biblical Christianity. In other words, the seeds were PLANTED in the bible. That's why it was CHRISTIAN societies who gave birth to scientific advancement. That's why it was CHRISTIAN societies who abolished slavery. That's why it was CHRISTIAN societies where women were first given the same rights as men. I mean, you're not deranged, right??? Do you think it's just a coincidence that all these things were born out of CHRISTIAN societies??? Your whole argument (driven by your obvious bigotry) against biblical morality completely ignores the fact that the civil laws of ancient Israel were NOT intended to be optimal (they were TEMPORARY laws that were suited to the CIRCUMSTANCES of Israel AT THAT TIME). But the SEEDS of virtually all the positives in our modern world were PLANTED in the bible itself. And yet here you are acting as if the bible had nothing to do with it.

And don't even bother bringing up all the wars of Christianity. Any student of history knows that over 90% of wars are TERRITORIAL disputes. But even if we go that route, atheists are the KINGS of slaughter. Look at the facts, in spite of the fact that atheists make up a small minority of the global population, as soon as they began ruling governments, they slaughtered over 100 MILLION people in a mere century (Christians have been running governments for nearly 2,000 years). Why wasn't it the Christians who brought out the body bags??? I mean, we didn't just disappear off the globe during the 20th century, right? So why was it YOUR godless team who went on a bloodthirsty killing spree on an unimaginable scale???

So which is it? Does religion corrupt the morals of man or does ATHEISM corrupt the morals of man??? ...

You have Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot

We have William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King, Gandhi and Mother Teresa

Btw, if you want to claim that religion corrupts our morals in the sense that it makes us want to "lie" to support our views, then that's nothing more than a SUBJECTIVE ad hominem attack. Furthermore, studies show that atheists are the LEAST trusted members of society. So people are more likely to view ATHEISTS as UNTRUSTWORTHY (not religious people).

BINI (The Mystic Meanie).

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
04-19-2014, 11:20 PM
Originally Posted by Gambini
"Your hero, the flaky founder of Planned Parenthood, started her organization with the goal of DEPOPULATING the black community! THIS IS YOUR HERO??? No wonder Planned Parenthood centers are overwhelmingly found in the inner cities"..."THE CHRISTIAN CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT led by a Baptist MINISTER and the black CHURCH community"..."We have William Wilberforce, [Martin Luther King], Gandhi and Mother Teresa." :huhsign:

Now "That's a flat out LIE!" :nono:

Because it does a real disservice that dishonors both Margaret Sanger's and Martin Luther King's legacy. This is what Martin Luther King said in 1966, the year Sanger died:

"There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts...Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her."

To the Contrary, She opened some of the first clinics in Harlem to bring health services to the African American community, and worked closely with such African American activists as W.E.B. DuBois and Adam Clayton Powell.

:doh:

Sanger was about as far from a Reactionary as could be imagined- note her opposition to militarism, her ardent feminism and activism on behalf of working-class women, her support for labor and the rights of immigrants, all of which she makes very clear.

Sanger saw a woman's right to control her own body (specifically her reproductive system). It took more than forty years before a new wave of feminism, along with advances in medical technology, made this attainable.

Of course, this is still the fault-line which runs through the topic of women and religion. The themes which Sanger raises still arouse vehement debate, and pertain to contemporary issues which would have seemed unimaginable to Sanger.

Fundamentalist Religion of all stripes is a Primary Impediment to the Progress of Women, as well as Civilization! Then, as now, religious doctrine was used as a justification for the dehumanization of women, depriving them of civil, human, economic and political rights, even denying them the right to worship alongside men.

From a 21st Century perspective it is both astounding how far we have progressed, [and dismaying how little has changed!]

:sunny:

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
04-20-2014, 12:42 AM
Originally Posted by Gambini
Look at the facts, in spite of the fact that atheists make up a small minority of the global population, as soon as they began ruling governments, they slaughtered over 100 MILLION people in a mere century (Christians have been running governments for nearly 2,000 years). Why wasn't it the Christians who brought out the body bags??? I mean, we didn't just disappear off the globe during the 20th century, right? So why was it YOUR godless team who went on a bloodthirsty killing spree on an unimaginable scale???

But, in point of fact, we can determine- Objectively- that not holding a belief (atheism, materialism) can never logically be the cause of an action, while holding a belief (theism) or ideology can be the cause of an action.

People take actions [on the basis of what they believe], not what they don’t believe!

Stalin, for example, never committed his crimes in the name of atheism or in the name of materialism (in other words, in the name of not-believing-in-god or not-believing-in-worlds-other-than-the-physical).

He committed them [in the name of Beliefs] of his: the belief in a political ideology, and a belief that it is appropriate to use violent force to impose that political ideology. The comparison fails because belief can be the cause of action, while non-belief can never logically be the cause of action.

You’re making the rather common mistake of conflating atheism with the belief that religion is harmful (anti-theism) [or with a desire to make fun of religion].

You're further conflating anti-theism with violent anti-theism. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. That's it! There are plenty of atheists who do not think that religion is bad. Many atheists admire the charitable actions inspired by religions or even work for religious institutions (almost always in a secular capacity, of course).

Perhaps the majority of atheists, though, are indifferent to religions. They simply live their lives and prefer to be left alone. Now indeed, some atheists hold a belief commonly called anti-theism- the belief that religion is harmful. This is a belief- in addition to and on top of their not-believing-in-gods.

[And just to be clear, it's not a "belief" in the sense of being taken on faith- it's a position well-informed by evidence.] It is this belief that distinguishes these atheists from atheists who are okay with religion and from those atheists who are indifferent to it.

Yes, I am an anti-theist- and, on top of that, i’m someone who actually enjoys making fun of the stupidity and insanity of all Fundamentalist Religion- but anti-theism isn’t an *aspect* or *characteristic* of my skepticism or atheism. So indeed, my anti-theism (that is, my *belief* that fundamentalst religion is harmful, stupid, worthy of mockery!) informs my actions because it’s a *belief*.

My skepticism and/or atheism consists entirely of the fact that I don’t simply don't believe in any primitive creator gods. And that's all it means. Any beliefs that I hold are extra, whether it be the belief that religion can be a good thing, the belief that religion is awfully comforting, or the belief that religion is harmful and should be opposed.

Lenin's, Stalin’s, Mao's and Pol Pot's *belief* in Communism- and additionally their *belief* that it’s right to forcefully impose one’s ideology- motivated his (very different) actions. It's *belief* that motivates action! But what doesn’t motivate action for either me, or the atheist down the street is our atheism, which is a *Non-belief.*

Again, the only thing that atheists have in common is that they don't believe in creator gods. There are atheists who would dislike mockery of religion, atheists who would be horrified by Stalin's atrocities, and atheists who barely care about world religions and think it’s stupid or a waste of time to attack them.

As a result, one cannot logically lump them all together by saying, Atheism causes atrocity. It doesn't. It's *beliefs* held by *some* who happen to be atheists that *can* lead to various actions.

In other words, I'm suggesting that this issue is far more nuanced than you have expressed and that it would do you some good to be more precise and sophisticated in your thinking on the matter.

So whether an Atheist kills a believer in the name of Communism (just for example), or a Christian believer kills an atheist for the ideal of Theocracy, [the common root is the desire to control minds and wills!]

This is true even on an individual level. The issue is always "You will believe (or not believe) as I dictate. Both are Abominations!

Only- Religion, Fundamentalism, Political Ideologies like Communism, Personal Philosophies, etc.- can serve as motivators to action, [but non-beliefs (like atheism or materialism) can never logically serve as the cause of an action.]

[*NOT*] believing in something simply cannot be the logical cause of an action.

:yo:

:sunny:

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
04-20-2014, 01:50 AM
"A LIST OF THE BIBLEGOD'S ATROCITES"

Take a moment to browse some specific examples of God-endorsed atrocities. Then, ask yourself how you would feel about these accounts of rape, murder, incest, slavery, torture genocide and infanticide if these acts had been perpetrated say by a human being: Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

Hey, i'm just sayin'...and doesn't your so-called "Moral Code" require you to denounce these acts as horrific and monstrous, Eh?

Or do you hold God to a different "Double Standard" simply because "He is [the Almighty Mother Fucker]," and of course he can do whatever the hell he wants, Eh?"


THE BODY COUNT:

EXODUS 32:27 After seeing the golden calf, God commanded the Levites, "Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor." (3,000) were slaughtered, and God was pleased.
NUMBERS 16:35 A fire from God killed (250) men.
NUMBER 16:48 A plague from God killed (14,700).
NUMBERS 25:9 A plague from God killed (24,000).
[NUMBERS 31:31-40 God divided the plunder to the soldiers, the priest, the Israelites and for tribute to the Lord. 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys [and 32,000 sexy virgin women]
JOSHUA 8:22-25 God helped Joshua battle and slaughter (12,000) men and women in the city of Ai. None escaped.
JUDGES 1:4 God gave the Canaanites and Perizzites into the hands of Judah. (10,000) enemy killed.
JUDGES 15:15 Samson killed (1,000) men with the jawbone of an ass.
JUDGES 16:27-30 God helped Samson pull down the pillars of the temple, killing (3,000).
JUDGES 20:43-48 The Israelites killed (25,000) men. (600) men fled to the desert. The Israelites went and put everyone in the towns "to the sword, including the animals and everything else they found." Then they burned the towns down.
1 SAMUEL 4:10 The Philistines killed (30,000) Israelite soldiers.
1 SAMUEL 18:27 David and his men killed (200) Philistines, presenting their foreskins to the king to win Michal in marriage.
1 SAMUEL 30:17 David killed all but (400) Amalekites, who escaped.
1 SAMUEL 6:19 Some of the men of Beth Shemesh looked into the Ark. God punished them by killing all (70) of them.
2 SAMUEL 8:1-18 David's acts included killing 2 out of 3 Moabite soliders, hamstringing (6,900) chariot horses, killing (22,000) Syrians, and striking down (18,000) Edomites in the Valley of Salt. Verse 6 says "…The Lord gave David victory wherever he went."
2 SAMUEL 10:18 David killed (700) charioteers and (40,000) Aramean foot soldiers.
2 SAMUEL 18:6-7 David's army slaughtered (20,000) men in the forest of Ephraim.
2 SAMUEL 24:15 God sent a plague on Israel to punish David for sin. (70,000) people died.
1 KINGS 20:29-30 The Israelites fought the Syrians. Enemy body count for a single day = (100,000). A wall fell on the (27,000) remaining people.
2 KINGS 1:10-12 Elijah called down fire from heaven. (50) men were consumed by the flames.
2 KINGS 2:23-24 – (42) Fourty-two children made fun of Elisha on the roadside because he was bald. Elisha cursed them. Two bears came out of the woods and mauled them to death!
2 KINGS 10:7 Jehu had Ahab's (70) sons beheaded. He then sent the heads to their grieving father.
2 KINGS 10:14 Jehu ordered the death of Ahab's family…(42) people.
2 KINGS 19:35 An angel of the Lord killed (185,000) men in the Assyrian camp.
2 CHRONICLES 13:17 God delivered the Israelites to Abijah and Judah. (500,000) enemy dead.

GENESIS
GENESIS 6 & 7 Unhappy with the wickedness of man, God killed every living thing on the planet except Noah's family. Men, women, infants and animals drowned in unimaginable terror and agony.
GENESIS 19:6- In Sodom, Lot's home was assaulted by a homosexual mob seeking to have relations with two angels. Lot volunteered his virgin daughters to the crowd, saying "you can do what you like with them" as long as the guests are left alone. After offering his children to be raped, Lot was then appointed by God as worthy of rescue from Sodom's destruction.
GENESIS 19:26: God, still unfazed by the proposed rape of Lot's virgin daughters, turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for "the heinous crime of looking over her shoulder."
GENESIS 34:13 Shechem had premarital sex with Jacob's daughter Dinah, which angered Jacob's sons. Shechem and his father, Hamor, agreed to circumcision for the men in the city in order for Shechem to marry Dinah and make Jacob's other daughters eligible for the men of the city. Three days later, while the men were still enduring the pain of circumcision, Jacob's sons attacked the unsuspecting city, killing Shechem and Hamor with swords, looting the city, seizing the flocks, herds, possessions and wealth, plundering the houses and carrying off their women and children.
GENESIS 38: 8-10 – Onan was instructed by Judah to lay with his brother's wife to produce offspring for his brother (who was put to death by God for wickedness). Onan slept with his brother's wife but "spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother" (NIV). God found this wicked, so God killed him.

EXODUS
EXODUS 2:12 Moses saw an Egyptian beating up a Hebrew. He looked around, saw no witnesses, killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.
EXODUS 7:2-4 God hardened Pharaoh's heart and planned his "mighty acts of judgment.
EXODUS 7:20-21 God turned the Nile river to blood. The fish died, and the water was undrinkable.
EXODUS 8: 6-7 God sent a plague of frogs which covered the land.
EXODUS 8:16 God sent a plague of gnats.
EXODUS 8:24 God sent a swarm of flies.
EXODUS 9:5 God killed all of the Egyptian livestock with a plague.
EXODUS 9:10 God sent a plague of festering boils on the people and animals.
EXODUS 9:22-25 God sent a hail storm to Egypt, striking man and animal, stripping the land.
EXODUS 12: 29 God killed the first-born in every Egyptian home that wasn't marked with lamb's blood.
EXODUS 17:13 Moses held out the staff of God, allowing Joshua to kill the Amalekites.
EXODUS 21:20-21 According to God's law, it was wrong to beat a slave to the point of death. But if the slave survived and got back up within a few days, the beating wasn't punishable, because the slave was the property of the master. (God endorsed slavery and the beating of slaves.)

LEVITICUS
LEVITICUS 26:7-8 God rewarded obedience with assurances that enemies would all die by the sword.
LEVITICUS 26:22 God warned that, if the people didn't listen to Him, he would send wild animals to rob parents of their children, destroy cattle and leave the roads deserted.
LEVITICUS 26:27-29 God threatened hostility, punishing people for their sins "seven times over," making them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters.

NUMBERS
NUMBERS 12:9-14 God was displeased with Miriam, so he struck her with leprosy and banished her from the camp for seven days.
NUMBERS 15:32-36 A man gathered sticks for a fire on the Sabbath. By God's command, he was stoned to death.
NUMBERS 16:27-33 The men were rebellious, so God caused the earth to open and swallow up the men, wives and children.
NUMBERS 21:3 The Lord gave the Canaanites over to Israel, who "completely destroyed them and their towns."
NUMBERS 21:6 God sent venomous snakes, which bit and killed many Israelites.
NUMBERS 21:35 With God's approval, the Israelites went into the city of Og, killed the king, his sons, the army (leaving no survivors) and took over the land.
NUMBERS 25:4 God told Moses to kill the leaders of Shittim and expose their bodies in broad daylight.
NUMBERS 25:8 Phinehas, son of Aaron the priest, killed an Israelite man and Midianite woman with a spear, plunging the spear "into the woman's body."
NUMBERS 31:9 Under God's command, the Israelites captured the Midianite women and children, and "they took all the plunder and spoils."
NUMBERS 31:17-18 God commanded Moses to kill all of the male Midianite children and "kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." The virgins were presumably raped. (NOTE: How could the soldiers know which women were virgins?)
NUMBERS 31:31-40 God divided the plunder to the soldiers, the priest, the Israelites and for tribute to the Lord. 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys [and 32,000 virgin women!]

DEUTERONOMY
DEUTERONOMY 2:33-34 Under God's leadership, the Israelites utterly destroyed the men, women and children of Sihon. "…We left no survivors."
DEUTERONOMY 3:6 Under God's leadership, the Israelites destroyed the men, women and children of Og. They plundered the livestock and possessions.
DEUTERONOMY 7:2 God told the Israelites, regarding their enemies, to "destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy."
DEUTERONOMY 20:13-14 God laid down the rules for battle, instructing the slaughter of all of the men. Women, children, livestock and possessions could be taken as "plunder for yourselves."
DEUTERONOMY 20:16 "…in the cities of the nations the LORD your god is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes."
DEUTERONOMY 21:10-13 According to God's law, if an Israelite soldier was at war with an enemy, and he saw a beautiful woman that he found attractive, he could capture her to be his wife. She must then shave her head, trim her nails and discard the clothing she was wearing when captured. She could mourn her father and mother for a month. If the soldier wasn't pleased with her for any reason, he could "let her go wherever she wishes."
DEUTERONOMY 28:53 God's punishment for disobedience included eating "the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the LORD your God has given you."

JOSHUA
JOSHUA 6:21-27 Under God's direction, Joshua destroyed the entire city of Jericho…men, women, teenagers and infants…with the edge of the sword. The soldiers then pillaged the silver, gold, bronze and iron for God and burned the city.
JOSHUA 7:19-26 Achan took a robe and some money from the plunder. Joshua and the Israelites took Achan, the loot, his sons, daughters, cattle, donkeys , sheep and possessions to the Valley of Achor, where all were stoned and burned.
JOSHUA 10:10-27 God helped Joshua slaughter the Gibeonites.
JOSHUA 10;28 With God's approval, Joshua put the city of Makkedah" to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left no survivors."
JOSHUA 10:30 The Lord gave the city of Libnah to Joshua. Everyone in the city was "put to the sword."
JOSHUA 10:32-33 God gave his approval as Joshua killed every man, woman and child in Lachish with the sword.
JOSHUA 10:34-35 Everyone in the city of Eglon was killed by the sword of Joshua and his army.
JOSHUA 10:36-37 God approved as Joshua killed the king of Hebron, its villages and every citizen. "They left no survivors."
JOSHUA 10:38-39 Joshua took Israel's army to attack Debir. They killed everyone.
JOSHUA 11:6 God commanded Joshua to defeat the enemy at the Waters of Merom. "You are to hamstring their horses and burn their chariots."
JOSHUA 11:8-15 Joshua's army, under God's command, did not spare "anyone that breathed."
JOSHUA 11:20 "For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses."

JUDGES
JUDGES 1:6 Adoni-Bezek (of the Canaanites) fled, but Judah's army chased him down and sliced off his thumbs and big toes.
JUDGES 1:8 God approved the attack by Judah on Jerusalem. Judah's army killed and set the city aflame.
JUDGES 1:17 With God's approval, Judah and Simeon utterly destroyed the Canaanites who inhabited Zephath.
JUDGES 3:29 The Lord delivered the Moabites into the hands of the Israelites. "At that time they struck down about then thousand Moabites, all vigorous and strong; not a man escaped."
JUDGES 4:21 Jael drove a tent stakes through the head of Sisera.
JUDGES 7:19-25 Under God's direction, the Gideons defeated the Midianites. They killed and decapitated their princes and delivered the heads to Gideon.
JUDGES 8:15-21 Gideon punisheed the men of Succoth with desert thorns and briers. He then "pulled down the tower of Peniel and killed the men of the town."
JUDGES 9:5 Abimalech murdered his own brothers.
JUDGES 9:45 Abimalech and his men killed everyone in the city. Then he scattered salt over it.
JUDGES 9:53-54 Abimelech was laying siege to the city of Thebez when a woman cracked his head with a stone. "Hurredly, he called to his armor-bearer, 'Draw your sword and kill me, so that they can't say "a woman killed him".' So his servant ran him through, and he died."
JUDGES 11:29-39 Jepthah sacrificed his beloved daughter as a burnt offering after God gave him victory in battle.
JUDGES 18:27 The Danies went on to Laish, against a peaceful and unsuspecting people. They attacked them with the sword and burned down their city.
JUDGES 19:22-29 A traveler from Bethlehem, his concubine and servant stayed as guests of an old man in Gibeah. Wicked men of the city surrounded the house, demanding to have sex with the male guest. The old homeowner offered his virgin daughter and the concubine, imploring the mob to "do to them whatever you wish." The concubine was raped and died. The traveler put her dead body on his donkey, went home, took a knife, and hacked her into twelve pieces. He then sent the pieces to each of the twelve tribes of Israel.
JUDGES 21:10-12 The assembly killed every male and non-virgin female in Jabesh Gilead. They found 400 virgins to bring back for themselves.

1 SAMUEL
1 SAMUEL 5:6-9 As punishment for stealing the Ark of the Covenant, God afflicted the Philistines with tumors in their "secret parts."
1 SAMUEL 7:7-11 God helped Samuel's men kill the Philistines, "slaughtering them along the way to a point below Beth Car."
1 SAMUEL 11:11 Under God's blessing, Saul and his army slaughtered the Ammonites "until the heat of the day."
1 SAMUEL 14:31 Jonathan and his men slaughtered the Philistines and "pounced on the plunder," eating meat with blood in it. God supported the slaughter of men "but was displeased at the eating of unclean meat! So Saul built an altar to the Lord.
1 SAMUEL 15:7-8 God commanded Saul to attack the Amalekites and "totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."
1 SAMUEL 15:33 "Samuel put Agag to death before the Lord at Gilgal."

2 SAMUEL
2 SAMUEL 2:23 Abner thrust the butt of his spear through Asahel's stomach.
2 SAMUEL 3:30 As revenge for Asahel's death, Joab and Abishai killed Abner.
2 SAMUEL 4:7-8 Ish-bosheth was lying on the bed in his bedroom. Recab and Baanah went into the room, stabbed and killed him. They decapitated him and took the head to David at Hebron. David was not pleased that an innocent man has been murdered.
2 SAMUEL 4:12 David punished Rechan and Baanah by killing them, chopping off their hands and feet and hanging their bodies by the pool at Hebron.
2 SAMUEL 6:6-7 The oxen carrying the Ark of God stumbled, and Uzzah reached out to steady it. God punished his "irreverent act" by killing him where he stood.
2 SAMUEL 6:22-23 Michal mocked David for exposing himself to slave girls. Michal was punished by God, who made her barren of children for the rest of her life. (Also note the contradiction in 2 Samuel 21:8, where Michal is said to NOT be barren, but instead has five children.)
2 SAMUEL 11:14-27 David coveted Uriah's wife. So he had him killed in battle so David could have Bathsheba for himself.
2 SAMUEL 12:1 For David's murder of Uriah, God killed David's child.
2 SAMUEL 13:1-15 David's son, Amnon, fell in love with his own sister, Tamar, a virgin. She protested his advances, (verse 14) "but he refused to listen to her, and since he was stronger than she, he raped her." Afterward, Amnon hated her and cast her out of the room.
2 SAMUEL 13:28-29 Tamar's brother Absalom ordered his men to get Amnon drunk, then kill him for raping his sister.
2 SAMUEL 18:15 Joab took 3 javelins and plunged them into Absalom's heart. Ten other men struck and killed him.
2 SAMUEL 20:10-12 Joab plunged a dagger into Amasa's belly, spilling his intestines onto the ground. Amasa died, wallowing in his blood inthe middle of the road.

1 KINGS
1 KINGS 2:24-25 Solomon killed Adonijah.
1 KINGS 2:29-34 Solomon killed Joab.
1 KINGS 13-15-24 A prophet lied to a man, telling him it was fine to eat bread and drink water in a place the Lord had previously told him not to. The deceived man ate and drank there. God sent a lion to kill him, "and his body was thrown down on the road."

2 KINGS
2 KINGS 5:27 Elisha cursed Gehazi and his descendants, forever, with leprosy.
2 KINGS 6:18-19 The enemy came toward Elisha, and he prayed to God, "Strike these people with blindness." God made them blind. Elisha then tricked them and led them to Samaria, where God opened their eyes again.
2 KINGS 6:29 A woman cried out to the king of Israel, lamenting a great famine. She was upset because she had agreed to cook her son and eat him, but after the deed, another woman had refused to do the same.
2 KINGS 9:24 Jehu tricked Joram, then murdered him with a bow and arrow, piercing his heart.
2 KINGS 9:27 Jehu ordered his men to kill Ahaziah, king of Judah.
2 KINGS 9:30-37 Jehu had Jezebel killed. Horses trampled her and her blood splattered the wall. Dogs ate her flesh and her remains were called "refuse" (trash).
2 KINGS 10:17 According to God's word (spoken to Elijah), Jehu went to Samaria and "killed all who were left there of Ahab's family; he destroyed them…"
2 KINGS 10:19-27 Jehu trapped the Baal worshippers in the temple. He then told the guards, "Go in and kill them; let no one escape." They slaughtered the worshippers and burned down the temple, using it as a latrine from that day forward.
2 KINGS 11:1 Athaliah destroyed the royal family.
2 KINGS 14:5 Amaziah executeed the officials who murdered his father.
2 KINGS 14:3-5 God was unhappy with Azariah, even though he had done what was right in the eyes of the Lord. The high places had not been removed, and God was jealous of their sacrifices on that altar. So God afflicted Azariah with leprosy as punishment.
2 KINGS 15:16 Menahem attacked the city of Tiphsah. He destroyed the town and "ripped open all of the pregnant women."
2 Chronicles
2 CHRONICLES 21:4 Jehoram killed all of his brothers, and some of the princes of Israel...put to death by sword.
Isaiah

ISAIAH
ISAIAH 13:15 Isaiah saw a prophecy regarding Babylon. "Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished."
ISAIAH 13:18 God's punishment for Babylon was further described. "Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants, nor will they look with compassion on children."
ISAIAH 14:21-23 "Prepare a place to slaughter his sons for the sins of their forefathers; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities. 'I will rise up against them,' declares the Lord Almighty."
ISAIAH 49:26 God's punishment on those who came against Israel. "I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh; they will be be drunk on their own blood, as with wine. Then all mankind will know that I, the Lord, am your Savior…"
JEREMIAH
JEREMIAH 16:4 The word of the Lord about the children born in this land says "They will die of deadly diseases. They will not be mourned or buried but will be like refuse lying on the ground. They will perish by sword and famine, and their dead bodies will become food for the birds of the air and the bests of the earth."

EZRA
EZRA 6:12-13 Darius' decree said that, if anyone changed his edict, "a beam is to be pulled from his house and he is to be lifted up and impaled on it." Then the house was to be demolished.

JOB
JOB 1 To prove a point, God gave Satan permission to torment Job and test his righteousness. Job's children were killed. Job's possessions were destroyed. Job tore his clothes and shaved his head from grief.
JOB 2 God allows Satan to smite Job's body with horrible boils "from the soles of his feet to the crown of his head." Job scraped his afflicted skin with a piece of broken pottery. His wife tells Job to "Curse God and die." Job's friends found him unrecognizable. This is how God treats his beloved children.

EZEKIEL
EZEKIEL 20:26 Israel rebelled, and God's punishment was sobering. "I let them become defiled through their gifts- the sacrifice of every firstborn- that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord."
EZEKIEL 23:34 God said that prostitutes would drink a cup of scorn and tear their breasts.
EZEKIEL 23:45-47 God punished adultery. "…Bring a mob against them and give them over to terror and plunder. The mob will stone them and cut them down with their swords; they will kill their sons and daughters and burn down their houses."
HOSEA
HOSEA 13:16 Because Israel had rebelled, a wind from the Lord would blow in. They "will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, and their pregnant women ripped open."


The Wrathful God of Isaiah, "when the Lord "[REVELS!]" in the SLAUGHTER of the RIGHTEOUS and [INNOCENT]" I DO ALL THESE [THINGS]" Well, what are these things? THINGS like "a Day when the Lord REVELS[!] in the SLAUGHTER of the RIGHTEOUS and INNOCENT[!] HE SAID "REVELS!" (To take GREAT-DELIGHT and ORGIASTIC-PLEASURE; A PARTY and CELEBRATION; To REVEL IN SUCCESS.)

The slaughtering, raping, ruthless storm God...and it comes right from the Bible. Tyrant-Yahweh the one effective Will in creation so that "he was behind everything that happened or was done." He it was "who killed and caused manslaughter" (Ex 21:13). If it was Evil destruction and disintegration then "Yahweh was the source of such wicked-evil and terrors." "I [CREATE] EVIL." The word 'Create, that [what before did not exist was now made!]." Not Made. To Create", to "bring into being and existence." (Isai.45,7)

I this truly Loving and Graceful "Godlike" behavior - or rather just the Opposite?

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
04-20-2014, 02:24 AM
The idiotic Church Fathers overtly perverted, degraded woman and considered her to be accursed and called her a Serpent, a Scorpion- the devil in Feminine-form! (What a sick bunch of Lying Bastards. How perverted and shameful.)

Is "The Bible for Dummies" [the most appropriate title for a book] you've ever heard? :lol:

Let us look at the following Verses in the Bible: "If a man takes a wife and, after laying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, 'I married this woman but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,' then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof [how do you think they would do that?] that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity.' Then her parents shall display the cloth [and keep that bloody cloth for as long as his daughter is married] with before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 22:13-18)"

Here is a more clear translation from Hebrew Resources: "The girl's father and mother shall produce the evidence of the girl's virginity before the elders of the town at the gate. And the girl's father shall say to the elders, "I gave this man my daughter to wife, but he had taken an aversion to her; so he has made up charges, saying, 'I did not find your daughter a virgin.' But here is the evidence of my daughter's virginity!" And [they shall spread out the cloth before the elders of the town]. (From the New JPS translation, Deuteronomy 22:15-17)"

The New JPS translation of Deuteronomy 22:15-17 makes it even more clear about [having the parents of the girl displaying the bloody piece of cloth] before the elders of the town.

Birth of any female is a loss: Ecclesiasticus 22:3 "....and [the birth of ANY daughter is a loss]." (From the New Jerusalem Bible. Catholic Bible).

If a woman tries to save her husband from a beating by grabbing the other man's private parts to lift him off her husband, then both her hands must get cut off: Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "And in case men struggle together (in a fight) with one another, and the wife of the one has come near to deliver her husband out of the striking one (to save her husband), and she has thrust out her hand and grabbed hold of his private (the other man's groin), [she must then get both her hands cut off, and the eyes of the men must feel no sorrow."]

Fathers can sell their daughters as slave girls: Exodus 21:7-8 "And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn't designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her."

Ecclesiastes 25:22 "Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." (from the Catholics Bible) [Women in the Bible are considered filth and evil!]

Ecclesiastics 7:26-28 "And I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare....while I was still searching but not finding, I found one upright man among a thousand but not one upright woman among them all". [The Bible claims that it is impossible to find a single good woman among a thousand women.]


What the "So-called" Canonized Saints of Christianity said about Women:

"Woman is a daughter of falsehood, a sentinel of Hell, the enemy of peace; through her Adam lost paradise" (St. John Demascene)
"Woman is the instrument which the devil uses to gain possession of our souls" (St. Cyprian)
"Woman is the fountain of the arm of the devil, her voice is the hissing of the serpent" (St. Anthony)
"Woman has the poison of an asp, the malice of a dragon" (St. Gregory)

Tertullian, while he was talking to his 'best beloved sisters' in the faith, he said, "Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil's gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil wasn't valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man."

Once again, St. Augustine wrote to a friend, "What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman."

It is clear in the Old Testament that uncovering a woman's head was a great disgrace and that's why the priest had to uncover the suspected adulteress in her trial by ordeal (Numbers 5:16-18).

Tertullian in his famous treatise 'On The Veiling Of Virgins' wrote, "Young women, you wear your veils out on the streets, so you should wear them in the church, you wear them when you are among strangers, then wear them among your brothers..."

Continuing, according to the Old Testament, a childless widow must marry her husband's brother, even if he is already married and regardless of her consent, so that she might bear a child from him (Deuteronomy 25:5).

According to Numbers 27:1-11, widows and sisters don't inherit at all. Daughters can inherit only if their deceased father had no sons. Source: The Bible.

Well I don't know, there are lots and lots of sick and twisted Bible verses like.

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
04-20-2014, 02:53 AM
These IGNORANT AND UNEDUCATED WOMEN BEATERS Accursed and called HER a Serpent, Snare, and a Scorpion. It is they who have so twisted and perverted the Truth.

To begin with, SHE was never an evil to begin with, so that when personified in her the scorpion is really on the side of the gods!

The Satanic Apap-serpent and the Sebau, are bound in Chains. The Sebau represent the physical forces in external nature that made for evil and were for ever opposed to the Good Being and to the peace of the world. These were always rising in impotent revolt as the hosts of darkness and spawn of Apap, headed by the evil-hearted Sut-Satan. It is said to the Pre-anthropomorphic Christian devil, 'Chains are [cast upon thee by the scorpion goddess]. Sut (Satan) is also imprisoned with a chain upon his neck.

But it was actually the Scorpion goddess herself, who seizes and holds the Satanic Apophis serpent. Apap Serpent is in Bonds. Hence it is said to Apap: 'Thy whole heart is torn out by the lynx-goddess. Chains are flung upon thee by the scorpion-goddess.

She has the style of heart, the Might, the Primal Motherhood and Life.

:yo:

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
04-20-2014, 05:45 AM
Fundamentalist Christianity's success is because, in part, the preachers and priests have suppressed the above statements from the Old Testament coming from Biblegod's' mouth in his role as the Logos or Word who had his Holy Spirit inspire his Proxy-Moses to write these words down.

Christian Fundamentalists and other Jihadists still seek to "PUT THE EVERLOVING FEAR OF GOD" into mankind's hearts via "ACTS OF TERROR" against fellow believers as well infidels:

"They DESPISED his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their fathers..." (2 Ki 17:15)
"Ah, sinful nation...they have DESPISED the Holy One of Israel..." (Isa 1:4)
"And if I am a master, WHERE IS MY FEAR? says the Lord of hosts to you O priests, who DESPISE MY NAME." (Mal 1:6)
"I will give them one heart and one way, that they may FEAR ME for ever...I will put the FEAR OF ME in their hearts, that they may not turn from me." (Jeremiah 32:37-41)
"Know and see that it is evil and bitter for you to forsake the Lord your God; THE FEAR OF ME IS NOT IN YOU, says the Lord God of hosts." (Jeremiah 2:19)
"DO YOU NOT FEAR ME?" Says the Lord; "DO YOU NOT TREMBLE BEFORE ME?" (Jeremiah 5:22)
"THEY DO NOT SAY IN THEIR HEARTS, "Let us FEAR THE LORD our God..." (Jer 5:24)
"Says the Lord, and shall I not AVENGE MYSELF on a nation such as this?" (Jer 5:29)

As can be seen from all of the above, Christian Priests and Ministers have deliberately suppressed the "DARK SIDE" of Biblgod's personality in his role "as the Old Testament's Logos or Word," which also shows him to be in reality a slaughtering ruthless God full of hatefulness and vengeance, devoid of any compassion for non-believers (he ordered the slaughter of all the Canaanites).

Those who "blaspheme the name of the Lord" are no longer put to death. (contra Lev 24:16) Islam will not tolerate the blaspheming of Allah, Mohammed, or Islam, and will murder those who do so. Anybody mocking the Hebrew God in Moses' days or Jesus in the European Middle Ages would have been publicly outright executed in accordance with Deuteronomy 13.

Today only Islam demands death for those who mock Allah or his prophet Mohammed or Islam's teachings, be they Muslims or Infidel Christians.

Thankfully, no Christian in American today worries about being killed for giving up his religion, but Muslims today still live in constant terror and fear-of-their-lives if they even think to become Christians, knowing they could be assassinated, raped, tortured and murdered by the faithful as Infidels and Apostates.

No Christian today lives in fear of being assassinated for mocking Yahweh or Jesus, but they do fear to mock Allah and his prophet Mohammed because Islam will simply not tolerate this behavior. Secular Laws have been passed in Western Societies (Europe and the Americas) that have effectively "pulled the teeth" out of some of the Bible's teachings about " how to enforce biblical-teachings with Yahweh's blessings," that is to say the biblical teachings from the Holy Spirit on "how to go about putting THE FEAR OF GOD in mankind," [have been replaced by more MORE HUMAN SECULAR LAWS.]

Christianity has became what it is today via the religion of the Roman Empire via ACTS OF TERROR and MASS-DESTRUCTION sanctioned by the Christian Roman Emperors. Pagans and others outside the empire were forcibly converted via TERRORISM. Any Empire that "aspires to greatness and power in the world" does so "THROUGH TERRORISM."

WHY? This is "NATURE'S WAY," the dominant in any species maintains their dominance via TERROR, be it insect, fish, fowl, animal or human (or nations).

And I doubt the day will ever arrive that the U.S. and European TV News Commentators will announce to their Christian audiences that Christianity and Islam are terrorist religions and that Biblehod-Yahweh Lord is a primitive Terrorist storm-god, and that this is the real reason for the present world problems.

The Bible and the Quran agree in this respect, in the end "there is to be no religious liberty and freedom for mankind."

BIBLEGOD GOD SUCKS, SUCKS, SUCKS!

And you wanna know somethin' else? If you don't believe your God murdered innocent little babies by the bushel baskets full and millions you must have been reading your Bible with your eyes closed! Just read Genesis 8 and 9, II Samuel 12:15-18, Hosea 9:14, Hosea 13:16, I Samuel 15:3, and other nauseating passages. Read it.

Sorry, but I happen to love all people, but especially innocent WOMEN, babies and children, therefore I absolutely hate your God. And i'm Sorry, people, but I have some called a conscience, a sense of morality WHICH YOU SEEM TO LACK!

I have at least enough Common-Sense and discernment to read the Bible and recognize that its deity is a creation of the human-psyche, that it, like all other primitive gods, was created in man's image.

"Oh, that's just the way they did things back then." Assuming, for the sake of argument, and only for the sake of argument, that the Bible is inspired, then God at some point in time issued the commands of Exodus 21:1-7.

The conclusion that he did so renders Tyrant-Yahweh (very) unworthy of worship. And I hate Tyrants and Bullies.

Without Dissent, things-the-way-they-are will continue they are for the foreseeable future. The Nadir of going along with the crowd.

Dissent is Good.
Dissent is Important.
Dissent is Necessary and Vital.

Revolt.
Please Think For Yourself.

Welcome to the arena of LIBERTY freedom- freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of expression.

And welcome to the very heart of Offensiveness! If you are easily offended, read on. But sometimes people need to be shocked into sensibility. If shock treatment is the way to make people, especially, think straight, then So Be it!

The Dissent and Right to Offend is one of our most precious rights...My Salient Manifesto is an Unabashed Bashing and Mockery of Tyrants and Authority figures who assume you should obey them.

Who says we must continue to be an Ovine/Bovine society of stupid, ignorant, obedient sheep-cows? Why should that be the Default??

This is just the fact to way things are. The paradigm of power exists. And since BibleGod does not, only we humans can alter it!

My Rants are the natural outcome of being a Rebel With A Cause. It's all these things and more, but it's not presented for the sake of being Different...it's all from my Heart.

Not Polite. Not Politically-Correct. Not Subtle. If you have a problem with Authority Tryrant, you'll love me...But if you lick the boots of Authority, you need it.

Am I a Negative person? No, i'm a very Positive and Passionate person. I just want things to be Better. That's all. Nothing will ever improve if that philosophy of Non-action prevails.

A common thing you hear is people saying "I respect your right to have an opinion." Sometimes you even hear "I respect your opinion."

I do respect people's right and freedom to have an opinion and have a religion. I respect it as a human right. But "I DON'T" respect their Tyrannical God or Religion itself.

I have respect for the ownership of an opinion but extreme disrespect for the opinion itself. And I don't respect it all, especially this sort of Dualistic Flesh-Hating Christianity.

I'm sorry, How can anyone have any respect at all for such a gloomy and negative God such as this?

Any God, any entity, any state, any church or temple, religion or ideology which fails to recognize the absolute worth, the dignity, the sovereign-rights and equality of every man, woman and child- that Entity is OBSOLETE!

But some men have decided to turn the Earth into a Graveyard. And into it they willingly shoveled all of their thinking, skepticism, tolerance, inquiry, reason, their logic, their knowledge, but worst of all, their Conscience.

This is No moral, no message, no prophetic tract, just a simple statement of Fact: for our civilization to survive, the human race has to remain Civilized! For the tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, religious attitudes, hates and prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.

And the real pity of it all is that these things cannot be confined...For the record, prejudices and hate can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for an Imaginary-Adversary or Scapegoat has a fallout all of its own- for our children, and the children yet unborn.

This is Something to dwell on and to remember wherever men walk.

Fear, of course, is extremely relative. It depends on who can look down and who must look up. It depends on other vagaries, like the time, psychology, the mood, the darkness. As it's been said before, with great validity, that "the worst thing there is to fear is fear itself."

For there was an old woman who lived in a room and, like all of us, was frightened of the Dark, but who discovered in the minute last fragment of her life that there was nothing in the dark that wasn't there when the lights were on.

An Object lesson for the more frightened amongst us. And that's my very small exercise in logic for today.

:yo:

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
04-20-2014, 06:56 AM
Numbers 31
As in the book of Joshua, the brutal Proxy Warriors soldiers of Yahweh roll through the enemy with no resistance. This time, God, via Moses, has 12,000 men fighting for Him.

In an actual real battle, at least some of the 12,000 would die. (But of course this isn't Real! This is the Bible lore.) And the Proxy-Warriors of God have not one casualty, while the Midianites have many.

If God had wanted to, He would have commanded Moses to kill the "women children" as well. But God and Mo spared them. Just what are the "women children"? They are textually contrasted with women who have been with a man.

Therefore, we can conclude that "women children" refers to virgins. It isn't hard to figure out why Moses and God would want them kept alive!

See also Deuteronomy 2 and 3:1-6 for another rout by God's team. YEAH TEAM!

This team always rolled up and down the field without a struggle. An occasional penalty incurred by teammates squabbling amongst themselves, but no fight put up by the opposing team.

Yahweh's team always plowed through the opposing defense like the Tampa Bay Buccaneers would plow through a high school football team.


Deuteronomy 13

Of the gamut of deathly methods favoured by BibleGod, stoning is probably his most very favourite. He here commands his chosen Children to stone any brethren who go astray to worship other gods besides him. Once more, no tolerance of dissent is shown.

Don't fuck with Yahweh...It's Yahweh's way or the Highway's!

How ironic that in a Democracy like the U.S. has so many people who still worship this primitive Iron Age Storm-God, who yea, call this nation "a Christian Nation," yet this Tyrant-Fiend God is the most Undemocratic god possible.

How interesting that "Other Gods" are mentioned. This means the priests who wrote Deut. knew of the other gods of other peoples. The ancient Hebrew desert "society" was a Dystopia, but the planet was multicultural then as it is now.

Instead of tolerating multiculturalism as the United States does, however, they determined, under the aegis of its insecure Storm God, to blot out the foreign blight from the face of the Earth. They were instructed by El Yahweh/the priests to erase worshipers of other neighboring gods whenever and wherever they were found upon the earth, even in their own camp.

Instead of sitting down with a Buddhist or Baalist, hypothetically, to learn more about his religion, a child of theirs was told to stone the Buddhist or Baalist to death. So much for Diversity. Apparently higher education, with its encouragement of learning other viewpoints, was not yet extant in the early human race, and certainly not within Yahweh's Clan.

The Children were Xenophobic freaks just like the God they created in their image. Stoning is used as a way of taking the breath of life from a fellow human here as it is throughout the early OT, including in this same book of Deut., in the 21st chapter.

There, the victims are not infidels who kow-tow to some god besides YahwehAlmightyJehovah, but incorrigible sons of parents who are commanded to extinguish them for their rebellion.

Tell me, where is the Love?

Where is the patience that a child will improve with time and maturity?

Just as YahwehAlmightyJehovah despises heretics who won't bow-down to worship Him and Suck him-off, dissenters who dare to question him and complain, He deplores children who won't obey their parents.

Deut. 21 is pristine. Unsoiled. Never nebulous. Short 'n sweet, to-the-point. Just kill 'em. Don't love 'em or quietly talk to 'em. JUST KILL THEM!

I thought BibleGod is a God of love and family, that the family is the core unit of America and Goodness, that the family is preeminent and a creation of God. There's absolutely no parental or familial love therein.

Murdering your own kid does not continue the family unit and it doesn't allow the virtue of Grace and Unconditional Love.

Deuteronomy 28

Oh, This is such a nice god...Among the plenitude of afflictions He promises for going astray, note the plague of hemorrhoids in verse 27.

But at least He likes variety!

L67
04-20-2014, 09:00 AM
"Religion corrupts a persons morals"

That's a flat out LIE. Meta-studies show the exact OPPOSITE. Religiosity ENHANCES a persons moral character ...

A 2001 Meta-analysis by C.J. Baier and B.R. Wright (which looked at 60 different studies) concludes that religious people are LESS likely to engage in criminal acts of violence (or criminal activity in general) ...

A 2006 Meta-analysis by Alexander Moreira-Almeida, Francisco Lotufo Neto and Harold G. Koering (which looked at 850 different studies) concludes that people who are MORE religious are LESS likely to use drugs or abuse alcohol (and less likely to suffer from depression or attempt suicide as well) ...


A COMPREHENSIVE study released in 2007 by Harvard Professor Robert Putnam and University of Notre Dame associate Professor David Campbell reveals that religious people are MUCH more likely to give to charity and that 40% of regular churchgoers volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly (compared to only 15% who NEVER attend religious services) ...

Why don't you post something up to date? A lot has changed since those dates.

But since you like to quote studies then here is one for you. A new study finds that religious people are less intelligent than non religious people. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/14/religious-people-less-intelligent-atheists_n_3750096.html

You have proven that in spades Bini as I will show below.




The fact of the matter is that you're NOT the harmless smiley face atheist that you (and Richard) try and portray. You're a RADICAL anti-theist with extremely leftist views. You spout off bullshit about Christianity doing more harm than good when Christians CREATED hospitals over 1500 years ago

Christians created hospitals 1500 years ago? BS! They existed before Christianity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital#Early_examples

The earliest documented institutions aiming to provide cures were ancient Egyptian temples. In ancient Greece, temples dedicated to the healer-god Asclepius, known as Asclepieia functioned as centres of medical advice, prognosis, and healing

Please don't let FACTS get in your way. Look at that, another god before the great healer Yahweh.



Christians brought LITERACY to the world.

More BS from you. That's debatable.




Slavery, which PREDATES Christianity (and even the bible) was abolished BY CHRISTIANS, who then influenced the rest of the world to get on board.

More BS! The Bible is a guide to slavery. I don't deny that Christianity played a role in abolishing slavery.

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

But, Christianity created the slave trade here in the west. The European Imperialists (colonial powers, France, Spain, Great Britain and Portugal) were colonizing the New World and needed labor to work there mines and plantations. They used the Bible as a guide and justification for slavery.

The best example is by the Confederate states of America President Jefferson Davis. http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

Slavery in the west was a direct result of Christianity. So, don't give that BS that Christianity was innocent of slavery.


The DEMOCRATS were too busy creating the KLU KLUX KLAN as a military wing of the Democratic party (do you even know this?) who went around terrorizing Christians who fought against discrimination against black folks. And then they turned their guns on THE CHRISTIAN CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT led by a Baptist MINISTER and the black CHURCH community.

And what you FAIL to realize is that the KKK was and always has been a Christian organization. They were Christian conservative democrats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

They were a Christian organization at inception and are still considered that today. Except today they are labeled far right.

After the American Civil War of 1861–1865, members of the Protestant-led[54] Ku Klux Klan (KKK) organization began engaging in arson, beatings, cross burnings, destruction of property, lynching, murder, rape, tar-and-feathering, and whipping. They targeted African Americans, Jews, Catholics, and other social or ethnic minorities.

Klan members had an explicitly Christian terrorist ideology, basing their beliefs in part on a "religious foundation" in Christianity.[55] The goals of the KKK included, from an early time onward, an intent to "reestablish Protestant Christian values in America by any means possible", and they believed that "Jesus was the first Klansman."[56] From 1915 Klansmen conducted cross-burnings not only to intimidate targets, but also to demonstrate their respect and reverence for Jesus Christ, and the ritual of lighting crosses was steeped in Christian symbolism, including saying prayers and singing Christian hymns.[57] Within Christianity the Klan directed hostilities against Catholics. Modern Klan organizations, such as the Knights Party, USA, continue to focus on the Christian supremacist message, detecting a "war" which allegedly aims to destroy "western Christian civilization."

Nice try Bini. Your ignorance is astounding.


White geeky secularists are the biggest racists on earth. Your hero, the flaky founder of Planned Parenthood, started her organization with the goal of DEPOPULATING the black community! THIS IS YOUR HERO??? No wonder Planned Parenthood centers are overwhelmingly found in the inner cities. Matter fact, THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS ANYTHING AS "RACES" UNTIL THE SECULARIST LEANING "ENLIGHTENMENT" PERIOD. The idea of different "races" was birthed in the early 1700's. Even the theory of evolution itself was formulated under the assumption that blacks are closer (in time) to our lower beastly ancestors (and therefore "inferior"). Darwin himself was a flat out racist piece of shit (another one of your heroes) ...

Why do you regurgitate BS from right wing propaganda? That was never Margret Sangers intentions. Read this if you care about the truth at all. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/herman-cains-rewriting-of-birth-control-history/2011/10/31/gIQAr53uaM_blog.html

As far as Darwin goes, you're too ignorant to know any better.


Virtually every single positive in our modern society is a NATURAL biological child of biblical Christianity. In other words, the seeds were PLANTED in the bible. That's why it was CHRISTIAN societies who gave birth to scientific advancement. That's why it was CHRISTIAN societies who abolished slavery. That's why it was CHRISTIAN societies where women were first given the same rights as men.

BULLSHIT! Christians gave birth to scientific advancement? LMAO! The vast majority of Christians REJECT established science in favor of their dogmas.

It was also Christians who created slavery. Look at all the suffering that has been done in the name of Christianity.

Christians were the first to give women equal human rights? Yea, sure. If the Bible doesn't discriminate against women, then why would Christians have to grant women the same rights as men? Thanks for showing your holy book is immoral.


I mean, you're not deranged, right??? Do you think it's just a coincidence that all these things were born out of CHRISTIAN societies??? Your whole argument (driven by your obvious bigotry) against biblical morality completely ignores the fact that the civil laws of ancient Israel were NOT intended to be optimal (they were TEMPORARY laws that were suited to the CIRCUMSTANCES of Israel AT THAT TIME). But the SEEDS of virtually all the positives in our modern world were PLANTED in the bible itself. And yet here you are acting as if the bible had nothing to do with it.

All those things were NOT born out of Christianity. You are just an ignorant deluded fool who doesn't know what he is talking about.


And don't even bother bringing up all the wars of Christianity. Any student of history knows that over 90% of wars are TERRITORIAL disputes. But even if we go that route, atheists are the KINGS of slaughter. Look at the facts, in spite of the fact that atheists make up a small minority of the global population, as soon as they began ruling governments, they slaughtered over 100 MILLION people in a mere century (Christians have been running governments for nearly 2,000 years). Why wasn't it the Christians who brought out the body bags??? I mean, we didn't just disappear off the globe during the 20th century, right? So why was it YOUR godless team who went on a bloodthirsty killing spree on an unimaginable scale???

So you want to ignore the roughly 25million people your insane God has killed? http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html

Let's also forget Bush was a Christian and invaded Iraq that killed how many innocents?





Btw, if you want to claim that religion corrupts our morals in the sense that it makes us want to "lie" to support our views, then that's nothing more than a SUBJECTIVE ad hominem attack. Furthermore, studies show that atheists are the LEAST trusted members of society. So people are more likely to view ATHEISTS as UNTRUSTWORTHY (not religious people).

No, religion makes someone willfully ignorant. You have proven that in spades. The reason atheists get that label is because of brain dead people like yourself who FALSELY attribute everything good to Christianity and that atheists are the cause of all that is bad. It's plain wrong and grossly unjustified.

Richard Amiel McGough
04-20-2014, 09:55 AM
"Religion corrupts a persons morals"

That's a flat out LIE. Meta-studies show the exact OPPOSITE. Religiosity ENHANCES a persons moral character ...

A 2001 Meta-analysis by C.J. Baier and B.R. Wright (which looked at 60 different studies) concludes that religious people are LESS likely to engage in criminal acts of violence (or criminal activity in general) ...

A 2006 Meta-analysis by Alexander Moreira-Almeida, Francisco Lotufo Neto and Harold G. Koering (which looked at 850 different studies) concludes that people who are MORE religious are LESS likely to use drugs or abuse alcohol (and less likely to suffer from depression or attempt suicide as well) ...


A COMPREHENSIVE study released in 2007 by Harvard Professor Robert Putnam and University of Notre Dame associate Professor David Campbell reveals that religious people are MUCH more likely to give to charity and that 40% of regular churchgoers volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly (compared to only 15% who NEVER attend religious services) ...
Why don't you post something up to date? A lot has changed since those dates.

But since you like to quote studies then here is one for you. A new study finds that religious people are less intelligent than non religious people. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/14/religious-people-less-intelligent-atheists_n_3750096.html

You have proven that in spades Bini as I will show below.

Bini has proven it in spades made of spades! There's really nothing more ironic than Gambini quoting scientific studies because he spits on them when they don't say what he want's them to say. Case in point: Gambini convinced himself that the Bible encoded the diameter of the sun as 864,000 miles (using modern English miles!) because of some numerical coincidences based on the number 864. So I showed him a META-ANALYSIS that reviewed all measurements of the sun, using five different scientific methods, which concluded that the sun is 865,173 +/- 80 miles in diameter. You can read about it in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?5288-Value-of-Pi-in-Matthew&p=59642#post59642). The number he desired has absolutely NO scientific justification of any kind. Indeed, it is beyond absurd because his desired value lies more than six standard deviations away from the mean in the metastudy. It directly contradicts the overwhelming body of scientific evidence. And how did Gambini respond when I showed him this evidence? He said this (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?5288-Value-of-Pi-in-Matthew&p=59595#post59595):
GAMBINI: "Regardless, I'm ABSOLUTELY justified in using the value of 864,000 for the simple fact that the value is STILL USED by authoritative sources. That's all I need."
In Gambini's universe, he is "ABSOLUTELY justified" to base arguments on demonstrable falsehoods so long as he can find an "authority" somewhere on the internet that lists the false value! What kind of insanity rules his mind? He asserts blatant falsehood and then justifies it by committing the fallacy of appeal to authority! Wow. Just wow.

It was in this context that I explained to him how religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. Here is the exchange we had (source (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?5288-Value-of-Pi-in-Matthew&p=59642#post59642)):





Btw, I really wish you would stop repeating this ridiculous line of yours about religion having a negative effect on morals. That's the DUMBEST shit I've ever heard. Your own personal experiences of religious people don't mean anything. If your assertion that religion has negative effects on people is true, then the data should back that up ...

You are a prime example of why I say that religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. You have chosen to believe a lie and reject the vast majority of scientific studies spanning the last 32 years concerning the diameter of the sun. Your bias is the most blatant anyone could ever imagine. You have not given any SCIENTIFIC REASON to reject all those studies. You and I both know that the only reason you are rejecting those scientific studies is because they contradict what you want to believe. You explicitly claim that you are justified by an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY - saying if you can find any "authorities" that use the wrong value, that justifies your use of the wrong value. That's not just a logical fallacy - it's pure insanity. It makes it look like you DESPISE the truth! This reveals a corruption of your mind. And truth is a moral issue, so your morals have been corrupted too.


And how did Gambini respond to that post? He didn't! He totally ignored it. And now he repeats his appeal to "meta-studies" in his vain attempt to contradict what we all know and can see and demonstrate: Dogmatic religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers because it breeds a contempt for the truth and teaches that belief without evidence is not only a virtue, but a necessity to avoid eternal torment in hell. It is a mind killer, and a human with a corrupt mind will have corrupt morals, because truth is a moral issue.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
04-20-2014, 11:17 AM
"Religion corrupts a persons morals"

That's a flat out LIE. Meta-studies show the exact OPPOSITE. Religiosity ENHANCES a persons moral character ...

A 2001 Meta-analysis by C.J. Baier and B.R. Wright (which looked at 60 different studies) concludes that religious people are LESS likely to engage in criminal acts of violence (or criminal activity in general) ...

A 2006 Meta-analysis by Alexander Moreira-Almeida, Francisco Lotufo Neto and Harold G. Koering (which looked at 850 different studies) concludes that people who are MORE religious are LESS likely to use drugs or abuse alcohol (and less likely to suffer from depression or attempt suicide as well) ...

A COMPREHENSIVE study released in 2007 by Harvard Professor Robert Putnam and University of Notre Dame associate Professor David Campbell reveals that religious people are MUCH more likely to give to charity and that 40% of regular churchgoers volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly (compared to only 15% who NEVER attend religious services) ...

So your assertion that "religion corrupts morals" is absolute bullshit. In fact, there are hundreds of thousands of people around the world who have CHANGED their lives for the better and credit it to their RELIGIOUS CONVERSION. Where are all the gangbangers, drug dealers and drug addicts who credit their radical change with them ABANDONING their religious beliefs??? ...

Hey there Gambini,

Your appeal to scientific studies is manifestly absurd because you SPIT on scientific studies if they contradict what you want to believe. I demonstrated this in my last post in this thread, where I reviewed your irrational and unjustified rejection of a meta-study reviewing all the scientific studies over the last 32 years that measured the diameter of the sun. I proved that your desired value of 864,000 miles is absolutely unjustified by the science. The fact that you asserted you were "ABSOLUTELY justified" to cite a falsehood if only you could find an internet "authority" that agreed with you proves my point that your religion has corrupted your mind and morals. No person with the slightest interest in TRUTH could make such assertions.

And worse, the studies you cite don't even prove what you want them to prove. You say that they prove that mere "religiosity" makes for better morals. Great! I guess that means you believe that Islam and Voodoo and Hinduism also "ENHANCE a persons moral character"? :lol:

Look at what they studies say. In the abstract describing the first one we read: "The results of the meta-analysis show that religious beliefs and behaviors exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals' criminal behavior." A mere "moderate effect" proves that religion cannot be the source of the behavior. And the study doesn't even speak of "morality" per se, but only obedience to laws. And why would the religious be slightly more inclined to obey laws? Probably because believers have a FEAR OF PUNISHMENT by their god. The same is true if you are Muslim, Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, JW, or whatever. It doesn't mean that people are actually more moral. On the contrary, many believers confess that they would rape and murder and pillage if only they believed they could get away with it. They use this as a central argument for why there could be no "morals" without religion. All they really prove is that their religion has not taught them anything about true morality at all. Indeed, religion tends to corrupt morals because it teaches that MORALITY IS OBEDIENCE. That's why Hitler was able to raise his CHRISTIAN NAZI ARMY to exterminate the Jews. They were "just following orders" just like any good brainwashed Christian who was taught to believe and obey rather than to think for himself and do what is right.



The fact of the matter is that you're NOT the harmless smiley face atheist that you (and Richard) try and portray. You're a RADICAL anti-theist with extremely leftist views. You spout off bullshit about Christianity doing more harm than good when Christians CREATED hospitals over 1500 years ago. Christians brought LITERACY to the world. Slavery, which PREDATES Christianity (and even the bible) was abolished BY CHRISTIANS, who then influenced the rest of the world to get on board. The DEMOCRATS were too busy creating the KLU KLUX KLAN as a military wing of the Democratic party (do you even know this?) who went around terrorizing Christians who fought against discrimination against black folks. And then they turned their guns on THE CHRISTIAN CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT led by a Baptist MINISTER and the black CHURCH community.

Your assertions are filled with fallacies, errors, and absurdities. It appears you have no interest and/or ability to form rational arguments. Case in point: You say that it was Christians who opposed slavery? OK - who were the slave traders and slave owners that they opposed? OTHER CHRISTIANS! You write as if you are utterly ignorant of the fact that the freaking BIBLE BELT was the center of the slave industry in America, and it was the liberal nothern Yankees that opposed the CHRISTIAN SLAVE OWNERS of the south. And you seem ignorant of how the Bible was used to justify slavery in the CHRISTIAN SOUTH, and how the worst and most abusive slave owners tended to be the most religious. Here's the testimony of former slave Fredrick Douglas:
I assert most unhesitatingly that the religion of the south as I have observed it and proved it is a mere covering for the most horrid crimes, the justifier of the most appalling barbarity, a sanctifier of the most hateful frauds, and a secure shelter under which the darkest, foulest, grossest, and most infernal abominations fester and flourish. Were I again to be reduced to the condition of a slave, next to that calamity, I should regard the fact of being the slave of a religious slaveholder the greatest that could befall me. For of all slaveholders with whom I have ever met, religious slaveholders are the worst. I have found them, almost invariably, the vilest, meanest and basest of their class.
And here is a link to DeBow's Review (1850) (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2134-DeBow-s-Review-(1850)-Argued-that-the-Bible-Supports-Slavery) which attempts to prove (quite successfully it appears) that the Bible endorses slavery. Here is the conclusion from the article:

We find, then, that both the Old and New Testaments speak of slavery—that they do not condemn the relation, but, on the contrary, expressly allow it or create it; and they give commands and exhortations, which are based upon its legality and propriety. It can not, then, be wrong.

What we have written is founded solely upon the Bible, and can have no force, unless it is taken for truth. If that book is of divine origin, the holding of slaves is right: as that which God has permitted, recognized and commanded, cannot be inconsistent with his will.

The fact that some people, born in a Christian society, had sufficient humanity to overcome the immoral teachings of their Bible does not prove that the Bible is not immoral! Duh.



White geeky secularists are the biggest racists on earth. Your hero, the flaky founder of Planned Parenthood, started her organization with the goal of DEPOPULATING the black community! THIS IS YOUR HERO??? No wonder Planned Parenthood centers are overwhelmingly found in the inner cities. Matter fact, THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS ANYTHING AS "RACES" UNTIL THE SECULARIST LEANING "ENLIGHTENMENT" PERIOD. The idea of different "races" was birthed in the early 1700's.

Wow. Now you are really exposing the corruption that fills your religiously corrupted mind. Neither Rose nor I have ever said anything that would justify your assertion that Sanger is our "hero." As far as I recall, neither of us have ever even mentioned her.



Virtually every single positive in our modern society is a NATURAL biological child of biblical Christianity. In other words, the seeds were PLANTED in the bible. That's why it was CHRISTIAN societies who gave birth to scientific advancement. That's why it was CHRISTIAN societies who abolished slavery. That's why it was CHRISTIAN societies where women were first given the same rights as men. I mean, you're not deranged, right??? Do you think it's just a coincidence that all these things were born out of CHRISTIAN societies??? Your whole argument (driven by your obvious bigotry) against biblical morality completely ignores the fact that the civil laws of ancient Israel were NOT intended to be optimal (they were TEMPORARY laws that were suited to the CIRCUMSTANCES of Israel AT THAT TIME). But the SEEDS of virtually all the positives in our modern world were PLANTED in the bible itself. And yet here you are acting as if the bible had nothing to do with it.

Your assertions are false. Fire was not discovered by Christians. The Wheel was not invented by Christians. Writing was not invented by Christians. Etc., etc., etc.

I understand the argument that Christianity helped give birth to science and social progress, and there might be some truth in that. But it certainly is not as obvious or one-sided as you suggest. We know this because it was Christian societies that INSTITUTED SEXISM AND SLAVERY! Doh! Have you no brain? You write as if you are totally deluded and willingly ignorant of the most basic facts relating to the history of Christianity.

I would be delighted to discuss this with you if you would like to try to form a rational argument. As it stands, you are merely making assertions without justification.



Btw, if you want to claim that religion corrupts our morals in the sense that it makes us want to "lie" to support our views, then that's nothing more than a SUBJECTIVE ad hominem attack.
Not true. There are objective facts that demonstrate that leading Christian apologists are totally deluded and/or liars.



Furthermore, studies show that atheists are the LEAST trusted members of society. So people are more likely to view ATHEISTS as UNTRUSTWORTHY (not religious people).

Atheists are the least trusted because theists have had two thousand years to lie about us and brainwash children into their religious cult.

Rose
04-20-2014, 12:58 PM
"Religion corrupts a persons morals"

That's a flat out LIE. Meta-studies show the exact OPPOSITE. Religiosity ENHANCES a persons moral character ...


BINI (The Mystic Meanie).

It is morally wrong to discriminate against someone and deny them human rights based on their gender, yet the Bible teaches people to deny women equal rights with men and to deny people of the same gender the right of having a relationship. Many of the doctrines and dogmas of religion teach people to discriminate against people of different beliefs ... discrimination does not enhance a persons morals, rather it corrupts them. All the people who say that homosexuality is a sin, have had their morals corrupted by religion. There is nothing morally wrong with two consenting adults of the same gender, wanting to have an intimate relationship with each other.

Every human has the right to pursue happiness, and if living with a person of the same gender as yourself makes you happy then you should be able to fulfill that desire.

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
04-20-2014, 01:34 PM
Even the theory of evolution itself was formulated under the assumption that blacks are closer (in time) to our lower beastly ancestors (and therefore "inferior"). Darwin himself was a flat out racist piece of shit (another one of your heroes) ...

Wow, there you go again, demonstrating how dogmatic religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. There is no justification for your slander. You obviously know nothing about the man Darwin. You freely spew out slander like the devil himself, calling him a "racist piece of shit." The truth is precisely the opposite of your lies - lies that you have learned from your fellow fundamentally corrupt fundamentalist Christians.

The truth concerning Darwin has been documented in this book:

Darwin's Sacred Cause: How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwin's Views on Human Evolution (http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Sacred-Cause-Slavery-Evolution/dp/0547055269/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top)

Here's how it is described on Amazon:

In this remarkable book, Adrian Desmond and James Moore restore the missing moral core of Darwin’s evolutionary universe, providing a completely new account of how he came to his shattering theories about human origins.

There has always been a mystery surrounding Darwin: How did this quiet, respectable gentleman, a pillar of his parish, come to embrace one of the most radical ideas in the history of human thought? It’s difficult to overstate just what Darwin was risking in publishing his theory of evolution. So it must have been something very powerful—a moral fire, as Desmond and Moore put it—that propelled him. And that moral fire, they argue, was a passionate hatred of slavery.

To make their case, they draw on a wealth of fresh manuscripts, unpublished family correspondence, notebooks, diaries, and even ships’ logs. They show how Darwin’s abolitionism had deep roots in his mother’s family and was reinforced by his voyage on the Beagle as well as by events in America—from the rise of scientific racism at Harvard through the dark days of the Civil War.

Leading apologists for slavery in Darwin’s time argued that blacks and whites had originated as separate species, with whites created superior. Darwin abhorred such "arrogance." He believed that, far from being separate species, the races belonged to the same human family. Slavery was therefore a "sin," and abolishing it became Darwin’s "sacred cause." His theory of evolution gave all the races—blacks and whites, animals and plants—an ancient common ancestor and freed them from creationist shackles. Evolution meant emancipation.

In this rich and illuminating work, Desmond and Moore recover Darwin’s lost humanitarianism. They argue that only by acknowledging Darwin’s Christian abolitionist heritage can we fully understand the development of his groundbreaking ideas. Compulsively readable and utterly persuasive, Darwin’s Sacred Cause will revolutionize our view of the great naturalist.



You can read the first chapter here (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/books/chapters/chapter-darwins-sacred-cause.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) if you have any interest at all in the truth of the matter.

Gambini
04-20-2014, 02:14 PM
"Why don't you post something up to date?"

So we're supposed to believe that Meta-analytical studies (which looked at HUNDREDS of different studies) showing religious people are LESS likely to commit crime, abuse alcohol or use drugs (and MORE likely to give to charity and volunteer to help the poor and elderly) aren't reliable because they were performed 6 to 10 years ago? Atheists have had a spiritual awakening since then, right? Do you have any META-analytical studies that CONTRADICT these META-analytical studies? If not, then your objection sucks.

Why would I bring up studies on "intelligence" into this discussion? Rose made a FACTUALLY wrong claim (that religion corrupts morality) and I was responding to that. But I'll respond to your little study ...

1) SERIAL KILLERS have higher IQ's than the average person as well. Does that mean we should all aspire to be SERIAL KILLERS? Atheism is a mental aberration.

2) Atheists have the highest suicide rates (do you place more value on having a higher IQ than LIVING?).

3) I don't deny that atheists on average have higher IQ's. The reason for that comes from purely SOCIAL FACTORS. Someone who is ALREADY in the UPPER CLASS of society is not only more likely to be educated but is also more likely to be influenced by materialism as well. This isn't news. ATHEISM IS ELITISM. Atheism = Upper class white men. Who doesn't know that???

Btw, since you place so much value on "intelligence tests" (which are subjective anyways), you do know that the ethnic group of the biblical authors has the HIGHEST IQ on earth, right? It's just a coincidence that the very people that God "schooled" (if you will) happens to have the HIGHEST "intelligence" level, right???

CHRISTIANS CREATED HOSPITALS:

You posted a Wikipedia article on hospitals to somehow refute my claim that Christians were the FIRST to create hospitals over 1,500 years ago. Did you even read the whole article? Apparently you missed the part where they say "THUS IN-PATIENT MEDICAL CARE IN THE SENSE OF WHAT WE TODAY CONSIDER A HOSPITAL, WAS AN INVENTION BY CHRISTIAN MERCY AND BYZANTINE INNOVATION". F*** YOUR LIES, yes???

GLOBAL LITERACY:

Your claim that it is "debatable" whether Christians were the driving force behind the global spread of literacy is absurd. In fact, the bible ITSELF is the number one reason for global literacy. People around the world learned to READ and WRITE as a result of Christian missionaries spreading the Gospel. That's a historical fact.

"The bible is a guide to slavery"

Bullshit, sir. The bible calls for KIDNAPPERS to be put to death. Hence, the Mosaic laws regarding "slavery" would actually mean colonialists should have been put to death. Furthermore, the "slavery" in the bible has nothing to do with the brutal and inhumane treatment of KIDNAPPED slaves in the transatlantic slavetrade. There where two basic types of "slavery" in the OT civil laws, which were ONLY proscribed for the ANCIENT (and now defunct) nation of Israel (that's why they are CIVIL laws) ...

1) People would WILLFULLY sell themselves into "slavery" in order to pay off an incurred debt.
2) CRIMINALS would be punished by being put into servitude.

Now is this OPTIMAL from a moral standpoint? Of course not. And that's the whole point about biblical revelation. It isn't "static" from Genesis to Revelation. Anyone who reads the bible from beginning to end can see that there is a process of PROGRESSIVE revelation. That's why I said the civil laws of ancient Israel were not intended to be optimal (they were TEMPORARY laws that were suited to the CIRCUMSTANCES of Israel at that time). And the OT is essentially Pre-Christian history anyways. Christian THEOLOGY is rooted in the NT, which is a fulfillment of the OT (in fact, the OT itself prophesied of a new covenant).

"Christianity CREATED the slave trade"

FAIL. Any student of history knows that slave trading has been around way before the Christian era. So not only was it CHRISTIANS who were the driving force behind the abolishment of slavery, it PRE-DATES Christianity and was deeply rooted in all ancient cultures. What you need to ask yourself is why was it CHRISTIAN societies that gave birth to the abolishment of slavery? It goes back to what I said before. Virtually EVERY positive in our modern society was birthed out of CHRISTIAN societies. WHY??? Because they are all NATURAL extensions of the SEEDS planted in the bible.

"The KKK was and always has been a Christian organization"

I brought up the KKK because alot of people are unaware of the fact that the DEMOCRATIC party is the party that started the KKK. The DEMOCRATIC party is the party that fought AGAINST the civil rights movement. I'm an independent, but facts are facts. Lincoln was a REPUBLICAN. Martin Luther King was a REPUBLICAN. The civil rights bill was supported by REPUBLICANS. Affirmative action was passed by Nixon, a REPUBLICAN. Roosevelt, a DEMOCRAT, put a Klansman in the Supreme Court! And now these WHITE GEEKY LIBERAL DEMOCRATS have covertly stolen the black vote, which used to be predominantly Republican, by dumbing down black folks and turning them into slaves of the government (the very same party that fought against their freedom from slave labor). The sad part is that most black folks are entirely unaware of the REAL history of the Democratic party.

I don't deny that the KKK self identifies as "Christian". So what??? There are ATHEISTS who self identify as "Christian" too. Being a Christian entails promoting the teachings of Christ. If you self identify as a vegan while eating a hamburger and promoting beef products, then you're not a vegan. Here's the thing ...

There IS such a thing as false Christians because being a Christian entails believing and advocating a certain philosophy (a philosophy of loving your neighbor as yourself, whether Jew or Gentile). However, there is no such thing as a false atheist because atheism DOESN'T entail believing or advocating ANYTHING (outside of rejecting the existence of God).

"Christians gave birth to scientific advancement?"

OF COURSE! Virtually EVERY single scientific field was pioneered by CHRISTIAN scientists.

"Christians were the first to give women equal human rights?"

CHRISTIAN SOCIETIES were the first.

"If the bible doesn't discriminate against women, then why would Christians have to grant women the same rights as men?"

If you wanted to enlighten the Chinese government towards geater democratic reform, do you just hit them upside the head and tell them to abandon communism cold turkey??? Of course not. Why??? Because it's so ingrained in their culture. The bible was written in such a way that it would SURVIVE in the culture wherein it was revealed AND was SEEDED in such a way that it would eventually produce the modern fruits we see, which is why they were BIRTHED out of CHRISTIAN societies. Likewise, the bible couldn't OPENLY talk about things like computers or smartphones because such things would be entirely foreign to listeners back then. So it had to be written in such a way that it would SURVIVE in EVERY successive generation.

"So you want to ignore the roughly 25 million people your insane God has killed?"

Heavens no. Why would I do that? In fact, I think the number of people God has killed is GREATER than the figure you gave! ...

1) The Christian God (who is theologically based on the NT) is OMNISCIENT and has complete foreknowledge of all our choices.
2) The Christian God is omni benevolent.

THE END. Period. These two Christian attributes of God refute ALL your false accusations that the biblical God ever *WRONGLY* killed someone. Who ever told you that killing in and of itself was wrong? That's nuts. And it is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for an OMNISCIENT being to EVER be morally wrong in killing (or ordering the killing of) ANYONE (regardless of biological age) ...

Would it be morally wrong for you to kill an infant that you KNEW with 100% FOREKNOWLEDGE would grow up to be Hitler??? That's the argument. EVERY instance of God killing (or ordering the killing of) ANYONE has to do with God's FOREKNOWLEDGE of their eventual destiny as a reprobate. God, being the sole author of life (and having complete FOREKNOWLEDGE) has the SOLE right to bring judgment on ANY foreknown reprobate at any point in his or her biological stage of life. Every reprobate will eventually fall into the judgment of God anyways (some simply get it sooner than others). God deals with different reprobates in different ways because of all the hidden VARIABLES entailed in ANY act (variables that are ONLY fully known by God).

MARGRET SANGERS WAS A RACIST WHORE:

The article you posted GRANTS that Sangers was linked to the EUGENICS MOVEMENT, which "aimed to improve humans by either encouraging or DISCOURAGING reproduction based on genetic traits". There wasn't the disparity back then between black and white out of wedlock births that we see today. So why was Sangers focused on bringing her EUGENICS BULLSHIT to the inner cities? Read all the comments below the very article you posted. You'll find several quotes from Margret Sangers herself (with source citations) where she talks about weeding out the INFERIOR classes of society.

Let me end by saying this ...

Both atheists AND theists have committed atrocities. However, the difference between a Christian who commits atrocities and an atheist who commits atrocities is that a Christian who commits atrocities is being INCONSISTENT with the moral philosophy of the teachings of Christ WHEREAS an atheist who commits atrocities is being perfectly CONSISTENT with his atheism ...

Christian theism = The moral philosophy of Christ

Atheism = Any conceivable morality imaginable

This is why ALL moral nihilists are atheists/agnostics. EVERY CONCEIVABLE ATROCITY is perfectly consistent with atheism.

BINI BOBO

L67
04-20-2014, 04:47 PM
"Why don't you post something up to date?"

So we're supposed to believe that Meta-analytical studies (which looked at HUNDREDS of different studies) showing religious people are LESS likely to commit crime, abuse alcohol or use drugs (and MORE likely to give to charity and volunteer to help the poor and elderly) aren't reliable because they were performed 6 to 10 years ago? So atheists have had a spiritual awakening since then, right? Do you have any META-analytical studies that CONTRADICT these META-analytical studies? If not, then you're objection sucks.

Yes, you dolt. A lot has changed in that amount of time. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-americans-still-dislike-atheists/2011/02/18/AFqgnwGF_story.html

And here is the NEWer study that finds atheist can be and are more moral than religious people. http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf

On basic questions of morality and human decency — issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious.

Consider that at the societal level, murder rates are far lower in secularized nations such as Japan or Sweden than they are in the much more religious United States, which also has a much greater portion of its population in prison. Even within this country, those states with the highest levels of church attendance, such as Louisiana and Mississippi, have significantly higher murder rates than far less religious states such as Vermont and Oregon.


Why would I bring up studies on "intelligence" into this discussion? Rose made a FACTUALLY wrong claim (that religion corrupts morality) and I was responding to that. But I'll respond to your little study ...

You didn't. I brought it up to show you that religious people are MORE ignorant than atheist and that you have proven that many times over.


1) SERIAL KILLERS have higher IQ's than the average person as well. Does that mean we should all aspire to be SERIAL KILLERS? Atheism is a mental aberration.

Nobody said that. Get a grip Bini.


2) Atheists have the highest suicide rates (do you place more value on having a higher IQ than LIVING?).

How about a link to support your assertions?


3) I don't deny that atheists on average have higher IQ's. The reason for that comes from purely SOCIAL FACTORS. Someone who is ALREADY in the UPPER CLASS of society is not only more likely to be educated but is also more likely to be influenced by materialism as well. This isn't news. ATHEISM IS ELITISM. Atheism = Upper class white men. Who doesn't know that???

More bullshit from you. How about some evidence?


Btw, since you place so much value on "intelligence tests" (which are subjective anyways), you do know that the ethnic group of the biblical authors has the HIGHEST IQ on earth, right? It's just a coincidence that the very people that God "schooled" (if you will) happens to have the HIGHEST "intelligence" level, right???

Oh really? That's funny, because even with Gods inspiration the Bible is still a confused mess. And how another link to prove your assertions.


CHRISTIANS CREATED HOSPITALS:

You posted a Wikipedia article on hospitals to somehow refute my claim that Christians were the FIRST to create hospitals over 1,500 years ago. Did you even read the whole article? Apparently you missed the part where they say "THUS IN-PATIENT MEDICAL CARE IN THE SENSE OF WHAT WE TODAY CONSIDER A HOSPITAL, WAS AN INVENTION BY CHRISTIAN MERCY AND BYZANTINE INNOVATION". F*** YOUR LIES, yes???

Have you ever heard of the Hippoctratic Oath? Hippocrates was practicing in an ancient Greek hospital, Asclepius. The first Asclepius was built around 430 BC at Epidaurus. Just like the first link I posted said was the oldest hospital. http://www.historywiz.com/didyouknow/asclepius.html

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

He is referred to as the father of western medicine[2][3][4] in recognition of his lasting contributions to the field as the founder of the Hippocratic School of Medicine.

It just so happens that Hippocrates is the founder of the Hippocratic Oath that all doctors take to this day. Christianity did NOT invent hospitals. You could say Christianity expanded hospitals but they did NOT invent them.

You're a dumbass, yes?


GLOBAL LITERACY:

Your claim that it is "debatable" whether Christians were the driving force behind the global spread of literacy is absurd. In fact, the bible ITSELF is the number one reason for global literacy. People around the world learned to READ and WRITE as a result of Christian missionaries spreading the Gospel. That's a historical fact.

More bullshit from you. Post some facts.


"The bible is a guide to slavery"

Bullshit, sir. The bible calls for KIDNAPPERS to be put to death. Hence, the Mosaic laws regarding "slavery" would actually mean colonialists should have been put to death. Furthermore, the "slavery" in the bible has nothing to do with the brutal and inhumane treatment of KIDNAPPED slaves in the transatlantic slavetrade. There where two basic types of "slavery" in the OT civil laws, which were ONLY proscribed for the ANCIENT (and now defunct) nation of Israel (that's why they are CIVIL laws) ...

Now your just making stuff up. The Bible is guide to slavery. No amount of double speak will change this. Christians USED the Bible throughout the ages to keep people as slaves. History proves it.





Now is this OPTIMAL from a moral standpoint? Of course not. And that's the whole point about biblical revelation. It isn't "static" from Genesis to Revelation. Anyone who reads the bible from beginning to end can see that there is a process of PROGRESSIVE revelation. That's why I said the civil laws of ancient Israel were not intended to be optimal (they were TEMPORARY laws that were suited to the CIRCUMSTANCES of Israel at that time). And the OT is essentially Pre-Christian history anyways. Christian THEOLOGY is rooted in the NT, which is a fulfillment of the OT (in fact, the OT itself prophesied of a new covenant).

I don't care what your excuses are. The fact is history shows the OPPOSITE.


"Christianity CREATED the slave trade"

FAIL. Any student of history knows that slave trading has been around way before the Christian era. So not only was it CHRISTIANS who were the driving force behind the abolishment of slavery, it PRE-DATES Christianity and was deeply rooted in all ancient cultures. What you need to ask yourself is why was it CHRISTIAN societies that gave birth to the abolishment of slavery? It goes back to what I said before. Virtually EVERY positive in our modern society was birthed out of CHRISTIAN societies. WHY??? Because they are all NATURAL extensions of the SEEDS planted in the bible.

Yes, slavery ws around before Christianity. But who brought it to the west? CHRISTIANS! Good grief you are dense.

I have debunked your "every positive in modern society was birthed from Christianity". Your claims are pure nonsense.


"The KKK was and always has been a Christian organization"

I brought up the KKK because alot of people are unaware of the fact that the DEMOCRATIC party is the party that started the KKK.

The Democratic party of the day was the equivalent to the religious right today.


The DEMOCRATIC party is the party that fought AGAINST the civil rights movement. I'm an independent, but facts are facts. Lincoln was a REPUBLICAN. Martin Luther King was a REPUBLICAN. The civil rights bill was supported by REPUBLICANS. Affirmative action was passed by Nixon, a REPUBLICAN. Roosevelt, a DEMOCRAT, put a Klansman in the Supreme Court! And now these WHITE GEEKY LIBERAL DEMOCRATS have covertly stolen the black vote, which used to be predominantly Republican, by dumbing down black folks and turning them into slaves of the government (the very same party that fought against their freedom from slave labor). The sad part is that most black folks are entirely unaware of the REAL history of the Democratic party.

You're rambling. What is your point to all this?


I don't deny that the KKK self identifies as "Christian". So what??? There are ATHEISTS who self identify as "Christian" too. Being a Christian entails promoting the teachings of Christ. If you self identify as a vegan while eating a hamburger and promoting beef products, then you're not a vegan. Here's the thing ...

Nice excuses. You tried to paint the KKK as some group terrorizing Christians, but they themselves are identified as Christians. Your original point was stupid and wrong.


There IS such a thing as false Christians because being a Christian entails believing and advocating a certain philosophy (a philosophy of loving your neighbor as yourself, whether Jew or Gentile). However, there is no such thing as a false atheist because atheism DOESN'T entail believing or advocating ANYTHING (outside of rejecting the existence of God).

I don't care if they were real Christians or not. The fact is they thought they WERE fighting for Jesus. This is how religious delusion corrupts your mind and morals. And supposed real Christians have brutalized people in the name of God. Did the crusades slip your mind?


"Christians gave birth to scientific advancement?"

OF COURSE! Virtually EVERY single scientific field was pioneered by CHRISTIAN scientists.

Prove it.


"Christians were the first to give women equal human rights?"

CHRISTIAN SOCIETIES were the first.

Prove it.

"If the bible doesn't discriminate against women, then why would Christians have to grant women the same rights as men?"


If you wanted to enlighten the Chinese government towards geater democratic reform, do you just hit them upside the head and tell them to abandon communism cold turkey??? Of course not. Why??? Because it's so ingrained in their culture. The bible was written in such a way that it would SURVIVE in the culture wherein it was revealed AND was SEEDED in such a way that it would eventually produce the modern fruits we see, which is why they were BIRTHED out of CHRISTIAN societies. Likewise, the bible couldn't OPENLY talk about things like computers or smartphones because such things would be entirely foreign to listeners back then. So it had to be written in such a way that it would SURVIVE in EVERY successive generation.

Oh, bullshit BINI. This is complete nonsense. Your mind is so warped you can't even think straight.


"So you want to ignore the roughly 25 million people your insane God has killed?"

Heavens no. Why would I do that? In fact, I think the number of people God has killed is GREATER than the figure you gave! ...

1) The Christian God (who is theologically based on the NT) is OMNISCIENT and has complete foreknowledge of all our choices.
2) The Christian God is omni benevolent.

THE END. Period. These two Christian attributes of God refute ALL your false accusations that the biblical God ever *WRONGLY* killed someone. Who ever told you that killing in and of itself was wrong? That's nuts. And it is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for an OMNISCIENT being to EVER be morally wrong in killing (or ordering the killing of) ANYONE (regardless of biological age) ...

Who told me that killing is in of itself wrong? Your own holy book tells me that. Thank you for proving that religion corrupts the minds and moral of theists.

And the Bible strangely tells us in many instances that God is NOT all knowing. So that claim of yours is bogus.


Would it be morally wrong for you to kill an infant that you KNEW with 100% FOREKNOWLEDGE would grow up to be Hitler??? That's the argument. EVERY instance of God killing (or ordering the killing of) ANYONE has to do with God's FOREKNOWLEDGE of their eventual destiny as a reprobate. God, being the sole author of life (and having complete FOREKNOWLEDGE) has the SOLE right to bring judgment on ANY foreknown reprobate at any point in his or her biological stage of life. Every reprobate will eventually fall into the judgment of God anyways (some simply get it sooner than others). God deals with different reprobates in different ways because of all the hidden VARIABLES entailed in ANY act (variables that are ONLY fully known by God).

Many verses prove God didn't have foreknowledge of everything.

Your first question is a complete joke. Davids baby was killed for Davids wrong doing. Was Davids baby going to grow up to be hitler? Please come back to reality.

You have proven your brain has rotted from all your religious delusion.


MARGRET SANGERS WAS A RACIST WHORE:



The article you posted GRANTS that Sanger was linked to the EUGENICS MOVEMENT, which "aimed to improve humans by either encouraging or DISCOURAGING reproduction based on genetic traits. There wasn't the disparity back then between black and white out of wedlock births that we see today. So why was Sangers focused on bringing her EUGENICS BULLSHIT to the inner cities? Read all the comments below the very article you posted. You'll find several quotes from Margret Sangers herself (with source citations) where she talks about weeding out the INFERIOR classes of society.

And you're a skidmark on the underpants of society. You erronenously claimed she was aimed at depopulating the black population. I debunked that NONSENSE. I don't care about the comments from anonymous sources from ignorant fools like yourself.

Is your name really Richard Cranium?


Both atheists AND theists have committed atrocities. However, the difference between a Christian who commits atrocities and an atheist who commits atrocities is that a Christian who commits atrocities is being INCONSISTENT with the moral philosophy of the teachings of Christ WHEREAS an atheist who commits atrocities is being perfectly CONSISTENT with his atheism ...

Christian theism = The moral philosophy of Christ

Atheism = Any conceivable morality imaginable

This is why ALL moral nihilists are atheists/agnostics. EVERY CONCEIVABLE ATROCITY is perfectly consistent with atheism.

BINI BOBO

You live in fantasy land. History proves the exact opposite.

Gambini
04-20-2014, 09:37 PM
"Yes, you dolt. A lot has changed in that amount of time"

IDIOT, you seriously expect anyone to accept your claim that the Meta-studies I cited based on HUNDREDS of INDEPENDENT studies aren't reliable because they go back 6 to 10 years ago when you just gave me a study from Phil Zuckerman (an apologist for APEtheism) who's simply giving his biased interpretation of studies as old or even OLDER than what I cited??? LOL :lol: You sir, are a F***ING CLOWN.

"And here is the NEWer study that finds atheists can be and are more moral than religious people"

No, YOU JERK OFF!!! It's not a "newer study". He's giving interpretations on selected studies as old or even OLDER than the studies I cited. And he doesn't even dispute the META-studies I cited. Rather, he attempts a red herring by appealing to religion and crime BETWEEN different nations, which is complete bullshit. Different nations have different histories, circumstances and different levels of poverty. Show me ANY Meta-study where religious people in ANY nation are more likely to commit crime than those who are NOT religious IN THAT SAME NATION. We already have a META-analysis of 60 INDEPENDENT studies showing religious people are LESS likely to commit crime. Now show me a META-analysis in ANY nation where the more religious people of THAT nation are more likely to commit crime. It doesn't exist.

And I love how Zuckerman at one point tries to bring up the percentage of atheists in American prisons, which is another red herring. Nobody is saying having the mere label "Christian" makes one less likely to commit crime. The point is that the MORE religious you are, the LESS likely you are to commit crime. THAT is what the Meta-studies show.

Btw, notice how Zuckerman GRANTS that the studies also show that APEtheists (that's you) are more likely to abuse alcohol, more likely to abuse drugs AND more likely to kill themselves.

"Have you ever heard of the Hippoctratic Oath?"

DINGBAT, we're talking about the creation of HOSPITALS. And the very article you posted from Wikipedia states that HOSPITALS (as we know them today) were created BY CHRISTIANS LMAO!!!

"You could say Christianity expanded hospitals"

Oh you better believe I'm going to say that. And I'm ALSO going to state the FACT that Christians ORIGINATED hospitals as they exist in modern society, which the very article you cited points out.

"I don't care what your excuses are"

Ya ... Keep covering your ears, you ignorant JERK OFF!

"Yes, slavery was around before Christianity. But who brought it to the west? CHRISTIANS! Good grief you are dense"

You didn't say anything about that. You specifically said "Christianity created slavery", which is INSANE! And according to the Mosaic civil laws that you love to appeal to, those slave masters should have been KILLED.

"I have debunked your "every positive in modern society was birthed from Christianity". Your claims are pure nonsense"

Man, you're delusional. How am I supposed to reason with someone who's not even willing to acknowledge known FACTS of history. You seriously didn't know that virtually every single field of science was pioneered by Christian scientists??? And you're claiming the Democratic party was equivalent to the modern religious right (which is a lie but let that go). So OBVIOUSLY you're not going to tell me America wasn't a Christian society when women were given the right to vote for example, right? And that's the point. Why did all these things flourish in CHRISTIAN SOCIETIES???

"You tried to paint the KKK as some group terrorizing Christians, but they themselves are identified as Christians"

They WERE terrorizing Christians, you JERK OFF. The people who fought against slavery were Christians. I already refuted your point about the Klan claiming to be Christians. Being a Christian entails x. If you don't believe or advocate x, you're not a Christian. If you eat beef burgers, you're not a vegan. If you don't believe in a God, you can't be a "Christian". If you preach hatred against your fellow man, you're not a "Christian" (since Christianity is rooted in the moral philosophy of Christ, who taught that the NON-JEW Samaritan was your fellow neighbor and you are to love him as yourself).

"Did the crusades slip your mind?

The crusades are NOTHING compared to what APEtheists did in A SINGLE CENTURY as soon as they began running governments (over 100 MILLION body bags in OFFICIALLY APEtheistic regimes, where religious people were slaughtered for BEING religious). Christians have been running governments for nearly 2,000 years and yet a small minority of APEtheists was able to slaughter over 100 MILLION people in a single century (during peace time mind you) as soon as they started running governments. And this was primarily over an ANTI-RELIGION campaign driven by the ANTI-THEIST views of these officially APEtheistic/QUACKnostic regimes.

"Prove it"

That APEtheists are more likely to blow their melons on the concrete??? The article you posted from your favorite APEtheist apologist GRANTED that very fact, YOU SILLY NERD!!!

"This is complete nonsense. Your mind is so warped you can't even think straight"

I'll take that as an admission on your part that you can't LOGICALLY refute it.

"Who told me that killing is in of itself wrong? Your own holy book tells me that"

You mean the commandment "Thou shall not kill"??? Man, you're a colossal IDIOT! :lol: Are you too stupid to figure out that passage is talking about MURDER? You think the author forgot about the fact that he layed out 24 civil justifications for capital offenses or that there is JUSTIFIED KILLING from Genesis through Deuteronomy???

"You erronenously claimed she aimed at depopulating the black population. I debunked that NONSENSE. I don't care about the comments from anonymous sources from ignorant fools like yourself"

You haven't debunked shit, you JERK OFF. The article you posted GRANTS that that RACIST WHORE was a proponent of EUGENICS! That's your hero??? And she focused her EUGENICS BULLSHIT in INNER CITIES (to weed out the poorer members of society, according to HER OWN WORDS). And those "anonymous sources" GIVE CITATIONS FOR THEIR QUOTES OF THAT RACIST WHORE. Look them up, JERK OFF.

"History proves the exact opposite"

Google STATE ATHEISM.

Gambini
04-21-2014, 11:30 AM
Here's some interesting facts ...

There are over 100,000 Mensa members (people with the highest known IQ's) from over 100 countries around the world and from all walks of life. Interestingly, over 95% of Mensa members come from nations with a CHRISTIAN MAJORITY or a CHRISTIAN HERITAGE! Hmmm ...

HALF of all Mensa members worldwide come from THE most religious nation in the west (America)! And this is in spite of the fact that America only makes up a mere 5% of the global population! Hmmm ...

According to Mensa's very own website (mwm.us.mensa.org/faq/people.html), over 52% of Mensa members self identify as CHRISTIANS and a mere 10% self identify as either atheist or agnostic! Granted, this particular study only accounts for Mensa members in America, but we've already seen that America makes up HALF of all Mensa members WORLDWIDE. Furthermore, over 95% of Mensa members come from majority Christian nations. So Christians are clearly OVERREPRESENTED amongst those with the HIGHEST IQ's (since Christians only make up 33% of the globe) WHEREAS atheists/agnostics are NOT overrepresented and are possibly UNDERREPRESENTED (since atheists/agnostics make up 15% of the globe).

This reminds me of the fact that Christians are OVERREPRESENTED among the most ELITE scientists in the world (in terms of discovery) whereas atheists/agnostics are UNDERREPRESENTED ...

According to a statistical analysis by Israeli scientist Baruch Aba Shalev (in his book "100 Years Of Nobel Prizes"), which included ALL the NOBEL PRIZE winners in SCIENCE in the 20th century, OVER 65% of the Nobel Prize winners in science were self identified CHRISTIANS! Furthermore, LESS than 10% were self identified as atheist or agnostic! One of the studies he points to is a paper by Weijia Zhang (Arizona State University) and Robert G. Fuller (University of Nebraska-Lincoln), which provides a demographic database for the self identified religious views of Nobel Prize winners in physics (based on their self identified religious affiliations AND their statements made regarding their religious views in interviews) ...

Hence, atheists/agnostics are an INSIGNIFICANT group among the most ELITE scientists in the world (in terms of discovery) WHEREAS Christians are OVERREPRESENTED. Christians only make up 33% of the globe, and yet they make up over 65% of Nobel Prize winners in science (that is DOUBLE their population)! Atheists/Agnostics are UNDERREPRESENTED (since atheists/agnostics make up 15% of the globe and LESS than 10% of Nobel Prize winners in science) ...

So not only did Christians pioneer virtually EVERY scientific field of study (which is a historical FACT), Christians are the LEADERS among the most ELITE scientists in the world. The NAS (National Academy of Science), which is really a tiny atheist clubhouse that doesn't even make up a SINGLE percent of all scientists, does NOT represent THE most elite scientists. In fact, over 90% of NAS members have never won a Nobel Prize! Nobel Prize winners are THE very elite (since the award goes to those who have made the GREATEST advancements in their scientific research) ...

And just like we saw that HALF of all Mensa members come from THE most religious nation in the west (America), can you guess where most of the Nobel Prize winners in science come from??? You guessed it ... Over 50% of the Nobel Prize winners in science come from THE most religious nation in the west (a nation that makes up a mere 5% of the globe).

Here's something for all you APEtheists/QUACKnostics to look forward to ...

At the end of the "cultural revolution" in the 1960's, there was a mere 5,000 Christians in China. By the end of the 20th century, Christianity grew ASTRONOMICALLY to at least 50 million (some say it's well over 100 million already). If growth continues in the same exponential way, Christianity will be the MAJORITY in China in a mere decade!

And did you know that two thirds of all the countries on earth have a CHRISTIAN MAJORITY??? This is very nice, yes???

Death to APEtheism

Death to QUACKnosticism

Death to skepDICKS

Gambini
04-22-2014, 03:03 PM
"There is nothing morally wrong with two consenting adults of the same gender, wanting to have an intimate relationship with each other"

REALLY??? So there's nothing morally wrong with a consenting man having a sexually intimate relationship with his consenting mother or with a consenting woman having a sexually intimate relationship with her consenting father, RIGHT???

WHY is *THAT* morally wrong under your moral theory (20 bucks says you will not answer this question)???

Rose
04-22-2014, 03:55 PM
"There is nothing morally wrong with two consenting adults of the same gender, wanting to have an intimate relationship with each other"

REALLY??? So there's nothing morally wrong with a consenting man having a sexually intimate relationship with his consenting mother or with a consenting woman having a sexually intimate relationship with her consenting father, RIGHT???

WHY is *THAT* morally wrong under your moral theory (20 bucks says you will not answer this question)???

Are you that ignorant that you don't know why it's wrong for consenting adult family members of the opposite gender to have sexual relations if there is the possibly of producing offspring? Most states don't even allow first cousins to marry because of the increased risk of genetic defects. So, other than the risk of producing offspring between family members that could have genetic defects, it is really nobodies business what type of relationships consenting adults wish to partake in.

The Biblegod you worship did not seem to have a problem with Abraham marrying his half sister Sarah ... :confused:

Where's my 20 bucks ... :lol:

Gambini
04-22-2014, 07:05 PM
"Are you that ignorant that you don't know why it's wrong for consenting adult family members of the opposite gender to have sexual relations if there is the possibly of producing offspring?"

Are you that ignorant that you don't know women can terminate their pregnancies??? You're DODGING the question. Furthermore, women can be STERILIZED! DUH! ...

Stop DODGING and answer the question ...

WHY is it morally wrong under your moral theory for a consenting woman to have a sexually intimate relationship with her consenting mother???

"The Biblegod you worship did not seem to have a problem with Abraham marrying his half sister Sarah"

DUH! The bible records that humanity began from one man and one woman. So obviously brothers and sisters originally had to get busy or we wouldn't be here. The only reason it was eventually outlawed biblically is because of the accumulated genetic defects (thereby potentially harming the offspring). Furthermore, if God created man through separate lineages, we wouldn't be one human family. But why are you bringing the bible into it? Can't you defend your OWN moral theory??? We're not talking about brothers and sisters with the ability to produce genetically healthy children (assuming the biblical narrative). We're talking about PARENTS having sex with their consenting adult CHILDREN ...

You're attempting to justify homosexual practices morally by asserting that it is not morally wrong for any two consenting adults to have sex ...

So WHY is it morally wrong for a man with a vasectomy to have an intimate sexual relationship with his consenting 18 year old daughter???

Richard Amiel McGough
04-22-2014, 07:30 PM
"The Biblegod you worship did not seem to have a problem with Abraham marrying his half sister Sarah"

DUH! The bible records that humanity began from one man and one woman. So obviously brothers and sisters originally had to get busy or we wouldn't be here. The only reason it was eventually outlawed biblically is because of the accumulated genetic defects (thereby potentially harming the offspring). Furthermore, if God created man through separate lineages, we wouldn't be one human family. But why are you bringing the bible into it? Can't you defend your OWN moral theory??? We're not talking about brothers and sisters with the ability to produce genetically healthy children (assuming the biblical narrative). We're talking about PARENTS having sex with their consenting adult CHILDREN ...

You're attempting to justify homosexual practices morally by asserting that it is not morally wrong for any two consenting adults to have sex ...

So WHY is it morally wrong for a man with a vasectomy to have an intimate sexual relationship with his consenting 18 year old daughter???
You are being totally inconsistent. You have just said that there is nothing MORALLY wrong with Abraham marrying his sister.

It looks like you are just trying to confuse the issue with questions about incest because you know you have no rational justification for your religious bias against two consenting adults having an intimate loving relationship. Stick to that question and quit trying to dodge. Why would it be immoral for two consenting adults to have an intimate loving relationship?

Richard Amiel McGough
04-22-2014, 07:32 PM
You're attempting to justify homosexual practices morally by asserting that it is not morally wrong for any two consenting adults to have sex ...

So WHY is it morally wrong for a man with a vasectomy to have an intimate sexual relationship with his consenting 18 year old daughter???
Your question is an obvious dodge. Is it immoral for a man and women to have sex? If not, then "WHY is it morally wrong for a man with a vasectomy to have an intimate sexual relationship with his consenting 18 year old daughter???"

PWNED

:doh:

Rose
04-22-2014, 07:33 PM
"Are you that ignorant that you don't know why it's wrong for consenting adult family members of the opposite gender to have sexual relations if there is the possibly of producing offspring?"

Are you that ignorant that you don't know women can terminate their pregnancies??? You're DODGING the question. Furthermore, women can be STERILIZED! DUH! ...

Stop DODGING and answer the question ...

WHY is it morally wrong under your moral theory for a consenting woman to have a sexually intimate relationship with her consenting mother???

First off what are you calling "My moral theory"?

Secondly, it is NOT morally wrong for two consenting adults to have sexual relationships!


"The Biblegod you worship did not seem to have a problem with Abraham marrying his half sister Sarah"

DUH! The bible records that humanity began from one man and one woman. So obviously brothers and sisters originally had to get busy or we wouldn't be here. The only reason it was eventually outlawed biblically is because of the accumulated genetic defects (thereby potentially harming the offspring). Furthermore, if God created man through separate lineages, we wouldn't be one human family. But why are you bringing the bible into it? Can't you defend your OWN moral theory??? We're not talking about brothers and sisters with the ability to produce genetically healthy children (assuming the biblical narrative). We're talking about PARENTS having sex with their consenting adult CHILDREN ...

You're attempting to justify homosexual practices morally by asserting that it is not morally wrong for any two consenting adults to have sex ...

So WHY is it morally wrong for a man with a vasectomy to have an intimate sexual relationship with his consenting 18 year old daughter???

Again, it is NOT morally wrong for two consenting adults to have a sexual relationship!

Richard Amiel McGough
04-22-2014, 07:38 PM
We're talking about PARENTS having sex with their consenting adult CHILDREN ...

If they are consenting, then why would it be wrong? I would ask you to explain that according to your "moral theory" but you don't have a moral theory. All you have are traditions written by ancient men with primitive morals which they present as commands from their war god who regularly commanded gross moral abominations like genocide and institutional sexism.

Gambini
04-23-2014, 06:21 PM
"Is it immoral for a man and woman to have sex? If not, then "WHY is it morally wrong for a man with a vasectomy to have an intimate sexual relationship with his consenting 18 year old daughter???"

WTF??? So you're actually telling me there's nothing morally wrong with a man having sex with his own mother as long as they are both consenting??? :confused: ...

How far are you willing to go with this? Are you also saying there is nothing wrong with murder as long as the victim is consenting to be killed??? If not, why? ...

Why is it wrong for an 18 year old kid to blow his 18 year old friend's brains out IF BOTH ARE CONSENTING TO THE ACT???

As far as my view, there's nothing wrong with sex as long as it is in accordance with the natural order that God ordained for sexual intimacy. Homosexual sex is morally wrong FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON it is morally wrong for a man to have sex with his own mother (it violates the natural order that God ordained for sexual intimacy). It doesn't matter who's consenting. The ACT itself is morally wrong. And with the example of a man having sex with his own mother, EVEN IF THEY WERE BOTH ABLE TO HAVE CHILDREN, homosexual sex ALSO entails deadly risks (in terms of higher risks of AIDS and STD's). So even under that scenario, Rose's argument is inconsistent. If it's wrong to engage in a particular kind of sexual relationship BECAUSE of the greater potential of harm, then it follows that homosexual sex is wrong.

Gambini
04-23-2014, 06:39 PM
"It is NOT morally wrong for two consenting adults to have a sexual relationship"

FOR THE RECORD, our good agnostic friends Richard (RAMnesia) and Rose actually believe there is nothing wrong with a man having sex WITH HIS OWN MOTHER as long as the two are "consenting" (and the man gets a vasectomy) ...

So is it also okay with you for an 18 year old to blow his 18 year old friend's brains out if they are both CONSENTING to the act??? If not, WHY???

I am Gambini and I assure you that I am NOT a "piece" of shit (rather, I am the WHOLE shit).

Richard Amiel McGough
04-23-2014, 07:11 PM
You are being totally inconsistent. You have just said that there is nothing MORALLY wrong with Abraham marrying his sister.

It looks like you are just trying to confuse the issue with questions about incest because you know you have no rational justification for your religious bias against two consenting adults having an intimate loving relationship. Stick to that question and quit trying to dodge. Why would it be immoral for two consenting adults to have an intimate loving relationship?

"It is NOT morally wrong for two consenting adults to have a sexual relationship"

FOR THE RECORD, our good agnostic friends Richard (RAMnesia) and Rose actually believe there is nothing wrong with a man having sex WITH HIS OWN MOTHER as long as the two are "consenting" (and the man gets a vasectomy) ...

Ha! There you go again, totally DODGING my question because you know you can't answer it. You apparently have no basis for your moral opinions. You just do what you are told by your religion without thinking at all. Typical brain-dead believer. You are appealing to mindless emotionalism when you divert the conversation to incest.

You brought up incest as a way to confuse the question about homosexuality. You have never said why it would be wrong for two consenting adults to have any kind of relationship they want. You appear to be utterly incapable of engaging in anything like a rational discussion. All you do is spew out mindless emotionalism. Typical arrogant brain-dead believer.

Rose
04-23-2014, 08:19 PM
"Is it immoral for a man and woman to have sex? If not, then "WHY is it morally wrong for a man with a vasectomy to have an intimate sexual relationship with his consenting 18 year old daughter???"

WTF??? So you're actually telling me there's nothing morally wrong with a man having sex with his own mother as long as they are both consenting??? :confused: ...

How far are you willing to go with this? Are you also saying there is nothing wrong with murder as long as the victim is consenting to be killed??? If not, why? ...

Why is it wrong for an 18 year old kid to blow his 18 year old friend's brains out IF BOTH ARE CONSENTING TO THE ACT???

As far as my view, there's nothing wrong with sex as long as it is in accordance with the natural order that God ordained for sexual intimacy. Homosexual sex is morally wrong FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON it is morally wrong for a man to have sex with his own mother (it violates the natural order that God ordained for sexual intimacy). It doesn't matter who's consenting. The ACT itself is morally wrong.

The only reason you say the act itself is morally wrong is because your Biblegod says so! So, tell me why is the sexual relationship two consenting adults have in the privacy of their own homes morally wrong, and any of your business?

In the real world things are morally wrong when they violate a persons human rights. We are all human, thus we are all entitled to equal human rights. Can't you see how morally corrupt the Biblegod you worship is, the Bible is filled with human rights violations, especially for women.


And with the example of a man having sex with his own mother, EVEN IF THEY WERE BOTH ABLE TO HAVE CHILDREN, homosexual sex ALSO entails deadly risks (in terms of higher risks of AIDS and STD's). So even under that scenario, Rose's argument is inconsistent. If it's wrong to engage in a particular kind of sexual relationship BECAUSE of the greater potential of harm, then it follows that homosexual sex is wrong.

There are equal risks for both Homosexual and Heterosexual people who do not practice "safe sex". The harm that I was speaking of has nothing to do with the consenting adults, only the non-consenting child that has a higher risk of potential genetic defects.

David M
04-24-2014, 02:18 AM
The harm that I was speaking of has nothing to do with the consenting adults, only the non-consenting child that has a higher risk of potential genetic defects.
It seems to me, that while in times past, before anything was known about genetics, people did not know the reason why sex between one male and one female was safest of all. It seems to me, that God who created man and woman, knew what he was doing and knew what was best for man and woman.

God had to know down to the molecular level how to create living things of which man is the pinnacle of God's creation. The principles were set by God at the beginning and the principles are shown by the pattern God has set. The fact is; man has broken God's covenant and not obeyed him and God has not prevented man from "doing his own thing". God deals with man's rebellion and lets the consequences of man's rebellion fall on man's own head. God has the solution to all of the world's problems and is bringing it about and allowing us all time in our own generation to come to know what the will of God is and to get our hearts right with God. His kingdom will come on time and the earth will not continue for ever under man's rule. Time is running out for man's rule. Only those people who have been selected as the best for his kingdom, will be in the Kingdom. That could be a great number, but nowhere near the number of people that have ever lived. God will correct any final defects in those saved, so that all will show the Glory of God to the full.

The world is full of defects that are caused as a consequence of man's rebellion and God allows to continue. God knew that if man disobeyed and had multiple wives for example, that would produce venereal disease. All manner of disease and defects have allowed to continue because of man's rejection of God. Certainly, from the time of Adam's fall, man has been paying the price for his rebellion and not receiving the blessings that God could have provided. The world is sick, and it is man's fault. God is allowing the situation to continue until he changes things and ultimately makes the final change in which his Kingdom is established.

It is not difficult for the Creator, who has made every atom in the Universe to "make all things new." (through Christ) (Rev 21:5). It is only a matter of time for God to work out his plan and correct for all man's mistakes. Who knows how much better the world would be now, if everyone had followed God's instruction.

Whether the God of the Bible is believed or not, and those who do not believe can believe there own delusions, the word of God is very clear. It is an abomination to God for same sex intercourse and bestiality. Anyone who believes in God cannot get around God's word. If they do, they are ignoring God's word and cherry picking and appealing to humanism to support them. What they refuse to accept is that they are an abomination to God and delude themselves by saying; "God is love" to the exclusion of God being the righteous judge and pouring condemnation and punishment on those who are an abomination to him. It is only a matter of time how and when the ultimate punishment of eternal death comes to all those reprobates that God has cast off.

Rose
04-24-2014, 08:57 AM
Whether the God of the Bible is believed or not, and those who do not believe can believe there own delusions, the word of God is very clear. It is an abomination to God for same sex intercourse and bestiality. Anyone who believes in God cannot get around God's word. If they do, they are ignoring God's word and cherry picking and appealing to humanism to support them. What they refuse to accept is that they are an abomination to God and delude themselves by saying; "God is love" to the exclusion of God being the righteous judge and pouring condemnation and punishment on those who are an abomination to him. It is only a matter of time how and when the ultimate punishment of eternal death comes to all those reprobates that God has cast off.

Hello David

Obviously if one believes in the Biblegod as you do, your whole world-view is going to be colored by the writings of primitive men who were ignorant of science. If the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, then you have to believe its wrong, even if you don't have any good reason for such a belief. Religious doctrines, and dogmas lead their followers into a narrow mindset that forces them to believe things on faith alone, without any evidence. The open-minded critical thinker can use reason and logic to determine if something is right or wrong, instead of the decrees of an archaic deity made up by men.

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
04-24-2014, 10:10 PM
Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
"Ha! There you go again, totally DODGING my question because you know you can't answer it. You apparently have no basis for your moral opinions. You just do what you are told by your religion without thinking at all. Typical brain-dead believer. You are appealing to mindless emotionalism when you divert the conversation to incest"..."You appear to be utterly incapable of engaging in anything like a rational discussion. All you do is spew out mindless emotionalism. Typical arrogant brain-dead believer." :thumb:

Richard, unlike you or I, they are really grand-masters at evading simple straight-foward Questions. It's Marvelous! :lol:

They are always challenging, shifting, shucking and jiving, twisting the opponents words around to explain this, or prove that is false or that away, which, when explained," is quickly ignored by them in favor of a new this or that that needs to be explained, ad nauseam and ad infinitum.

It's like arguing over and over again with snot-nosed little two-year-old children. But they don't seem to care...they refuse to learn.

Truth obvious means not a whit to them.

What I find so funny and entertaining is that many of them think each other are evil or nuts, but their Paranoia has basiclly the same focus! LOL. Any somewhat rational person who never heard of them might well read all of their Crap and think it must be a joke.

Could anyone actually believe their rambling paranoia regarding such Nonsense? Apparently So! I think once you begin to fall all in the Abyss of Maddness with it like these folks here, it's Game over Baby! LOL.

Sinister forces are everywhere and even lurking in the most mundane things...The megalomaniac view of oneself as the Elect, Saved, Chosen of God, wholly good, abominably persecuted, yet assured of ultimate triumph in the End.

Who tends to get their panties in a wad and get bent out of shape when they learn that their primitive Iron Age Tyrant-Daddy in the Sky probably doesn't exist or care one whit whether they even exist or not? Oh, THEY DO! The Horror!! Oh horrors of horrors!!! :lol:

What the hell are these lunatics babbling about? Consider: they BELIEVE what they are babbling about! Consider that these people live their whole lives based on this belief, they fear things they see everyday, they see EVIL PLOTS everywhere, at every turn there is something evil out to GET THEM, SNARE THEM, LURE THEM, whole armies of The Damned are out to ensnare them: "THE ELECT AND SAVED!"

But these people who believe this, eventually will look for and it! Then they'll find imaginary someone or imaginary adversary to blame! They are too damed demented to realize that the only Temptations that really exist are their "OWN DESIRES!"

The screacher-preachers will go on asserting Sunday-after-Sunday, year-after-year, in the name of God, any number of absurd things which their own hearers probably "do not really believe, only they have heard them repeat the LIES so often-past all power of impinging or impugning- until "the sense is too out-wearied (brain-washed) to rebel"; "things which they themselves do not believe, if only they could once afford to Question their own souls.

:yo:

David M
04-25-2014, 01:56 AM
Hello Rose

Hello David

Obviously if one believes in the Biblegod as you do, your whole world-view is going to be colored by the writings of primitive men who were ignorant of science. If the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, then you have to believe its wrong, even if you don't have any good reason for such a belief. Religious doctrines, and dogmas lead their followers into a narrow mindset that forces them to believe things on faith alone, without any evidence. The open-minded critical thinker can use reason and logic to determine if something is right or wrong, instead of the decrees of an archaic deity made up by men.

There you go again, saying things that are not true of me. Of course I have very good reasons for belief; they are reasons you reject. If I did not have reasons to believe, I might be agreeing with you.

I have come to the conclusion, there is basically two camps. The first camps is; believers in God's word. The second camp is; humanism. The two camps are incompatible and agreement cannot be reached. Now that you have "crossed over" into the camp of humanism, you might never cross back. You have become a Hebrew of type and have metaphorically crossed over to the wrong side of the river and back into the wilderness.

It is perhaps time not to continue discussing these things any longer. The only advantage to come from this is; we are expressing two opposing opinions for others to read and come to their own conclusion. That is why I thank Richard and you for providing this platform to share our opinions. I feel that at this stage, we are just repeating ourselves and going round in circles. You are in your camp and I am in mine, and there we shall stay.

All the best
David

Rose
04-25-2014, 09:34 AM
Hello Rose


There you go again, saying things that are not true of me. Of course I have very good reasons for belief; they are reasons you reject. If I did not have reasons to believe, I might be agreeing with you.

I have come to the conclusion, there is basically two camps. The first camps is; believers in God's word. The second camp is; humanism. The two camps are incompatible and agreement cannot be reached. Now that you have "crossed over" into the camp of humanism, you might never cross back. You have become a Hebrew of type and have metaphorically crossed over to the wrong side of the river and back into the wilderness.

It is perhaps time not to continue discussing these things any longer. The only advantage to come from this is; we are expressing two opposing opinions for others to read and come to their own conclusion. That is why I thank Richard and you for providing this platform to share our opinions. I feel that at this stage, we are just repeating ourselves and going round in circles. You are in your camp and I am in mine, and there we shall stay.

All the best
David

Hello David


That is not necessarily true. I was once in the Christian camp, but when I opened my eyes and allowed myself to ask tough questions like: "why is the Bible so gender biased?" and search for their answers, I discovered a whole world I was blinded to. I no longer have to accept something merely because it is written in the Bible, I can use the power of reason to discover the truth.

Until a person looks outside the box, all they will see is what's inside the box. The Bible narrows our view and colors our perspective, to see things through the eyes of primitive men who were ignorant of all the marvelous scientific discoveries that have expanded our understanding and knowledge of how the world around us works. So, David I still have hope that you will take a peek outside the Biblebox, and let what's out there open your eyes to the truth. :sunny:

Take care,
Rose

David M
04-25-2014, 10:10 AM
Hello David
That is not necessarily true. I was once in the Christian camp, but when I opened my eyes and allowed myself to ask tough questions like: "why is the Bible so gender biased?" and search for their answers, I discovered a whole world I was blinded to. I no longer have to accept something merely because it is written in the Bible, I can use the power of reason to discover the truth.

Until a person looks outside the box, all they will see is what's inside the box. The Bible narrows our view and colors our perspective, to see things through the eyes of primitive men who were ignorant of all the marvelous scientific discoveries that have expanded our understanding and knowledge of how the world around us works. So, David I still have hope that you will take a peek outside the Biblebox, and let what's out there open your eyes to the truth. :sunny:

Take care,
Rose
Hello Rose
It is true that you have crossed over into the camp of Humanism from the Christian camp. Have you taken anything that is unique to the Bible with you?

As for looking outside the box, I am seeing what you see outside the box and I do not like what I see. I am not accepting your interpretation of passages of the Bible and I am not accepting anyone else's concerning the severity of God's punishment. It seems like I get accused of not having a brain to think about these things for myself. I do not have to look at chapters like Numbers 31 and then ask what everyone else thinks of that chapter and run to commentaries for an explanation.

I read the text in Numbers 31 and accept what it says and does not say. I am against those that read into the text that is not there, especially when only negative things are invented. I can be accused of reading into the text, but I am not inventing negative things against the Bible. If we do not read into the text, then we must accept what is written without adding to or taking away.

All the best
David

Rose
04-25-2014, 01:50 PM
Hello Rose
It is true that you have crossed over into the camp of Humanism from the Christian camp. Have you taken anything that is unique to the Bible with you?

Hello David

Actually I can't think of anything that I have learned that is unique to the Bible. I will say the Bible has a lot of wisdom and good things in it, but many of the positive things it teaches like loving your neighbor are not unique to the Bible. Even before I was a Christian I believed in the Golden Rule.


As for looking outside the box, I am seeing what you see outside the box and I do not like what I see. I am not accepting your interpretation of passages of the Bible and I am not accepting anyone else's concerning the severity of God's punishment. It seems like I get accused of not having a brain to think about these things for myself. I do not have to look at chapters like Numbers 31 and then ask what everyone else thinks of that chapter and run to commentaries for an explanation.


I read the text in Numbers 31 and accept what it says and does not say. I am against those that read into the text that is not there, especially when only negative things are invented. I can be accused of reading into the text, but I am not inventing negative things against the Bible. If we do not read into the text, then we must accept what is written without adding to or taking away.

All the best
David

One doesn't have to read anything into the text that isn't there, it's all very explicit. It says to kill ALL the males (children included) and ALL the women who are not virgins, then it says the Hebrew men are allowed to keep the virgin women for themselves! I wonder what those men would want with virgin women?


Num.31:17-18 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.



So, if you accept what is written in the text, it means you think it is fair and just for your god to command the death of all the people in a community EXCEPT their virgin women, which are given to the soldiers who just killed everyone else. :eek: What happened to loving your neighbor as yourself? :confused:


Take care,
Rose

Gambini
04-25-2014, 05:31 PM
"Unlike you or I, they are really grand-masters at evading simple straight-foward Questions"

What the hell are you rambling on about? The reason I didn't reply to Richard and Rose's last replies to me is because I thought it was PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that the exact OPPOSITE of what they said was true. They asked me why I believed it is morally wrong for two adults to have consenting sex AND I ANSWERED THEM. But since your whole reason for being here on this forum is apparently to be Richard's little cheerleader bitch, I'm not surprised you didn't notice that. I SPECIFICALLY said the REASON that I believe it is morally wrong for a man to have sex with another man (OR for a man to have sex WITH HIS OWN MOTHER, which Richard and Rose actually thinks is morally permissible under certain circumstances) is BECAUSE it violates the natural order that God has ordained for sexual intimacy. THAT was my response to WHY I believed certain sexual acts are wrong REGARDLESS of consent ...

So not only did I answer their question, THEY DIDN'T ANSWER MINE! :lol: In fact, they answered my question WITH A QUESTION (which I already answered)! I asked them IF it is morally permissible for a man with a vasectomy to have consentual sex WITH HIS OWN MOTHER (their claim, not mine), then WHY is it NOT morally permissible for a man to MURDER another man who CONSENTS to being killed???

In fact, the moral position of Richard actually ALLOWS for all sorts of crazy shit like gay incest (men sleeping with their fathers for example), molestation of children induced into an unconscious state, bestiality, necrophilia and as you just saw, men having sex WITH THEIR OWN MOTHERS (as long as they get a vasectomy first). I've never seen any atheist/agnostic explain how any of these things could be wrong under their moral worldview. Presumably Richard and Rose have no moral issues with a man getting a vasectomy and then MARRYING his own mother!!! I mean, why would they? They just said they have no problem with them having sex. So if they support the right of two consenting homosexual sodomites to marry, then surely they cannot object to a man getting a vasectomy and marrying his own consenting mother, right???

Now I have a question for you ... Can you give me one good reason why I should take ANY of Richard and Rose's "moral objections" to biblical morality serious when their OWN morality ALLOWS for circumstances under which pedophilia, bestiality, gay men having sex with their own fathers and men having sex with their own consenting mothers are all permissible??? And make it short and sweet if you want a reply back because I don't have time to jerk off all day with long back and forth posts (you have a tendency to ramble on and on in your posts).

Here's an interesting fact ... Did you know that the state of Washington has one of the highest percentages of atheists? And the state of Washington also happens to have the largest TOTAL number of bestiality cases (in spite of being only the 13th most populous state in the country). Go figure.

I am Gambini and I AM a proponent of the theory that sucking at sports, having a small penis and having a pathetic social life are all potential catalysts for becoming an APEtheist/QUACKnostic.

Rose
04-25-2014, 07:27 PM
In fact, the moral position of Richard actually ALLOWS for all sorts of crazy shit like gay incest (men sleeping with their fathers for example), molestation of children induced into an unconscious state, bestiality, necrophilia and as you just saw, men having sex WITH THEIR OWN MOTHERS (as long as they get a vasectomy first). I've never seen any atheist/agnostic explain how any of these things could be wrong under their moral worldview. Presumably Richard and Rose have no moral issues with a man getting a vasectomy and then MARRYING his own mother!!! I mean, why would they? They just said they have no problem with them having sex. So if they support the right of two consenting homosexual sodomites to marry, then surely they cannot object to a man getting a vasectomy and marrying his own consenting mother, right???

Now I have a question for you ... Can you give me one good reason why I should take ANY of Richard and Rose's "moral objections" to biblical morality serious when their OWN morality ALLOWS for circumstances under which pedophilia, bestiality, gay men having sex with their own fathers and men having sex with their own consenting mothers are all permissible??? And make it short and sweet if you want a reply back because I don't have time to jerk off all day with long back and forth posts (you have a tendency to ramble on and on in your posts).



The only crazy shit going on here is the words you are spewing forth like vomit! CONSENTING ADULT is the optimal word here, and that in NO WAY allows for the molestation of children, bestiality or necrophilia. Come on guy, if you want to have a scintilla of credibility here on the forum you have to quit making shit up!

Richard and I have both said over, and over again that whatever type of relationship two consenting adults wish to have is their own business ... NOT yours or ours! Just because your morality is governed by the biblical mindset of primitive men, who didn't even know how reproduction worked doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow. It's time to get your thinking out of the Bronze Age and into the 21st century.

L67
04-25-2014, 07:44 PM
IDIOT, you seriously expect anyone to accept your claim that the Meta-studies I cited based on HUNDREDS of INDEPENDENT studies aren't reliable because they go back 6 to 10 years ago when you just gave me a study from Phil Zuckerman (an apologist for APEtheism) who's simply giving his biased interpretation of studies as old or even OLDER than what I cited??? LOL :lol: You sir, are a F***ING CLOWN.

LMAO! Gambini, you truly are a dumbass. You complain because I posted a study from an atheist that contradicts your idiocy? That's the game you want to play? Ok, we'll play. Remember your the idiot who said someones work was irrelevant because they don't believe in god. Your implying he was somehow biased in his work. Which you have no proof of.

Here is the claim you made earlier in this thread: A 2006 Meta-analysis by Alexander Moreira-Almeida, Francisco Lotufo Neto and Harold G. Koering (which looked at 850 different studies) concludes that people who are MORE religious are LESS likely to use drugs or abuse alcohol (and less likely to suffer from depression or attempt suicide as well) ...

Guess what? The paper is based largely on a book written by a Christian apologist Harold G. Koering. This link has the paper listed in detail. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1516-44462006000300018&script=sci_arttext

A few paragraphs below the introduction we find this This paper reviews the scientific evidence available for the relationship between religion and mental health. It is largely based on the Handbook of Religion and Health published by one of the authors in 2001.

You can read all about Koenig's beliefs here. http://www.beliefnet.com/Health/2006/05/What-Religion-Can-Do-For-Your-Health.aspx#

Here is the book the Meta study is based on. http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Religion-Health-Harold-Koenig/dp/0195335953

Oh, the irony of it all.:lol::lol::lol:

To borrow your phrase: You have been freaking owned and flattened.





No, YOU JERK OFF!!! It's not a "newer study". He's giving interpretations on selected studies as old or even OLDER than the studies I cited. And he doesn't even dispute the META-studies I cited. Rather, he attempts a red herring by appealing to religion and crime BETWEEN different nations, which is complete bullshit. Different nations have different histories, circumstances and different levels of poverty. Show me ANY Meta-study where religious people in ANY nation are more likely to commit crime than those who are NOT religious IN THAT SAME NATION. We already have a META-analysis of 60 INDEPENDENT studies showing religious people are LESS likely to commit crime. Now show me a META-analysis in ANY nation where the more religious people of THAT nation are more likely to commit crime. It doesn't exist.



Yes, idiot it is newer. Some of the references are older, but there are a lot that are much newer than the meta study you posted. And his purpose wasn't to refute the Meta studies you posted moron. I posted it to show that your claims are moot because studies also show the opposite of what you claim.

But here is the best part. Sticking to your selective reading based on ones religious view. What do we get?

Another freaking Christian apologist conducting the Meta analysis of 60 independent studies. Bradley E. Wright. http://brewright.com/?page_id=37

We can toss this study a side as well. You have been freaking owned and flattened again. :lol::lol::lol:


And I love how Zuckerman at one point tries to bring up the percentage of atheists in American prisons, which is another red herring. Nobody is saying having the mere label "Christian" makes one less likely to commit crime. The point is that the MORE religious you are, the LESS likely you are to commit crime. THAT is what the Meta-studies show.

It's not a red herring moron. His point was that states with higher percentages of religious also have the highest crime rates. Try and actually comprehend what you read next time.


Btw, notice how Zuckerman GRANTS that the studies also show that APEtheists (that's you) are more likely to abuse alcohol, more likely to abuse drugs AND more likely to kill themselves.

And? Nobody said atheists were perfect. But then again neither are Christians.


"Have you ever heard of the Hippoctratic Oath?"

DINGBAT, we're talking about the creation of HOSPITALS. And the very article you posted from Wikipedia states that HOSPITALS (as we know them today) were created BY CHRISTIANS LMAO!!!

Nice try Bini. You didn't refute anything I said. Asclepius was the earliest known example of a hospital. That is a FACT!

You changed your argument slightly Bini. You originally claimed Christians invented hospitals. Then when I debunked your bullshit you now claim hospitals as we know them today.

Here is what you originally said. You spout off bullshit about Christianity doing more harm than good when Christians CREATED hospitals over 1500 years ago.

Now we can see your claim above. You are flat out wrong and have since changed your claims.


"You could say Christianity expanded hospitals"

Oh you better believe I'm going to say that. And I'm ALSO going to state the FACT that Christians ORIGINATED hospitals as they exist in modern society, which the very article you cited points out.

Not true. I already PROVED you changed argument after the fact that your dumbass was shown to be wrong.




"Yes, slavery was around before Christianity. But who brought it to the west? CHRISTIANS! Good grief you are dense"

You didn't say anything about that. You specifically said "Christianity created slavery", which is INSANE! And according to the Mosaic civil laws that you love to appeal to, those slave masters should have been KILLED.

Here we can see how wrong you are: I did say that. And I also clarified it to this: More BS! The Bible is a guide to slavery. I don't deny that Christianity played a role in abolishing slavery.

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

But, Christianity created the slave trade here in the west. The European Imperialists (colonial powers, France, Spain, Great Britain and Portugal) were colonizing the New World and needed labor to work there mines and plantations. They used the Bible as a guide and justification for slavery.

I said Christianity CREATED slavery here in he west. Try and keep up.




Man, you're delusional. How am I supposed to reason with someone who's not even willing to acknowledge known FACTS of history. You seriously didn't know that virtually every single field of science was pioneered by Christian scientists??? And you're claiming the Democratic party was equivalent to the modern religious right (which is a lie but let that go). So OBVIOUSLY you're not going to tell me America wasn't a Christian society when women were given the right to vote for example, right? And that's the point. Why did all these things flourish in CHRISTIAN SOCIETIES???

Says the guy who denies meta studies that prove him wrong like Richard pointed out. Or the same idiot who play mindless number games and thinks those are somehow magical.

I noticed you didn't post a link that proves Christianity created science. Why? Because your full of it. Here is a nice article on why that is BS. http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm




They WERE terrorizing Christians, you JERK OFF. The people who fought against slavery were Christians. I already refuted your point about the Klan claiming to be Christians. Being a Christian entails x. If you don't believe or advocate x, you're not a Christian. If you eat beef burgers, you're not a vegan. If you don't believe in a God, you can't be a "Christian". If you preach hatred against your fellow man, you're not a "Christian" (since Christianity is rooted in the moral philosophy of Christ, who taught that the NON-JEW Samaritan was your fellow neighbor and you are to love him as yourself).

I never said they weren't. But you FAILED to mention to everyone that they themselves were Christian. Try and keep up again.

You didn't refute my claim that the KKK aren't real Christians. You don't get to decide who is or isn't a Christian. Are you God? No, who are you to judge?

I guess the Bible isn't Christian by your standards because the Bible teaches people to hate all kinds of people. Such as homosexuals. The Bible says you should stone them. So much for your logic. Your logic is fatally flawed and morally bankrupt.



The crusades are NOTHING compared to what APEtheists did in A SINGLE CENTURY as soon as they began running governments (over 100 MILLION body bags in OFFICIALLY APEtheistic regimes, where religious people were slaughtered for BEING religious). Christians have been running governments for nearly 2,000 years and yet a small minority of APEtheists was able to slaughter over 100 MILLION people in a single century (during peace time mind you) as soon as they started running governments. And this was primarily over an ANTI-RELIGION campaign driven by the ANTI-THEIST views of these officially APEtheistic/QUACKnostic regimes.

What's really funny is that the god you believe in ranks right up there with the worst of any atheist leaders. And worse you actually think morality comes from such a psycho path. That is the irony of all this. You criticize atheists for atrocities as you study the immoral teachings of a brutal tribal wargod named Yahweh.:lol:




That APEtheists are more likely to blow their melons on the concrete??? The article you posted from your favorite APEtheist apologist GRANTED that very fact, YOU SILLY NERD!!!

In other words, you can't prove your bullshit.




I'll take that as an admission on your part that you can't LOGICALLY refute it.

There is nothing to refute. You made erroneously claims with no evidence to support your idiotic assertions. You want me to refute this nonsense?

If you wanted to enlighten the Chinese government towards geater democratic reform, do you just hit them upside the head and tell them to abandon communism cold turkey??? Of course not. Why??? Because it's so ingrained in their culture. The bible was written in such a way that it would SURVIVE in the culture wherein it was revealed AND was SEEDED in such a way that it would eventually produce the modern fruits we see, which is why they were BIRTHED out of CHRISTIAN societies. Likewise, the bible couldn't OPENLY talk about things like computers or smartphones because such things would be entirely foreign to listeners back then. So it had to be written in such a way that it would SURVIVE in EVERY successive generation.

That is nothing more than positing a fairy tale with assertions.


"Who told me that killing is in of itself wrong? Your own holy book tells me that"

You mean the commandment "Thou shall not kill"??? Man, you're a colossal IDIOT! :lol: Are you too stupid to figure out that passage is talking about MURDER? You think the author forgot about the fact that he layed out 24 civil justifications for capital offenses or that there is JUSTIFIED KILLING from Genesis through Deuteronomy???

Ok, dumbass. Listen carefully. What is the definition of kill? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kill1.
to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.
2.
to destroy; do away with; extinguish: His response killed our hopes.
3.
to destroy or neutralize the active qualities of: to kill an odor.
4.
to spoil the effect of: His extra brushwork killed the painting.
5.
to cause (time) to be consumed with seeming rapidity or with a minimum of boredom, especially by engaging in some easy activity or amusement of passing interest: I had to kill three hours before plane time.



Synonym Study
1. Kill, execute, murder all mean to deprive of life. Kill is the general word, with no implication of the manner of killing, the agent or cause, or the nature of what is killed (whether human being, animal, or plant): to kill a person. Execute is used with reference to the putting to death of one in accordance with a legal sentence, no matter what the means are: to execute a criminal. Murder is used of killing a human being unlawfully: He murdered him for his money.

Now we see who the colossal idiot is. My points stands moron. Freaking owned and flattened again.

"You erronenously claimed she aimed at depopulating the black population. I debunked that NONSENSE. I don't care about the comments from anonymous sources from ignorant fools like yourself"


You haven't debunked shit, you JERK OFF. The article you posted GRANTS that that RACIST WHORE was a proponent of EUGENICS! That's your hero??? And she focused her EUGENICS BULLSHIT in INNER CITIES (to weed out the poorer members of society, according to HER OWN WORDS). And those "anonymous sources" GIVE CITATIONS FOR THEIR QUOTES OF THAT RACIST WHORE. Look them up, JERK OFF.

I did debunk your nonsense. You claimed her intent was to depopulate the black community. I proved that was erroneous.

Try again. And she's not my hero. I was just correcting your erroneous claims.

Timmy
04-25-2014, 07:44 PM
Hey there BINI,

Think about this.

i have decided just recently to always bait the correspondent when they choose to debate…and there is time t o pander...not that i do not usually play several steps ahead already, however it's been found that going for the jugular after setting them up for the fall is most effective and funerer. From now on, if you wish to show differently, let them speak their mind and don't worry about if it appears they may be right. Just carry on, and cover all the aspects, watch closely for weak points, and keep the conversation moving along covering all the aspects subtopically. It does not take long for their seeming rightness goes to their head. When they are standing as tallnas they possibly can, their nose will be high in the air as well.

It is at that moment that a small thing will make them trip and fall. After that small thing skews the unreasonablity of their argument, this is when they get tripped up. That is the time to go for the jugular.

You know, if you just talked about the death rate among homosexuality practitioners compared with hetrosexual, that could clear up alot the dissonance...unless of course you just like sounding like a ragin' Cajun, have at it...i have my times too. Seriously though, excluding aids--(why do they talk about safe sex rather than wrong sex shows the twisted thinking)--death by homosexual practices is self evident by coroners, and were they not consenting or state laws forbidding revealing some facts, there are alot of such deaths because of the unbridled passion sudenly turning to blood lust ontil someone ends up dead...not to mention all the damage bodies from such practices; there are more murders between same sex partners too; suicide rates are higher among them; and this is not even considering the various viruses and bacterial infections ( aside from HIV related illnesses) that can cut their lives short. In fact, about four years.ago, i was reading on one national gay coalition website, that statistically back then, across the board only including those who are out of the closet, that the average gay person irregardless of gender will live more than twenty years less than the non practitioner. The more prominently this proxlivity is acted out, the quicker they drop dead...many times "unexplainably."

What's rilly goin' on?

i get a kick out of you dude. Keep it up and holler like you mean it…you know how i get sometimes all hardnosed and slammin'.o



Don't know why but reading here now again again i'm thinkin' bout this song again again so Njoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&persist_app=1&v=dwLKCjJTR8E
???who's rilly dodgin' what anyway???


שָׁלוֹם רָב

Barefeeteded Timmy Oh

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
04-26-2014, 02:42 AM
Have you paid any attention at all to what your precious Bible says??

Look down - ought-ohhh, it's too late - you just stepped into a morass of absurdity and Bull-Shit. :lol:

Throughout its Blood-Soaked pages, especially the Pentateuch, women are treated like trash, sex-toys, baby-making factories, regarded as property, and down-trodden, not elevated.

For example, the Apostle Paul, like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other cornerstones, resented women and put them in positions of subservience to men, for no other reason except they were born Female!

But how can we totally blame Paul, though? He was only aping and shilling for his role model the Sex-Tyrant Biblegod-Yahweh.

The Wholly Bible-Babble is an account of God's War against Woman. But as is typical of the Bible, so many details are left out. The passages are also somewhat confusing (as usual - what else is new when reading the Bible?).

Man, Genesis is a Soap Opera! BibleGod somehow always gets involved in the SEX.

No Feminists in Ye Old Testament...

Just read Judges 19, then answer this: After reading this episode of enormous cruelty and inhumanity, do you still believe this portion of Unholy Bible is divinely inspired? If yes, you desperately need Psychiatric help!

Was there any need for this putrid chapter to be in the Bible for any reason? Why is this book even in the Bible?! It certainly has "no redeeming social value." Judges 19 continues "the legacy of cruelty towards women" which is exhibited throughout the Old Testament.

The horrible treatment of a concubine herein reveals again that they were busy subjugating Women and gradually establishing with a Patriarchal, Monotheistic, Ethnocentric Worship system. To these primitive ass-holes, women were pleasure sex-toys, baby-factories, slaves, property and objects of lust, murder and mutilation.

How amazing it is that violence on TV is decried and libraries ban books and videos with sex and violence, but the Bible, as far as I know, is never banned. Of course, it shouldn't be, but if standardization of censorship and banning norms were enacted, it would be. Judges 19 is about as PORNOGRAPHIC as it gets!

It's Rape, Pillage and Plunder For the Evil-Bastard in the Sky...Two chapters after the nauseating and disgusting Judges 19 we come to Judges 21. This is yet another example, with which the Babble is replete, of the followers of a cruel God committing all kinds of cruelty. Notice the words "whom they caught" in reference to captives of the invasion in verse 23.

The unlucky virgins "danced" (interpreted: tried to get away) but Yahweh's holy will was satisfied. Fornication was fine if it was done by his warriors in lust with war brides.

Yet Another Role For the Multi-Faceted, Multi-Tasking BibleGod- The Great ObGyn In the Sky! By the time of the events of I Samuel 1, verses 5 through 11, Yahweh has come a long way, Baby!

Once just a poor and lowly-storm god among other high-desert gods, He is now a veritable expert on "WOMEN'S MATTERS"...he is now the GYNO-GOD!

Of course, since the Book was written by Men, a senile and self-sufficient Council of Beards! The Woman screws everything up, with a bit of prompting from a snake. When BibleGod finds out that Adam and Eve have eaten the apple fruit (that may or may not have been an apple), he decides to make them suffer and eventually die and kicks them out of the garden he made for them. The only people worth talking about at this point were inbred from this first couple.

Later in Genesis God galvanized the wife of Abraham's womb and gave her personal moisture, and she popped out another Pup. Yes, she was only one hundred at the time, much younger than Noah's wife probably was, but divine intervention overrides age. God of course could make a three-million-year-old woman give birth if He wanted to.

He "Hearkens" unto Rachel, ensuring she will Pop-Out yet another Pup-male to a male-dominated "Society." Somehow it becomes a celestial threesome with God groping for some action! He'd probably been watching the whole time, then maybe got excited from being a peeping tom then slithered into the sleeping bag with Leah and Jake.

But who knows? I guess we'll all have to wait 'til we get to Heaven to ask Almighty BibleGod.

Polygamy was of course a common-thing among men of God in the Bible, and this is no surprise since women were nothing but sex-toys, baby-factories and tools for the multiplication of the proxy-Warriors to restock BibleGod's armies of conquering-hordes.

Apparently Cain flew the coop because his hormones were raging and he was looking for some strange pussy. Right after the boy ran away, we read: "Cain knew his wife." His wife? The only chick the Bible's mentioned so far is Eve. And now, all of a sudden, Genesis drops another H-bomb by mentioning a mysterious place apart from the Garden.

What? Cain's wife? She wasn't from Eden, so where did she come from?! She wasn't Adam's daughter, so whose was she? Man, the Bible is really getting to be confusing at this point. The writers of Genesis screwed up somewhere along the way. Huh, come to think of it, Adam and Eve did have a third son later, and named him Seth. Not long after Cain knew his wife, Seth knew his...But again, where in the hell did she come from?! Will somebody please explain this to me?!

As it stands, a reading of Genesis suggests that God implicitly approves of incest. It also suggests He wasn't thinking straight and doesn't have much imagination. A smarter God would have made two separate sets of humans in different areas of the sphere then somehow caused them to meet and fall in love or fall in lust then create new persons. Better yet, He would have created two separate un-related pairs of male and female, one of which would bear a male child and the other a female child, then He would have made absolutely sure, through his divine omnipotence.

I've always heard you shouldn't have a baby with someone you're related to. I've been told that such a poor little baby might be screwed-up, as in mentally and deformed.

Hmmm, I guess I was wrong, because BibleGod implies this is what happened in Genesis more than once.

In God's post-diluvian world, one major goal was to keep the human race going. The only way to do that was by screwing. That is, without supernatural and fantastic outside-the-box scenarios...And, no matter who poked who, only one clan of humans walked on the planet. So Ham and Mrs. Ham could have a baby, but then what?

There was absolutely no way out of this circle of incest unless a separate clan of humans met up with Noah's clan for some sweaty sloppy genital adventures! I have another, tangential, yet related, question. Where did all the varying races on the planet originate? The Bible never mentions that either.

Hmmm, I guess they must've evolved.


Genesis 38:7-10

Notice how Onan refuses to screw and marry his dead brother's wife. He evidently possessed "Two Somethings" Yahweh knew nothing about: "a conscience, and its associated sense of morality."

Instead of having sex with the lady, though, Onan spills his jizz on the ground. Does this make any sense? After reading this far, do you still worship this Sex Fiend In the Sky? If you still do, you likewise lack a sense of morality.

I am elated beyond words that I do not worship this Bastard Iron Age Storm God!


Seed Begotten, Seed Forgotten.

Leviticus 15:16-18

This immeasurably backward book - probably the most retarded in the entire anthology of 66, continues in the fifteenth chapter by addressing the "seed of copulation."

In modern times, this is known as "semen," "jizz," "jism," and "cum."

I can't help but notice an omission here. Surely masturbation was a hobby in Bible days, like it has been ever since and is now. And surely it was an offense punishable by smiting. But the text doesn't mention the "seed of masturbation." But any ancient dude who espied a babe taking a bath in a desert oasis or a shit in the desert and fell in lust with her and beat off in the bushes spewing his seed of masturbatory ejaculation out of sight of everyone but Yahweh, is at a loss here about what measure of atonement to take after such a defilement, which Yahweh surely viewed as a sin against His holiness.

Likewise, any ancient chick who played with herself at night after Moses and Aaron were asleep while fantasizing about the well-endowed hunks in the encampment was equally sinning against Yahweh.

If He'd kill someone for using the wrong flavour of incense, or for screwing someone else's wife or hub, he'd surely kill the horny studs for jacking off.

Curious that Yahweh would give explicit instructions on cleansing the seed of copulation but not the seed of masturbation. Maybe the omission is because he ain't a hip God.

Maybe since He's the primitive God of a primitive people, He's never heard of auto-eroticism!

And now we have come full circle to the infamous verse 14, with which this commentary began. Verses 14 and 16 remind the Bible explorer of a more horrific, even more graphic verse a few chapters later - the verse that even more forcefully casts light on anti-abortionist Fundamentalist Bible-worshipers as extreme hypocrites, Hosea 13:16: "their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped-up."

At least modern abortionists perform their procedures professionally, and not in the sloppy way depicted here. And at least they don't do abortions out of jealousy and wrath as BibleGod did. Apparently the priestly element which devised Yahweh had little concern for human life, even very young human life.

Verse 15: What was that I heard the other day: "God loves you"? If God loves everyone, like you say, Hosea 9:15 is a lie. Killing babies is bad enough, but the entirety of Hosea chapter 9 is purely negative. It is altogether gloomy. The God of cheer has abandoned it.

The first Bible reader who can detect anything positive or uplifting in this horrific, nightmarish, bloody chapter should receive a $5 million reward.

But not from me!


Leviticus 19:20-22

The god who discriminates against the handicapped elsewhere in Leviticus also discriminates against slaves and women, and slave women. This sexist, male chauvinist pig of a deity whom millions worship in fear and ignorance here shows favoritism to the male but punishes the female.

Actually, since this deity does not actually exist, the puppeteers who manufactured it to serve their own ends discriminate against women because of their lust for power and bias for patriarchy.


Leviticus 21

Verse 9:

Woe unto the preachers' daughter...God hates you! I didn't say it - the Bible says it!

Notice he has no mercy at all on the fornicating daughter. It is only the father's honor that matters, which makes even more sense considering the status of the father as a priest who preaches the message of Yahweh, enforces the laws to keep the rabble in line, and has the nascent political system by the balls.

The dastardly Jehovah, once just a storm-god, is evolving into a fire god, apparently.

He must have a Pyromaniac-Complex!

Earlier in the Bible he devoured Aaron's offending sons with fire, and now he threatens to burn a daughter who shames her daddy by screwing.

I ask all modern fundy preachers and preachers' daughters: Is this the God you worship?

Yet another instance of Yahweh's contempt for women, or actually, the priesthood's contempt for women...

Verse 11:

It's common sense not to have sex with corpses! So, by relaying this command against necrophilia, is BibleGod admitting He created a planet of morons?

The sophistry of the authors of The Babble is matchless!

Anyone who claims Yahweh is a God of love and forgiveness has either: never read Leviticus 20 and 21, or, not paid attention while reading them, or, has a warped concept of love and morality and fairness, or, all of the above.

Verses 16-23:

Evidently, Heaven has no handicapped parking spaces. Probably no handicapped angels either.

Or handicapped people...


Deuteronomy 20:10-20

The Xenophobe In the Sky. Xenophobia of the worst kind.

"A Whoring We Will Go, A Whoring We Will Go."


Deuteronomy 21

Any human who is a Female and at the same time a worshiper of the Sex-Fiend and Tyrant Bible'sGod should think twice about such an inequitable combination.

How can any female with any female pride at all read these verses and still worship the Primitive God of the Bible? Oh, by being in "Extreme Denial," that's how!...

In verse 11, women are deemed nothing more than sex-toys and baby-factories for conquering warrior-brutes.

Those young studs must have been Rock-Hard as they talked about the hott-babes they'd capture when sunrise came. As they sat around the campfire, roasting marshmallows and she-goats, I bet they wrote folk songs about how they would partake of the pleasures of bald-headed women.

They no doubt plucked their lutes and lyres and beat their drums while joining in chorus, enjoying a rare moment of gaiety in their short, brute, harsh war-filled life existence!

"I'm gonna get me a war-whore/Oh yes I am, yes I am/I'm gonna go get me a fine young babe/When that golden sun arises at dawn/By the power of Yahweh my blues will be gone..."

Now we come to the last two verses, which are the most humiliating of all: Keep the warbride naked and in captivity, don't let her leave your house (this may be where the cruelty of the ball-and-chain originated, and likewise the idea of keeping your bride naked and barefoot and pregnant - who knows?), make sure she grieves being away from her parents - for an entire month, then after that time has elapsed finally go in unto her and screw her, automatically making her your wife. Skip the ceremony of marriage, because according to the all-wise verse 13, the mere act of copulation makes her your wholly betrothed. Then, after all these commands are done, if you get tired of her and want some fresh slave meat, kick her out to let her wander around in the hot desert 'til the next horny macho snags her to be his own pleasure piece.

This is all about fulfilling lust, which other parts of the Bible say men are supposed to suppress and resist! This is also all about cruelty to women, and fulfilling one's patriarchal and misogynistic duty. No marriage rite anywhere in these verses.

In this case, thousands of years ago under the law, it's okay to make a woman yours by enslaving her and poking her. How could any man except a practitioner of bondage & discipline treat a woman like this?! Kidnap her, shave her head, trim her fingernails and toenails, strip her naked, make her mourn for her parents for an entire month, then make her your sex slave!

How can anyone worship such a primitive Bastard God who commands such garbage?...You Fundamentalist Christians have a lot of explaining to do.

Yet another obvious question is: How could a normal male restrain himself from jumping the poor girl and banging her before the month is up? They must have had a lot of discipline. All this is from God's little instruction book on how to treat your fellow human beings with compassion and respect. If you don't believe me, grab your nearest copy and read it yourself!

Without a doubt, brain-washed fundamentalist readers will try to throw in an TUI (Twisted Up Interp) chapter-verse at this juncture. They are full of those and never have to worry if they run out because they possess an uncanny ability to always manufacture more.

Deut. 21:10-14 is clear, though. It's all about treating your fellow humans inhumanly. It's all about patriarchal society run amok, carried beyond the extreme. Remarkably (actually, not that remarkably if you know your Bible-Babble like I know mine), Yahweh thunders out to Moses in verse 14 that his proxy soldiers who keep captive War-Brides in bondage and use them as sex-toys are not to sell them as merchandise.

How inconsistent of the great Yahweh. Keep them in bondage, bend them over and defile as much as you want, (after that first long month's wait is over), show them total disrespect, don't let them out of your house, but don't sell them after you've used them for the sake of your pleasure. You - the big hero, can have them as slaves but you can't sell them to anyone else to be their slaves. This command is inconsistent because in other passages of unholy writ (i.e. Levit. 25:44-46 and Ex 21:1-7) God does command and sanction enslavement of humans.

God's hatred for women is revealed yet again a few chapters later, in Deut. 25.

All the chick in this passage tries to do is break up a fight, and God orders her hand cut off. Inexplicably he qualifies her punishment to grabbing one of the men by his "secrets." Why in the hell would she do that? Unless she was trying to teach her man a lesson and grab him by the balls and lead him home...


Deuteronomy 22

Verse 5:

The Peeping Tom In the Sky doesn't want to look down and see any cross-dressing when he spies on his human creatures below. Watching rape, incest, murder, slavery and cannibalism are just fine, but please!, no transvestite activities. A guy dressing like a chick is a No-No!

Verses 13-21:

I ask all Believing, God-fearing women to tell me: How oh how can you worship the great Sex-Fiend and Misogynist In the Sky?

If this isn't divine discrimination against women, I don't know what is...

Verses 20-24:

The God-of-All commands the killing of a girl who loses her virginity. The shame here is that she played the whore in her father's house. More evidence of the utmost importance assigned patriarchy by the writers of the Bible.

God also commands the killing of the man who deflowers a virgin. He also commands the execution (by the very painful and slow method called "stoning") of adulterer and adulteress.

Who was it that said we should follow, in our modern times, the ethics and commands of the Bible? I believe millions people have said that, all of them incorrectly.


Judges 21

Another episode of God's holy proxy-warriors raping, pillaging and plundering for their bloodthirsty deity, who must have enjoyed watching women getting defiled (I mean, it must get kinda boring in Heaven sometimes and God probably yells at the angels occasionally to shut up and quit singing "Hallelujah" 'cause He wants to watch some dirty rape action).

Also another instance of how men were always given the upper hand over women in an inequitable primitive "society."

Notice the words "whom they caught" in verse 23. The unlucky virgins "danced" (tried to get away is no doubt what this word means, since it surely doesn't mean they danced with joy), but Jehovah's holy will was satisfied and his followers' lust for flesh was consummated.

Biblegod Yahweh's Hatred for women is revealed yet again a few chapters later, in Deut. 25. All the chick in this passage tries to do is break up a fight, and God orders her hand cut off. Inexplicably he qualifies her punishment to grabbing one of the men by his "Secrets."

Why in the hell would she do that? Unless she was trying to teach her man a lesson and grab him by the balls and lead him home...but it's Rape, Pillage and Plunder For the Evil-Bastard and Brute in the Sky...Two chapters after the nauseating and disgusting Judges 19 we come to Judges 21.

This is yet another example, with which the Bible is replete, of the followers of a cruel God committing all kinds of cruelty. Fornication was fine if it was done by his Yahweh's Proxy-Warriors in Lust with sexy virgin war brides.

It is this primitive Iron-Age blood-thirsty God, who seems to kill out of revrelry and sadistic-glee, who destroys life constantly, "as if it's a favourite hobby of His."

It is God who orders and allows his proxy armies of barbarians to embark on bloody-rampages and crusades to steal and loot the possessions of their dead-victims and take the 32,000 Sexy virgin women as if they were sex-toys, loot-booty, property and merchandise.


I Samuel

David and the Great Foreskin Hunt: A Total Waste of Human Lives.

The book of I Samuel never fails to Fascinate. It has such a variety of ways in which Biblegod-Yahweh and his followers inflict pain and torture upon human beings.

Herein the great and legendary follower of God - David, becomes even more like God. He's a man after God's own heart. If you had to guess what was inside the covers of the Bible, having never read any of it or been told about it, you'd never guess what happens in this chapter - the 18th of First Sam.

David goes on a GREAT FORESKIN HUNT!

In the area of where I grew up, people used to go down to the river and pick mushrooms. But 'ole David goes on a different kind of harvest!! He goes on a Circumcisional Rampage, an Excursion of Butchery, a Penis-Chopping Painfest!

And all done just so he can screw the king's daughter! Oh, what a Lovely Affair.

I thought human life is sacred to God. That's what Fundamentalists and Pro-Lifers all tell us! They read the Bible and honor its alleged legacy of valuing human life. Their attitude and ignorance are laughable in the light of chapters like I Samuel 18.

Bible-God lets David commit a huge waste of human life - killing men just so he can take their foreskins home in a "gunny sack." It reminds me of the way people kill bears and foxes just for their fur, wasting the rest of the carcass.

What's most curious about verses 25-27 is not that that wonderful man of God David slaughters 200 Philistines. We know from reading the other escapades of David his fondness and thirst for killing people, and "his willingness to do anything to consummate his burning lust" (remember the tale of Uriah and Bathsheba?).


II Samuel 6

It is starting to sound like a soap opera. In verses 14 through 16, it gets really nice and juicy!

Michal espies her man acting silly. She catches him "leaping and dancing before the Lord" in "a linen ephod." Being frivolous and squirrely is not a good thing to do. You have to take life seriously at all times since you have a very serious God watching you at every moment. I mean, He keeps one eye on the sparrow and with the other He counts every single pubic hair covering your member and scrotum. And He can see through ephods - even linen ones, so it doesn't do any good to try to hide your maleness from God.

A G-string or thong wouldn't work either, so don't even think about it. Nowadays, when it comes to their men, wives and girlfriends know all and see all.

Bible chicks were apparently blessed with the same gift of omniscience.

In verse 20, Michal confronts her man when he gets home. Without taking a breath, she nails him as soon as he walks in the door. Do we detect a bit of sarcasm? Michal also gets sassy with David when she says "How glorious was the king today, who uncovereth himself today..."

In v. 21, David responds to Michal that he can "play before the Lord" if he wants to because the Lord has chosen him to be ruler. In verse 22 he responds to Michal's impetuosity by promising to be carnal with all the maidservants who saw him frolicking in his ephod.

"Shut up! I was doing it for God, okay?! He loves it when I dance around like an asinine jackass! If you don't like it, that's too bad for you you sorry whore! I was doing it for the glory of Yahweh! I'm sick of your insolence. Just for that I'll be even worse.

I'll let all the women in the camp screw my brains out! Woo-hoooo!, Bring in the maidservants!!"

Once again, the women of the Bible are trounced by God and his men. Patriarchy reigns supreme once more. The rights of women are trampled yet again. Instead of punishing David, the all-wise Tyrant-Yahweh punishes Michal by cursing her with a barren womb.


I Kings 1

Poor old David - now a sagging old man, surely longed for the good 'ol days when he'd been young and virile and screwing everything in sight. As he lay on his deathbed, he must have smiled when daydreaming about those glorious bygone days of lechery. Alas, his piety was suffering from a lame cock.

But alas, now David's pecker is cold and limp, and the superannuated patriarch can not even "get heat" (verse 2). The blood just isn't flowing any longer. He will never again have blood surging and feel the pleasure.

No more breaking in shapely young sexy virgins. No more screwfests with bedfuls of concubines in king-sized beds. No more fellatio under the junipers...

So by now pitiful 'ol Dave can't get it up. If only he hadn't expended so much energy towards slaughtering innocent people in his younger days as an ambitious king...

His servants, showing they may have cared for him, or rather undoubtedly fearing being beheaded, send out a search party for a virgin. Notice the searchers had to look long and hard throughout all the coasts of the Land before they found one...What does this tell you about their morals?

Woe unto David. Abishag, the lucky virgin finally discovered, must have been as ugly as her name, for even when the "fair damsel" embraces David and presses her young female body against him he is still hopelessly limp. In his younger days, his pecker would've sprung to life at the mere sight of her.

"And the king knew her not." The impotence is just too full-blown. And so ends David's reign as a Sexual-Tyrant.

All the Women of the land are safe once more, until the next lecherous monster with Yahweh's blessing comes along...


Hosea 9

How can anyone who reads Hosea 9 subsequently continue worshiping BibleGod? How can they continue opposing abortion when they read that their own God favors the activity and not only favors it but performs it?! What's up with these ignorant pricks?

Notice that in verse 14 God promises abortion via miscarriage. We must keep in mind that earthly miscarriages are unintentional, or "accidents." Women don't plan miscarriages or make them happen. But this scenario is different. The almighty God, who has the power of life and death, causes miscarriages. Therefore, they are abortions in this case.

In verse 16, God is even harsher. He vows pure, unadulterated murder of babies in the womb.

These two verses of Hosea 9 make pro-life Christians the ultimate hypocrites, not to mention the ultimate ignoramuses since most of them are probably unaware of Hosea 9's existence, and the ultimate practitioners of selective reading, as they commonly avoid controversial chapters of their precious Book.

Let's return, dear Bible reader, to the opening verse of chapter 9. It doesn't say "Rejoice!" It says "Rejoice not!" The remainder of the chapter presents a variety of reasons for not being happy and joyful. And if Yahweh tells you to be unhappy and unjoyous you better do what he says.

The latter part of verse 1 is curious. Does "thou hast gone a whoring from thy God, thou hast loved a reward on every corn floor" imply prostitution inside storage bins of corn? Who knows? It just might, because in chapter 2 of this same minor prophet book, in verses 4 and 5 in particular, Yahweh promises a life of whoredom for unborn children! That makes you wonder why he aborts some unborn children instead of letting all of them be born to enjoy a life of happy whoremongering.

It also makes you wonder why Yahweh ever erased Sodom and Gomorrha from existence. What a fickle God...

It almost sounds like Yahweh favours whoredom, adultery, lechery, all manner of pleasures of the flesh, does it not? After all, in the very second verse of chapter 1 He commands the minor prophet to find a whore and marry her. If Hosea had complied, he might have been rewarded with being a major prophet instead of a minor one, but apparently he didn't obey God's command.

But naw, no way, this can't be true! God is against harlots and harlotry, ain't he? That's what my granddaddy told me so it's gotta be true. God is good God is great. Almighty, all-righteous, morally perfect God is against prostitution and whoremongering, ain't He?

The Holy Bible is called the Good Book, but it's actually not a book. Rather, it's an anthology of 66 books. Some are dull and boring, others are somewhat intriguing. And the Bible is still one of your best sources for soap opera drama, and sex and violence, and genocide!

But it is not the place to go for science and history. The writers of the Bible were backward and primitive, so their book is backward and primitive. That's why it's so retarded scientifically and morally today. It contains some kernels truth but not much...Most of its characters and events are symbolic, allegorical and mythological.

The Bible does contain some good rules to live by, i.e. the Golden Rule, but just about all these were borrowed from earlier religions and cultures. And that's the most important thing a person can know about the Wholly Babble - that it's largely a rewrite of previous myths which is barrowed from preceding earlier sources.

So mostly the Bible is really a Synthesis of earlier Bronze Age texts...and a book of mythology which should not be taken too seriously!

:yo:

David M
04-26-2014, 04:14 AM
Hello James

Have you paid any attention at all to what your precious Bible says??
Yes. Have you paid attention to all parts of the Bible? Are you just picking out the bits of the Bible in order to bash the Bible?


Does this make any fucking sense? Yes. Obviously, the Bible does not makes sense to you.


David

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
04-26-2014, 07:22 AM
Gambini,

It's not terribly enlightening to go through your argument as is the rather pathetic way you immediately direct the conversation away from the substance of the post and onto irrelevant, distractionary nonsense like this.

You're making the rather common mistake of conflating homosexuality with incest. You have very clumsily tried to draw that equivalence.

But there is *NO* moral equivalence between the two!

Homosexuals are not executed and are protected under the Law from harrassment in the West. (contra Lev 20:13) Some Christians have beaten up homosexuals and called them names and even murdered them.

Laws have been passed that have effectively "Pulled the Teeth" out of some of the Bible's babble-teachings about "how to enforce biblical-teachings with Tyrant Yahweh's blessings," that is to say the biblical teachings from the Holy Spirit on "how to go about putting THE FEAR OF GOD in mankind," have been replaced by more Humane Secular laws.

Thankfully, today Christianity exist only "in very adulterated, watered-down and significantly benign, harmless modified-forms."

All God and Religious mythology masters and dominates and shapes the forces of nature in and through the Humam Imagination; hence it disappears as soon as man gains mastery over the forces of nature.

That is to say, in these Biblical myths or nursery or common folk-lore tales the aspects have only an imaginary identity, not a concrete identity. They are naive, imaginary, subjectively conceived transformations conjured up in men's minds.

You and the precious Christian fundamentalist and dogmatist-LIARS are Lazy-Bones!

You refuse to undertake any painstaking study of concrete things, they regard general truths as emerging out of the void, they turn them into purely abstract unfathomable formulas, and thereby completely deny and reverse the normal sequence by which man comes to know truth. Nor can you understand the simple interconnection of the two processes in cognition- from the particular to the general and then from the general to the particular.

And you're the Poster-Boy example of how the Bible and Religion has obviously Corrupted the Mind. How utterly sad and Pathetic!

:yo:

Richard Amiel McGough
04-26-2014, 09:37 AM
As far as my view, there's nothing wrong with sex as long as it is in accordance with the natural order that God ordained for sexual intimacy. Homosexual sex is morally wrong FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON it is morally wrong for a man to have sex with his own mother (it violates the natural order that God ordained for sexual intimacy). It doesn't matter who's consenting. The ACT itself is morally wrong. And with the example of a man having sex with his own mother, EVEN IF THEY WERE BOTH ABLE TO HAVE CHILDREN, homosexual sex ALSO entails deadly risks (in terms of higher risks of AIDS and STD's). So even under that scenario, Rose's argument is inconsistent. If it's wrong to engage in a particular kind of sexual relationship BECAUSE of the greater potential of harm, then it follows that homosexual sex is wrong.
Well alrighty then! There you have it folks. Gambini says homosexual sex is bad cuz duh biblegawd said so. This is yet another lucid example of how fundamentalist religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. REAL MORALITY is based on UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES of justice, fairness, consent, empathy,and love. None of these fundamental principles play a role in Gambini's explanation. He blindly condemns good and loving people because that's what his brainwashing handbook tells him to think.

Note also that he conflates consequences that apply equally to hetero- or homo- sexual promiscuity as an "explanation" for why homosexuality is bad. His judgement is so perverted he can't see that those consequences (AIDS and STDs) apply equally to any promiscuous sexuality. His argument does not apply to monogamous couples whether hetero, homo, or even closed polygamous groups (as practiced by all the patriarchs in the totally incoherent and inconsistent BIBLE that Gambini falsely believes he believes).

And there is an even deeper error here. The fact that some activities can be dangerous does not mean they are immoral! E.g. you could kill yourself and others just driving a car. Is driving therefore immoral? Welcome to Gambini's brain ... or what's left of it after it got infected with fundamentalist religion. :doh:

Richard Amiel McGough
04-26-2014, 09:59 AM
In fact, the moral position of Richard actually ALLOWS for all sorts of crazy shit like gay incest (men sleeping with their fathers for example), molestation of children induced into an unconscious state, bestiality, necrophilia and as you just saw, men having sex WITH THEIR OWN MOTHERS (as long as they get a vasectomy first). I've never seen any atheist/agnostic explain how any of these things could be wrong under their moral worldview. Presumably Richard and Rose have no moral issues with a man getting a vasectomy and then MARRYING his own mother!!! I mean, why would they? They just said they have no problem with them having sex. So if they support the right of two consenting homosexual sodomites to marry, then surely they cannot object to a man getting a vasectomy and marrying his own consenting mother, right???

Behold the religion and the damage done! This is the ultimate example of how Gambini's religion has totally corrupted his mind and perverted his morals. He freely LIES about what I believe. I have never said anything that would justify his assertions about what I "ALLOW."

How. Freaking. Pathetic.



Now I have a question for you ... Can you give me one good reason why I should take ANY of Richard and Rose's "moral objections" to biblical morality serious when their OWN morality ALLOWS for circumstances under which pedophilia, bestiality, gay men having sex with their own fathers and men having sex with their own consenting mothers are all permissible??? And make it short and sweet if you want a reply back because I don't have time to jerk off all day with long back and forth posts (you have a tendency to ramble on and on in your posts).

Again, you are spewing delusional spittle all over this forum. You exemplify how fundamentalist religion BREEDS A CONTEMPT FOR THE TRUTH in the believers. Nothing could be more pathetic or disgusting. Not to mention ironic, since Christians go about constantly claiming TRUTH even as they spit on truth.

And there is no need for you to take "my" moral objections seriously. They have nothing to do with me. The moral abominations attributed to God in the Bible are OBJECTIVELY EVIL. They have nothing to do with me or Rose. If you can't see them or if you try to justify them, you only demonstrate, yet again, that your religion has corrupted your mind and your morals.

If God really were the author of the Bible, I would have to conclude he designed it as a TEST to expose the corrupt nature of believers like Gambini who give lip service to truth when in fact despising and abusing it.



Here's an interesting fact ... Did you know that the state of Washington has one of the highest percentages of atheists? And the state of Washington also happens to have the largest total number of bestiality cases (in spite of being one of the least populous states in the country). Go figure.

Yet another demonstration of the perverse abomination known as "Gambini's brain." Such mindless slander spews abundantly from the sewer of his soul.

Richard Amiel McGough
04-26-2014, 10:07 AM
In fact, the moral position of Richard actually ALLOWS for all sorts of crazy shit like gay incest (men sleeping with their fathers for example), molestation of children induced into an unconscious state, bestiality, necrophilia and as you just saw, men having sex WITH THEIR OWN MOTHERS (as long as they get a vasectomy first). I've never seen any atheist/agnostic explain how any of these things could be wrong under their moral worldview. Presumably Richard and Rose have no moral issues with a man getting a vasectomy and then MARRYING his own mother!!! I mean, why would they? They just said they have no problem with them having sex. So if they support the right of two consenting homosexual sodomites to marry, then surely they cannot object to a man getting a vasectomy and marrying his own consenting mother, right???

Now I have a question for you ... Can you give me one good reason why I should take ANY of Richard and Rose's "moral objections" to biblical morality serious when their OWN morality ALLOWS for circumstances under which pedophilia, bestiality, gay men having sex with their own fathers and men having sex with their own consenting mothers are all permissible??? And make it short and sweet if you want a reply back because I don't have time to jerk off all day with long back and forth posts (you have a tendency to ramble on and on in your posts).

Oh the depths of perversion wrought by fundamentalist religion! I have never written anything that could possibly be construed as allowing for the molestation of children! I've never seen such a perverse and lying freak as Gambini. The irony is thick, given that he is so deluded as to think he serves the "God of truth" with his disgusting and perverse lies.

Timmy
04-26-2014, 11:04 AM
Well alrighty then! There you have it folks. Gambini says homosexual sex is bad cuz duh biblegawd said so. This is yet another lucid example of how fundamentalist religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. REAL MORALITY is based on UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES of justice, fairness, consent, empathy,and love. None of these fundamental principles play a role in Gambini's explanation. He blindly condemns good and loving people because that's what his brainwashing handbook tells him to think.

Note also that he conflates consequences that apply equally to hetero- or homo- sexual promiscuity as an "explanation" for why homosexuality is bad. His judgement is so perverted he can't see that those consequences (AIDS and STDs) apply equally to any promiscuous sexuality. His argument does not apply to monogamous couples whether hetero, homo, or even closed polygamous groups (as practiced by all the patriarchs in the totally incoherent and inconsistent BIBLE that Gambini falsely believes he believes).

And there is an even deeper error here. The fact that some activities can be dangerous does not mean they are immoral! E.g. you could kill yourself and others just driving a car. Is driving therefore immoral? Welcome to Gambini's brain ... or what's left of it after it got infected with fundamentalist religion. :doh::icon_hello:

Aloha Big Kahuna!:yo:

Much of what you say seems cogent, however your third paragraph is post hoc.




AND curiouser is WHAT ABOUT THIS?
...those consequences (AIDS and STDs) apply equally to any promiscuous sexuality...Don't you think "deviant" could be more appropriate...and how or why respectively?



I'm seeing loopholes on both sides of the table and dare not get too involved, as more than 100 posts could easily transpire before time to respond here.

Just comments from behind the peanut gallery FN.

I always ask why when i do not understand what is in the scriptures, and until whatever issue has been hashed out here, very little need be said...if any...before or after.

What is wondered is though "consenting", were the medical facts pointed out, any deviancy can and often does if continued in, have a deletorious effect on the bodies of the participants, and secondarily affects those who are closest to them.

Is this the kind of "love" you are talking about? It's not politically correct to tell people potential consequences of any such activities, but lets socialistically enforce healthcare so everyone has to pay for other peoples errors? Something is wrong with this picture.

If the so-called xian-humanistic churches who claim to be of faith actually did the why and what they are supposed to occupy for, it is seriously doubted things would have ever gotten to this stage in this end game of America...now it seems so many are praying to the ceiling or themselves for themselves about themselves by themselves and together. Something far worse is wrong with that picture...and no amount of protest by these, whether from debate to protest to politiking is going to change the climate and condition at hand. How is any of that following Jesus' example?

:prophet:Judgment began some time ago with the house of God.

More current and the pending calamities, as well as other judgments falling--(recorded) of God by God--shall continue and worsen. These problems shall persist,--whether: fiscal, personal, or natural--perpetually piling at the doorstep of self-serving non-missional xians with their social club churches of all the failing nations (as long as they continue pointing their finger elsewhere), thinking by their own "righteous?" deeds they can saved the world. (Their very doings prove they have been in famine for the Word and it is all OUR own fault.

Scecchers save thy selfs.



But what does the Timmy know?

Opinions are like digits.
Nearly everyone has at least twenty.


Sincerely,

Your unofficial score keeper and commentator: Toronto Nuwanda

Richard Amiel McGough
04-26-2014, 11:55 AM
:thumb:

Richard, unlike you or I, they are really grand-masters at evading simple straight-foward Questions. It's Marvelous! :lol:

They are always challenging, shifting, shucking and jiving, twisting the opponents words around to explain this, or prove that is false or that away, which, when explained," is quickly ignored by them in favor of a new this or that that needs to be explained, ad nauseam and ad infinitum.

It's like arguing over and over again with snot-nosed little two-year-old children. But they don't seem to care...they refuse to learn.

Truth obvious means not a whit to them.

Good morning James,

It's good to have another witness to truth and reality on this forum. :thumb:

Gambini has been totally misrepresenting my moral theory and making blatantly false assertions about what I believe. As far as I can tell, he is doing this because he knows that the only way to create even the illusion of validity of his position is by "shifting, shucking and jiving, twisting the opponents words around." Case in point: My moral theory is based on universal principles like fairness, justice, empathy, consent, and love. Rather than discussing these principles, he invents ludicrous diversions concerning child molestation, bestiality, necrophilia, and incest. And so he presents himself as a poster child for how fundamentalist religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. Nothing could be more ironic, or pathetic.



What I find so funny and entertaining is that many of them think each other are evil or nuts, but their Paranoia has basiclly the same focus! LOL. Any somewhat rational person who never heard of them might well read all of their Crap and think it must be a joke.

Exactly correct. Their comments are so crazy we can't even make a parody of what they say. They are a self-parodizing! They exemplify Poe's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law), which states:

Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of extremism or fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing.


The core of Poe's law is that a parody of something extreme by nature becomes impossible to differentiate from sincere extremism. A corollary of Poe's law is the reverse phenomenon: sincere fundamentalist beliefs can be mistaken for a parody of those beliefs
This forum really helped me to wake up from the delusion of Christianity because it helped me see that the Bible is so incoherent that the most fervent believers cannot agree about the most fundamental teaches, such as whether Christ is God or not.



Could anyone actually believe their rambling paranoia regarding such Nonsense? Apparently So! I think once you begin to fall all in the Abyss of Maddness with it like these folks here, it's Game over Baby! LOL.

Sinister forces are everywhere and even lurking in the most mundane things...The megalomaniac view of oneself as the Elect, Saved, Chosen of God, wholly good, abominably persecuted, yet assured of ultimate triumph in the End.

Delusions are based on bad thinking habits. Blatant biases like selection bias (cherry picking) and confirmation bias rule their minds so they lose the ability to even think. And this is all reinforced by the explicit teachings of their religion, as when they are told that believers live by "faith" and not "sight" and that they are more blessed if they believe without evidence. And so there is a double whammy: First, their religion tells them that they are more blessed if they believe without proof, and then it threatens them with eternal torment in hell if they have doubts! And so fundamentalist religion is becomes a MIND KILLER that threatens all that is good and true. It teaches that good is evil and evil good. It destroys the minds and morals of believers.



Who tends to get their panties in a wad and get bent out of shape when they learn that their primitive Iron Age Tyrant-Daddy in the Sky probably doesn't exist or care one whit whether they even exist or not? Oh, THEY DO! The Horror!! Oh horrors of horrors!!! :lol:

LOL. You got that right. If God has done anything in the last two thousand years, it has been to do everything in his power to prove he does not exist. And this brings us to the central delusion of all theistic religion: The idea that God is trustworthy. That idea is utterly delusional. Everyone knows that God cannot actually be TRUSTED to do anything for anyone in this live. If God were half as trustworthy as the average dentist, there would be no debate about his existence. And worse, folks who trust God for the health of their children end up with dead children and manslaughter convictions.



The screacher-preachers will go on asserting Sunday-after-Sunday, year-after-year, in the name of God, any number of absurd things which their own hearers probably "do not really believe, only they have heard them repeat the LIES so often-past all power of impinging or impugning- until "the sense is too out-wearied (brain-washed) to rebel"; "things which they themselves do not believe, if only they could once afford to Question their own souls.

:yo:
"Screecher-preachers" - apt phrase! So typical of people who know they don't have a leg to stand on.

Richard Amiel McGough
04-26-2014, 01:31 PM
"Religion corrupts a persons morals"

That's a flat out LIE. Meta-studies show the exact OPPOSITE. Religiosity ENHANCES a persons moral character ...

A 2001 Meta-analysis by C.J. Baier and B.R. Wright (which looked at 60 different studies) concludes that religious people are LESS likely to engage in criminal acts of violence (or criminal activity in general) ...

A 2006 Meta-analysis by Alexander Moreira-Almeida, Francisco Lotufo Neto and Harold G. Koering (which looked at 850 different studies) concludes that people who are MORE religious are LESS likely to use drugs or abuse alcohol (and less likely to suffer from depression or attempt suicide as well) ...


A COMPREHENSIVE study released in 2007 by Harvard Professor Robert Putnam and University of Notre Dame associate Professor David Campbell reveals that religious people are MUCH more likely to give to charity and that 40% of regular churchgoers volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly (compared to only 15% who NEVER attend religious services) ...
Why don't you post something up to date? A lot has changed since those dates.

But since you like to quote studies then here is one for you. A new study finds that religious people are less intelligent than non religious people. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/14/religious-people-less-intelligent-atheists_n_3750096.html

You have proven that in spades Bini as I will show below.

Bini has proven it in spades made of spades! There's really nothing more ironic than Gambini quoting scientific studies because he spits on them when they don't say what he want's them to say. Case in point: Gambini convinced himself that the Bible encoded the diameter of the sun as 864,000 miles (using modern English miles!) because of some numerical coincidences based on the number 864. So I showed him a META-ANALYSIS that reviewed all measurements of the sun, using five different scientific methods, which concluded that the sun is 865,173 +/- 80 miles in diameter. You can read about it in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?5288-Value-of-Pi-in-Matthew&p=59642#post59642). The number he desired has absolutely NO scientific justification of any kind. Indeed, it is beyond absurd because his desired value lies more than six standard deviations away from the mean in the metastudy. It directly contradicts the overwhelming body of scientific evidence. And how did Gambini respond when I showed him this evidence? He said this (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?5288-Value-of-Pi-in-Matthew&p=59595#post59595):
GAMBINI: "Regardless, I'm ABSOLUTELY justified in using the value of 864,000 for the simple fact that the value is STILL USED by authoritative sources. That's all I need."
In Gambini's universe, he is "ABSOLUTELY justified" to base arguments on demonstrable falsehoods so long as he can find an "authority" somewhere on the internet that lists the false value! What kind of insanity rules his mind? He asserts blatant falsehood and then justifies it by committing the fallacy of appeal to authority! Wow. Just wow.

It was in this context that I explained to him how religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. Here is the exchange we had (source (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?5288-Value-of-Pi-in-Matthew&p=59642#post59642)):





Btw, I really wish you would stop repeating this ridiculous line of yours about religion having a negative effect on morals. That's the DUMBEST shit I've ever heard. Your own personal experiences of religious people don't mean anything. If your assertion that religion has negative effects on people is true, then the data should back that up ...

You are a prime example of why I say that religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. You have chosen to believe a lie and reject the vast majority of scientific studies spanning the last 32 years concerning the diameter of the sun. Your bias is the most blatant anyone could ever imagine. You have not given any SCIENTIFIC REASON to reject all those studies. You and I both know that the only reason you are rejecting those scientific studies is because they contradict what you want to believe. You explicitly claim that you are justified by an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY - saying if you can find any "authorities" that use the wrong value, that justifies your use of the wrong value. That's not just a logical fallacy - it's pure insanity. It makes it look like you DESPISE the truth! This reveals a corruption of your mind. And truth is a moral issue, so your morals have been corrupted too.


And how did Gambini respond to that post? He didn't! He totally ignored it. And now he repeats his appeal to "meta-studies" in his vain attempt to contradict what we all know and can see and demonstrate: Dogmatic religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers because it breeds a contempt for the truth and teaches that belief without evidence is not only a virtue, but a necessity to avoid eternal torment in hell. It is a mind killer, and a human with a corrupt mind will have corrupt morals, because truth is a moral issue.

Richard
I wonder if Gambini will ever find the balls to actually respond to the evidence which demonstrates the error in his assertions. Here is the graph from the META-ANALYSIS of the last 32 years of scientific measurements of the sun's radius. Gambini asserts that the diameter of the sun is 864,000 miles. This value lies well outside the range supported by the vast majority of scientific measurements, as shown in this graph. The actual value would have to lie in the range marked by the pink box in order to be legitimately rounded to 864,000 miles.

1155

This also is an excellent example of the folly of numerology. It is based almost entirely on a selection bias. The only basis for Gambini's claims is that he found some "patterns" based on the number 864 relating to the sun, and then leaped to the conclusion that this was "confirmed" by the scientific measurement of the sun's diameter. But when the science disagrees with what he hoped to prove, does he correct his assertions? Nope. He doubles down and commits blatant fallacies like an appeal to a fallacious authority!

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
04-26-2014, 03:40 PM
:signthankspin:

I mean no one can really just go on our feelings...the argument is really so Piss-Poor. That is absolutely silly and laughable!

Their Logic applied to false premises will invariably yield conclusions. Of course their rationale and idea of Logic is similar to the argument that it's so "Obvious" and "Self-Evident."

By the way, that is so funny you should mention that very thing because I do seem to recall reading that incredible thread when I first stumbled across your most fascintaing Bible Wheel site and Forum/Blog. (Yes, I did read about and remember all those graphs)

And he convinced and hypnotised himself that the Bible encoded the diameter of the sun as exactly 864,000 miles (using modern English miles! (That reminds me of the English Gematria you mentioned to me in an earlier post!) because of some numerical coincidences based on the number 864! Oh HOW MARVELOUS! :rolleyes:
By the way, that is so funny you should mention that very thing because I do seem to recall reading that incredible thread when I first stumbled across your most fascintaing Bible Wheel site and Forum/Blog. (Yes, I did read about and remember all those graphs)

And he convinced and hypnotised himself that the Bible encoded the diameter of the sun as exactly 864,000 miles (using modern English miles! (That reminds me of the English Gematria you mentioned to me in an earlier post!) because of some numerical coincidences based on the number 864. Oh HOW MARVELOUS!

:yo:

Gambini
04-26-2014, 05:43 PM
"I wonder if Gambini will ever find the balls to actually respond to the evidence"

I already HAVE responded to this objection. So I have no idea why you thought my balls were "missing". Here it is again ...

First of all, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, there ARE scientific studies that point to a diameter of the sun at 864,000 miles. Second, even looking at the Meta-study you're pointing to, 864,173 +/- 80 miles is only 600 miles off from being rounded to 864,000 miles (which is my argument, that 864,000 = The ROUNDED value)! You do realize that just last year, scientists added nearly 100 MILLION YEARS to the supposed age of the universe, right? And over the last five years, scientists chopped off 100 MILLION years from the supposed age of the earth. But you're making an issue over a mere 600 freaking miles! :lol:

The reason I believe the value 864,000 (which, as you noted, IS supported by scientific studies AND is a mere 600 miles off from rounding to 864,000 miles in the other studies you pointed to) is closer to the truth is precisely because of all the numerical links with the number 864 to the sun (most of which are actually INDEPENDENT of the bible), which are way too numerous to get into here. I notice you keep wanting to go back to this argument for some reason. I suspect it's out of desperation. I mean, you did just argue on this forum that there is nothing wrong with a man HAVING SEX WITH HIS OWN MOTHER (as long as she consents and he gets a vasectomy first), which means you ALSO support men having the right to MARRY their OWN mothers (as long as they get a vasectomy), RIGHT???

Stop trying to change the subject (if you have the "balls", that is) ...

Gambini
04-26-2014, 06:07 PM
"I have never written anything that could possibly be construed as allowing for the molestation of children"

I never said you SAID child molestation is permissible under certain circumstances. I said atheists/agnostics have no moral grounds for objecting to child molestation under certain circumstances. For example, WHY is it morally wrong to molest a child who is in an induced coma???

And why is it morally wrong for a gay man to have a threesome with his father and his grandfather???

And why is it morally wrong to have ruthless sex with a German shepherd???

No wonder you think God was unjust for snuffing out civilizations that refused to repent of their vile bestiality and child sacrifice (after 400 years of giving them time to repent), you don't object to any of these things! :lol: That's why all your "moral objections" to biblical morality are a joke.

What's that, you don't support child sacrifice??? Okay, let's see where you stand on that issue ...

Is it morally wrong for a woman to abort her child 1 month before pregnancy??? If you say no, then WHY is it morally wrong for her to terminate her child one week AFTER delivering birth???

I am Gambini and I AM an asshole. However, I assure you that I am NOT a "piece" of shit (in fact, I am the WHOLE shit).

Snakeboy
04-26-2014, 06:20 PM
I found that by best estimates, the sun's radius is thought to grow approximately .85" per year.

I didn't bother with BOTE calcs, but I imagine were that rate constant ( unlikely ), it would have been roughly 864,000 miles in diameter, over a million years ago.:eek:

Rose
04-26-2014, 07:28 PM
"I have never written anything that could possibly be construed as allowing for the molestation of children"

I never said you SAID child molestation is permissible under certain circumstances. I said atheists/agnostics have no moral grounds for objecting to child molestation under certain circumstances. For example, WHY is it morally wrong to molest a child who is in an induced coma???


http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Gambini http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=62644#post62644)

In fact, the moral position of Richard actually ALLOWS for all sorts of crazy shit like gay incest (men sleeping with their fathers for example), molestation of children induced into an unconscious state, bestiality, necrophilia and as you just saw, men having sex WITH THEIR OWN MOTHERS (as long as they get a vasectomy first). I've never seen any atheist/agnostic explain how any of these things could be wrong under their moral worldview. Presumably Richard and Rose have no moral issues with a man getting a vasectomy and then MARRYING his own mother!!! I mean, why would they? They just said they have no problem with them having sex. So if they support the right of two consenting homosexual sodomites to marry, then surely they cannot object to a man getting a vasectomy and marrying his own consenting mother, right???

Now I have a question for you ... Can you give me one good reason why I should take ANY of Richard and Rose's "moral objections" to biblical morality serious when their OWN morality ALLOWS for circumstances under which pedophilia, bestiality, gay men having sex with their own fathers and men having sex with their own consenting mothers are all permissible??? And make it short and sweet if you want a reply back because I don't have time to jerk off all day with long back and forth posts (you have a tendency to ramble on and on in your posts).


Quit lying and trying to worm out of it. You said that Richard and my moral views allow for pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia ... I quoted you and bolded it in red. Relationships that two consenting adults engage in have nothing whatsoever to do with allowing pedophilia, bestiality or necrophilia! Grow a brain dude.



And why is it morally wrong for a gay man to have a threesome with his father and his grandfather???

And why is it morally wrong to have ruthless sex with a German shepherd???

If a gay man wants to have a threesome with his consenting father and grandfather it is NONE OF MY BUSINESS.

A German Shepherd dog IS NOT A CONSENTING ADULT.

THE RELATIONSHIPS THAT CONSENTING ADULTS HAVE IS NONE OF YOUR BUISNESS, OR MINE.


No wonder you think God was unjust for snuffing out civilizations that refused to repent of their vile bestiality and child sacrifice (after 400 years of giving them time to repent), you don't object to any of these things! :lol: That's why all your "moral objections" to biblical morality are a joke.

It's your biblical morality that's a joke! The Biblegod you believe in that snuffed out civilizations for doing child sacrifice didn't mind killing all the babies and children in those civilizations (except sometimes he allowed the virgins to live to appease the lust of the Hebrew men).


What's that, you don't support child sacrifice??? Okay, let's see where you stand on that issue ...

Is it morally wrong for a woman to abort her child 1 month before pregnancy??? If you say no, then WHY is it morally wrong for her to terminate her child one week AFTER delivering birth???

I am Gambini and I AM an asshole. However, I assure you that I am NOT a "piece" of shit (in fact, I am the WHOLE shit).

The issue of abortion is a decision that should be made between a woman and her doctor ... it is not my business to make that choice.

Richard Amiel McGough
04-26-2014, 08:49 PM
In fact, the moral position of Richard actually ALLOWS for all sorts of crazy shit like gay incest (men sleeping with their fathers for example), molestation of children induced into an unconscious state, bestiality, necrophilia and as you just saw, men having sex WITH THEIR OWN MOTHERS (as long as they get a vasectomy first). I've never seen any atheist/agnostic explain how any of these things could be wrong under their moral worldview. Presumably Richard and Rose have no moral issues with a man getting a vasectomy and then MARRYING his own mother!!! I mean, why would they? They just said they have no problem with them having sex. So if they support the right of two consenting homosexual sodomites to marry, then surely they cannot object to a man getting a vasectomy and marrying his own consenting mother, right???

Now I have a question for you ... Can you give me one good reason why I should take ANY of Richard and Rose's "moral objections" to biblical morality serious when their OWN morality ALLOWS for circumstances under which pedophilia, bestiality, gay men having sex with their own fathers and men having sex with their own consenting mothers are all permissible??? And make it short and sweet if you want a reply back because I don't have time to jerk off all day with long back and forth posts (you have a tendency to ramble on and on in your posts).

Oh the depths of perversion wrought by fundamentalist religion! I have never written anything that could possibly be construed as allowing for the molestation of children! I've never seen such a perverse and lying freak as Gambini. The irony is thick, given that he is so deluded as to think he serves the "God of truth" with his disgusting and perverse lies.

I never said you SAID child molestation is permissible under certain circumstances. I said atheists/agnostics have no moral grounds for objecting to child molestation under certain circumstances. For example, WHY is it morally wrong to molest a child who is in an induced coma???

Are you totally insane Gambini? You said it twice in the quote above.

Richard Amiel McGough
04-27-2014, 09:18 AM
And he convinced and hypnotised himself that the Bible encoded the diameter of the sun as exactly 864,000 miles (using modern English miles! (That reminds me of the English Gematria you mentioned to me in an earlier post!) because of some numerical coincidences based on the number 864. Oh HOW MARVELOUS!

I think self-hypnosis is an accurate way of understanding what he is doing. He is fixated on his "pattern" that he supports with a blatant selection bias. It appears he has but one rule to accept or reject evidence. He accepts anything that supports what he wants to believe and rejects everything else without any valid logic or evidence. His most common fallacy is special pleading. He makes up excuses that he himself would reject if the evidence were different. Case in point: If he wanted the diameter of the sun to be 865,000 miles and I pointed out that a few measurements gave the value of 864,000, he would reject them absolutely. And if the value were completely off so that it didn't relate to the number 864 at all he would simply ignore the diameter as irrelevant. This is the key to his delusion. He has no a priori hypothesis to test! He merely cherry picks his way through the infinite ocean of random numbers, accepting or rejecting values according to one principle - whether or not they can be made to fit the pattern he likes. There is nothing that could ever prove any of his patterns true or false. He has no way to discern between chance and design. And so most of his claims are simply void of any significance.

Gambini
04-27-2014, 12:47 PM
"Quit lying and trying to worm out of it. You said that Richard and my moral views allow for pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia"

I'm not lying. I'm saying your REASONING for how you determine what is moral/immoral ALLOWS for circumstances where child molestation, bestiality and necrophilia are permissible. Get it now? And if you deny that, then you need to explain WHY the circumstances I laid out are morally wrong under your BATSHIT CRAZY moral views.

"If a gay man wants to have a threesome with his consenting father and grandfather it is NONE OF MY BUSINESS"

Beautiful. So not only do you not have a problem with a man HAVING SEX WITH HIS OWN MOTHER (as long as he gets a vasectomy), we now see that you have no problem at all with a man having an orgy with his father, grandfather and two favorite uncles!!! Very interesting indeed. So theoretically, if your adult daughter came home and told you she was having a sexually intimate relationship WITH YOUR MOTHER, you would give them your blessing, correct??? In fact, you would support their right to MARRY, right??? If not, WHY???

"A German Shepherd dog IS NOT A CONSENTING ADULT"

So what? You don't have a problem with human "animals" owning dogs and you can't "know" whether the dog "consents" to being your property. You're just dodging the question again. WHY IS IT MORALLY WRONG FOR YOU TO GIVE OR RECEIVE ORAL SEX FROM A STINKING DOG???

"The Biblegod you believe in that snuffed out civilizations for doing child sacrifice didn't mind killing all the babies and children in those civilizations"

Of course. That's because the biblical God has attributes that gives him the SOLE right to snuff out any FOREKNOWN reprobate at any time (and only he knows all the variables that a given action will have down to eternity). You're just trying to weasel out of having to defend your BATSHIT CRAZY moral views. Stop trying to bring biblical morality into this when we're talking about the STENCH that is entailed in your OWN moral views (thereby discrediting all your bullshit "moral objections" to biblical morality).

"Except sometimes he allowed the virgins to live to appease the lust of the Hebrew men"

You're reading that INTO the text. Nowhere does it say they were taken WITHOUT a marriage covenant (which is unlikely given the Mosaic laws against fornication). And nowhere does it say the women objected to being taken care of and would rather stay in the wilderness to die with no family (which is what would happen had they not been taken as wives). So you're reading INTO the text AND you're ignoring the circumstances entailed. And again, nobody gives a rat's ass what your opinions of biblical morality are. YOUR morality ALLOWS for the CRAZIEST shit imaginable. You keep bringing up the bible so you don't have to defend your own morality. Stick to the REAL subject at hand.

"The issue of abortion is a decision that should be made between a woman and her doctor ... it is not my business to make that choice"

Thank you. So you believe women SHOULD have the right to terminate their pregnancy one month PRIOR to delivery. NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION ... WHY don't you support the right for women to terminate their child one day AFTER delivery???

BINI

Gambini
04-27-2014, 01:05 PM
Greetings Timothy :yo:

"After that small thing skews the unreasonablity of their argument, this is when they get tripped up. That is the time to go for the jugular"

Oh yes ... I'm the type of Christian that Peter was. I will slice the damn ears off these CACODEMONS :D

SHALOMness :pray:

Rose
04-27-2014, 02:36 PM
"Quit lying and trying to worm out of it. You said that Richard and my moral views allow for pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia"

I'm not lying. I'm saying your REASONING for how you determine what is moral/immoral ALLOWS for circumstances where child molestation, bestiality and necrophilia are permissible. Get it now? And if you deny that, then you need to explain WHY the circumstances I laid out are morally wrong under your BATSHIT CRAZY moral views.

"If a gay man wants to have a threesome with his consenting father and grandfather it is NONE OF MY BUSINESS"

Beautiful. So not only do you not have a problem with a man HAVING SEX WITH HIS OWN MOTHER (as long as he gets a vasectomy), we now see that you have no problem at all with a man having an orgy with his father, grandfather and two favorite uncles!!! Very interesting indeed. So theoretically, if your adult daughter came home and told you she was having a sexually intimate relationship WITH YOUR MOTHER, you would give them your blessing, correct??? In fact, you would support their right to MARRY, right??? If not, WHY???

"A German Shepherd dog IS NOT A CONSENTING ADULT"

So what? You don't have a problem with human "animals" owning dogs and you can't "know" whether the dog "consents" to being your property. You're just dodging the question again. WHY IS IT MORALLY WRONG FOR YOU TO GIVE OR RECEIVE ORAL SEX FROM A STINKING DOG???

"The Biblegod you believe in that snuffed out civilizations for doing child sacrifice didn't mind killing all the babies and children in those civilizations"

Of course. That's because the biblical God has attributes that gives him the SOLE right to snuff out any FOREKNOWN reprobate at any time (and only he knows all the variables that a given action will have down to eternity). You're just trying to weasel out of having to defend your BATSHIT CRAZY moral views. Stop trying to bring biblical morality into this when we're talking about the STENCH that is entailed in your OWN moral views (thereby discrediting all your bullshit "moral objections" to biblical morality).

"Except sometimes he allowed the virgins to live to appease the lust of the Hebrew men"

You're reading that INTO the text. Nowhere does it say they were taken WITHOUT a marriage covenant (which is unlikely given the Mosaic laws against fornication). And nowhere does it say the women objected to being taken care of and would rather stay in the wilderness to die with no family (which is what would happen had they not been taken as wives). So you're reading INTO the text AND you're ignoring the circumstances entailed. And again, nobody gives a rat's ass what your opinions of biblical morality are. YOUR morality ALLOWS for the CRAZIEST shit imaginable. You keep bringing up the bible so you don't have to defend your own morality. Stick to the REAL subject at hand.

"The issue of abortion is a decision that should be made between a woman and her doctor ... it is not my business to make that choice"

Thank you. So you believe women SHOULD have the right to terminate their pregnancy one month PRIOR to delivery. NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION ... WHY don't you support the right for women to terminate their child one day AFTER delivery???

BINI

The only one around here with bat shit crazy morals is you! No matter what the Bible says you have to go along with it because that is what your Biblegod (created in the minds of primitive men) demands. Slaughter whole communities, including children and babies ... oh, that's okay because the Biblegod commanded it. Murder all the people except for the virgins and give them to the lusty men ... oh, that's okay because the Biblegod commanded it, and on and on the sick story goes, page after page ...

No matter how many questions I answer you keep changing them to create "shock value", which only shows the state of your depraved mind that has been totally corrupted by your fundamentalist, religious beliefs. You are trapped in the world view created by the primitive men who wrote the Bible, and whatever they say you believe ... how pathetic.

Richard Amiel McGough
04-27-2014, 07:29 PM
:icon_hello:

Aloha Big Kahuna!:yo:


Hey there Timmy-Tonto,

If I'm Kemosabi, I must assume you are assuming the role of Tonto, eh?


Much of what you say seems cogent, however your third paragraph is post hoc.


...those consequences (AIDS and STDs) apply equally to any promiscuous sexuality...


AND curiouser is WHAT ABOUT THIS?Don't you think "deviant" could be more appropriate...and how or why respectively?


No, I wouldn't use the word "deviant" because it is not accurate and is loaded with bias and personal prejudice. And it is not accurate because many people, such as Gambini, would define monogamous homosexuality as "deviant" even though there would be no risk of AIDS or other STDs. So your suggestion actually confuses rather than clarifies the real issues.



I'm seeing loopholes on both sides of the table and dare not get too involved, as more than 100 posts could easily transpire before time to respond here.

I would be delighted if you cared to point out the primary "loophole" you perceive in my moral theory.



What is wondered is though "consenting", were the medical facts pointed out, any deviancy can and often does if continued in, have a deletorious effect on the bodies of the participants, and secondarily affects those who are closest to them.

Driving a car can have fatally "deleterious effects" and the probability increases the more you drive. Are you suggesting this is sufficient reason to declare that driviing cars is immoral? Or maybe it's only immoral for women, as is taken for granted by many in Saudi Arabia? What is the basis of your morality? My morality is based on Universal Principles, unlike the arbitrary religious commands attributed to an imaginary god.



Is this the kind of "love" you are talking about? It's not politically correct to tell people potential consequences of any such activities, but lets socialistically enforce healthcare so everyone has to pay for other peoples errors? Something is wrong with this picture.

No, that's not the kind of "love" I am talking about. And your suggestion that it is not "politically correct" to "tell people potential consequences of such activities" is ludicrous, given that the gay community has spent millions of dollars in public campaigns over the span of decades for that very purpose! Have you been watching Fox News again?

And yes, there is something wrong with the picture you have painted. The question then is if the problem is with the scene being painted or the one painting it. The answer seems rather obvious since your comments "just happen" to sound hauntingly similar to the talking points of the far-right religious fundamentalists who think Obama is the Antichrist and the Affordable Care Act is the precursor to the mark of the beast. Not that you believe those specific things, but you did load your "picture" with references to "political correctness" and the suggestion that the Affordable Care Act is designed to "socialistically enforce" everyone to pay for the illness those dirty fags brought upon themselves (in fulfillment of Romans 1, I am sure).



If the so-called xian-humanistic churches who claim to be of faith actually did the why and what they are supposed to occupy for, it is seriously doubted things would have ever gotten to this stage in this end game of America...now it seems so many are praying to the ceiling or themselves for themselves about themselves by themselves and together. Something far worse is wrong with that picture...and no amount of protest by these, whether from debate to protest to politiking is going to change the climate and condition at hand. How is any of that following Jesus' example?

Exactly what is the "why and the what they are supposed to occupy for"? I can't imagine what time period you could be imagining with such nostalgia. There never has been a time when Christians were anything but a mass of fragmented contrary sects just like today. The Bible is clear on this point, as is the entire history of the wild varieties of contrary Christianities.

And the thing about "Jesus' example" is painfully ironic, given how his followers typically DESPISE the truth (as you know full well)! :doh:




:prophet:Judgment began some time ago with the house of God.

More current and the pending calamities, as well as other judgments falling--(recorded) of God by God--shall continue and worsen. These problems shall persist,--whether: fiscal, personal, or natural--perpetually piling at the doorstep of self-serving non-missional xians with their social club churches of all the failing nations (as long as they continue pointing their finger elsewhere), thinking by their own "righteous?" deeds they can saved the world. (Their very doings prove they have been in famine for the Word and it is all OUR own fault.

Do you really think that God controls calamities? That seems utterly insane to me, since there is no rhyme nor reason to such things. It makes God look like an utterly irrational monster to say that he is controlling things and consciously choosing to have this child maimed in a car accident and that women raped in a dungeon while helping Auntie Mae find her lost dog Fluffy. I can't imagine a crazier view of the world. No offense intended. It's just not how things work.



But what does the Timmy know?
Your unofficial score keeper and commentator: Toronto Nuwanda
Thanks for your contributions!

Shine on, my friend,

:sunny:

Richard Amiel McGough
04-27-2014, 07:54 PM
In fact, the moral position of Richard actually ALLOWS for all sorts of crazy shit like gay incest (men sleeping with their fathers for example), molestation of children induced into an unconscious state, bestiality, necrophilia and as you just saw, men having sex WITH THEIR OWN MOTHERS (as long as they get a vasectomy first). I've never seen any atheist/agnostic explain how any of these things could be wrong under their moral worldview. Presumably Richard and Rose have no moral issues with a man getting a vasectomy and then MARRYING his own mother!!! I mean, why would they? They just said they have no problem with them having sex. So if they support the right of two consenting homosexual sodomites to marry, then surely they cannot object to a man getting a vasectomy and marrying his own consenting mother, right???

Now I have a question for you ... Can you give me one good reason why I should take ANY of Richard and Rose's "moral objections" to biblical morality serious when their OWN morality ALLOWS for circumstances under which pedophilia, bestiality, gay men having sex with their own fathers and men having sex with their own consenting mothers are all permissible??? And make it short and sweet if you want a reply back because I don't have time to jerk off all day with long back and forth posts (you have a tendency to ramble on and on in your posts).

Oh the depths of perversion wrought by fundamentalist religion! I have never written anything that could possibly be construed as allowing for the molestation of children! I've never seen such a perverse and lying freak as Gambini. The irony is thick, given that he is so deluded as to think he serves the "God of truth" with his disgusting and perverse lies.

I never said you SAID child molestation is permissible under certain circumstances. I said atheists/agnostics have no moral grounds for objecting to child molestation under certain circumstances. For example, WHY is it morally wrong to molest a child who is in an induced coma???

Are you totally insane Gambini? You said it twice in the quote above.

"Quit lying and trying to worm out of it. You said that Richard and my moral views allow for pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia"

I'm not lying. I'm saying your REASONING for how you determine what is moral/immoral ALLOWS for circumstances where child molestation, bestiality and necrophilia are permissible. Get it now? And if you deny that, then you need to explain WHY the circumstances I laid out are morally wrong under your BATSHIT CRAZY moral views.

Wow, you are still LYING even as the evidence is displayed for all to see! It's fine if you now want to change your words to correct your error, but it is BATSHIT CRAZY for you to assert that you did not write what you actually wrote!

And worse, your new assertion is utterly absurd because you don't have half a clue about my "REASONING" concerning morality. You have never even tried to engage me in a rational discussion about morality. You have displayed an absolute IGNORANCE of the most basic principles of morality, not just the moral theory that I have developed. Almost all of your comments are radically irrational appeals to IGNORANT BIASES against gays based on primitive religious dogmas! It appears you have no understanding that morality is based on UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES like fairness, justice, consent, empathy, and love. It's truly pathetic to see how your religion has so corrupted your mind and your morals, so that you are willing to spew out calumny at anyone who exposes your ignorance, as when you called L67 my "bitch." Fuck you and the gawd you rode in on Gambini. You are one fucked up (small) piece of shit.

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
05-01-2014, 01:54 AM
Richard,

Human beings are easily deluded, even very large numbers of us. The ease with which our minds can be misled is absolute frightening! :eek: And it must be very hard struggle for a person to learn they have been deluded for so many years.

To persue the Truth for its own sake and on the basis of evidence not beLIEFs dogma-LIES. It's OK to not have all the answers (I certainly dont...and what a relief!) but the chase is all the more stimulating when you don't know where it will lead. "You never know what you're going to get." What a better life awaits if you can step outside the delusion-box and engage the real you in the real world! :thumb:

And if it's not a delusion, if you really do have good reasons for the worldview you hold, then all these challenges will only clarify your worldview and reveal the good reasons there are for believing it.

Fundamentalists love to claim that the "proper default position" on a particular positive claim- usually a ridiculously stupid and outlandish claim- is "agnosticism." But this approach is [a mechanism by which they can maintain the delusion.] that "hey, it's just as likely to be true as to be false," and hold out hope that their beliefs are true :pray:, [even in the face of vast amounts of evidence that this is, in fact, *NOT* the case!

The "argument from self-evidence" seems comes up a lot, since one of its many forms is, “Look at the birds! Look at the trees! Of course there's a creator god!" In this form, of course, it is a clumsy attempt to utilize an argument from design: "Look at how amazing and intricate nature is!" the design argument runs. "It couldn't have created itself, so Bible Storm-God is obvious!" :p

So-called "Proof" begins with the definitive statement that "Creation is pretty obvious." But "Obviously it's not obvious, or we wouldn't be having this discuss!" :lol: It gets even worse when these believers convince themselves that isolated subjective experiences could come anywhere close to being "evidence" for anything besides the extreme-gullibility of the person in question.

As one is free to be wrong and amend the conclusions when new data contradicts the old understandings. In contrast,- when you're a Fundamentalist and Bible-Whore; Because Big-Bad Tyrant-Daddy does things in a very Big-Bad way!

And whatever you do, don't f--k with Yahweh...it's Yahweh's or the Highway's! LOL. :lol:

And I guess nobody ever realises they're deluded while they're deluded to begin with! Upon relection, we probably hold our own powerful-misconceptions without realising it [subconsciously!]. Of course, psychologists have known for a long time that people don't always perceive the world exactly as it is - it's not a new field of study.

People's relationship with a late Iron-Age Storm/Cloud God as an invisible friend who grants their wishes.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - any evidence - where is the evidence? Like People's relationship with a late Iron-Age Storm/Cloud God as an invisible friend who has foreknowledge, ordains and grants their wishes. If Fundamentalist Christianity is true, then demons can also still perform lying signs and wonders.

Yet there's obviously no objective (external) scientific and empirical evidences, rational evidences, or natural evidences whatsoever!

I know many very highly-intelligent, talented and powerful-people are deluded hooked into cults like scientology etc., and other obvious frauds. And many people have strong political or religious views which they don't realise aren't based on facts or careful judgement.

Delusion sometimes can have a Utility. Consider political and religious power! Yep: sometimes it can be beneficial to be delusional. A good example is that it signals you to be inside a social group, like a political party or a church, or religious denomination.

I like the metaphor of map and territory. "Truth" is when your map accurately represents the territory. "Delusion" is when your map is wrong. "Utility" is how well you travel from A to B using the map. Almost always, it's better to have an accurate map, a true knowledge of the territory.

It is the process of maturity, of self discovery, of growing up...Very often the truth hurts, but it's people who are able to embrace the truth who are able to mature personally, become empowered, and to control the world around them. All of our technology is built on embracing the empirical truth around us- you can bet that before electricity was mastered, society had to painfully let go of their thunder/storm-god and grow up.

A politician or screacher-preacher might gain wealth and favour by denying science, but that won't help him when he needs the medical cures that he blocked the scientist from developing, or when his children must face the environmental impacts of his policies. Even when it's "better" to be delusional, there might be other real costs for the delusion. Persisting in a delusion leaves you vulnerable to forces you don’t understand.

There is a very simple explanation for this- Stupid People! Stupid people are easily led, and can not always accept the truth as it will show that they are wrong. So in [an effort to save face], they continue to believe their lie and stay stupid! :lol:

Fundamentalist Christianity is a great example this...That Iron-Age God who created the world only a few thousand years ago. Since that time, many different groups have claimed to follow this Storm god.

But there are such a vast number of versions of this god that everyone seems to have a different opinion about what this god is like. Chances are even people in their church have very different ideas about god, although such conflicts are generally glossed over and validated as just a difference of opinion.

The Jews worship a god who appeared physically to the Israelite priests over a meal. This god loves the smell of ritual blood sacrifices.
The Muslims worship a god who had no son. This god regards Muhammad as his prophet.
The Christians worship a triune god whose son incarnated as a human.
The Mormons worship a god who went physically to the American continent, and later revealed knowledge to a guy named Joseph Smith.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses worship a god who will bring precisely 144,000 people to heaven.

Up until a few hundred years ago, all versions of this god approved of slavery. The anti-slavery version is a fairly new invention.

Here are some other odd characteristics:

A god who approves of speaking in tongues? A god who will cure all diseases?
A god who will genuinely help find car parking spaces, locate lost objects, etc.?
A god who protects your nation from military conquest?
A god who reliably provides food and basic provisions for all followers who ask?
A god who sends people to a literal hell for eternal torment?
A god who literally created the world within the last 6 thousand years?
A god who considers financial prosperity a good thing?
A god who has appointed a man as the authoritative head of his church?
A god who approves of infant genital cutting?
A god who permits ~3% of babies to be born with severe defects?
A god who made a bet with Satan about Job?

MARVELOUS! LOL. :rolleyes:

It's like a Twilight Zone episode. :pop2: "You are traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, the Twilight Zone! :D

:yo:

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
05-01-2014, 03:10 AM
It is this primitive blood-thirsty God, who seems to kill out of [revelry] and sadistic glee, who destroys life constantly, "as if it's a favourite hobby of His." It is God who orders and allows his armies of barbarians to embark on bloody-rampages and crusades to steal and loot the possessions of their dead-victims and take the 32,000 virgin women as if they were sex-toys, booty, property and merchandise.

Have you noticed every time Biblegod Yahweh kicked someone's ass, we read of no expressions of grief, compassion, mercy, no sadness, no funerals, no eulogies for the dearly departed? Instead, the cruel assholes simply go about business as usual like Robot-Zombies, Doing Business As Usual. We can gather that ancient the brutes were emotionless bastards who had no sympathy or compassion whatsoever.

After reading Genesis, why even delve deeper the Blood-soaked pages? Isn't it obvious the Bible is a book of legend, lore, mythology and not history, of allegory but not reality? That its writers didn't think it necessary to explain all the crucial details or worry about whether they all jibed? To the discerning mind, the answers to these questions are easy. To the mind muddied by Bible-Whores and their uncanny brainwashing-talents, the answers appear gradually or not at all.

And it ain't 'ole Scratch Satan or the Devil who does all this. It's the Almighty Yahweh. Yet the New Testament calls the Devil "the Destroyer." How Ironic is that! Wow!

:yo:

Nothing
05-01-2014, 06:23 AM
I've changed my ideas and decided to remove this post. Rest assured I still love and believe in God <3

Richard Amiel McGough
05-01-2014, 06:59 AM
It is this primitive blood-thirsty God, who seems to kill out of [revelry] and sadistic glee, who destroys life constantly, "as if it's a favourite hobby of His." It is God who orders and allows his armies of barbarians to embark on bloody-rampages and crusades to steal and loot the possessions of their dead-victims and take the 32,000 virgin women as if they were sex-toys, booty, property and merchandise.

Have you noticed every time Biblegod Yahweh kicked someone's ass, we read of no expressions of grief, compassion, mercy, no sadness, no funerals, no eulogies for the dearly departed? Instead, the cruel assholes simply go about business as usual like Robot-Zombies, Doing Business As Usual. We can gather that ancient the brutes were emotionless bastards who had no sympathy or compassion whatsoever.

After reading Genesis, why even delve deeper the Blood-soaked pages? Isn't it obvious the Bible is a book of legend, lore, mythology and not history, of allegory but not reality? That its writers didn't think it necessary to explain all the crucial details or worry about whether they all jibed? To the discerning mind, the answers to these questions are easy. To the mind muddied by Bible-Whores and their uncanny brainwashing-talents, the answers appear gradually or not at all.

And it ain't 'ole Scratch Satan or the Devil who does all this. It's the Almighty Yahweh. Yet the New Testament calls the Devil "the Destroyer." How Ironic is that! Wow!

SATAN

I REBUKE you in the name of JESUS CHRIST

You are using that soul right there to TWIST Gods word and blatantly spew LIES

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." -John 8:44

Satan, don't think I haven't noticed that you've set your sights on Richard as he is going through this period of his life.

I am exposing you right now.
Hey there Nothing,

I think it would be a little more helpful if tried to expose and correct the "lies" rather than speak to a "spiritual being" of dubious existential status.

And more importantly, I think you may have mistaken James' colorful language for lies. His fundamental assertion - that the things the bible says about god make him look like a "primitive blood-thirsty God" - appears to be true. I have frequently asked Christians on this forum why God appears to be so enamoured with violence, Violence, and more VIOLENCE. But they never answer. From the Flood in Genesis to Armageddon in Revelation, God's typical solution is to KILL and DESTROY and create PAIN and SUFFERING. Don't you think it's more than a little weird that he acts this way, and even more weird that Christians can't see it even when it is pointed out to them? What could cause such blindness? It looks like a form of mind-control or brainwashing.

And it is no lie that God himself commanded 32,000 sexy virgins should be distributed to the very soldiers that slaughtered every person they ever loved.

David counted how many soldiers he had and God responding by murdered 70,000 innocent Israelis? What kind of insanity is that?

The Bible is filled with moral abominations attributed to God. James did not lie.

Do you not find it ironic that Christians are the least likely to accept truth, given that they claim to worship it in the person of Jesus Christ?

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
05-01-2014, 08:03 AM
Richard,

Human beings are easily deluded, even very large numbers of us. The ease with which our minds can be misled is absolute frightening! :eek: And it must be very hard struggle for a person to learn they have been deluded for so many years.

Hey there James, :yo:

You nailed it. We need to remember the kind of emotional upheaval and pain that happens when someone's realizes their bedrock beliefs are total bullshit. It's very disorienting and frightening. They feel duped and deceived by those they trusted the most (God, parents, pastors, Bible, etc.). It can cause panic attacks and violent responses as the seek to avoid the truth.



To persue the Truth for its own sake and on the basis of evidence not beLIEFs dogma-LIES. It's OK to not have all the answers (I certainly dont...and what a relief!) but the chase is all the more stimulating when you don't know where it will lead. "You never know what you're going to get." What a better life awaits if you can step outside the delusion-box and engage the real you in the real world! :thumb:

You and I think a lot a like. There really is nothing more invigorating or thrilling than the pursuit of truth - especially when you find it. And look at the fruit it brings - a world transformed! Humans that don't need to beg a cruel inscrutable god to heal them from the diseases he caused. We don't have to propitiate the "angry god" - like primitives who threw virgins in volcanoes. Now we just ignore that demon and cure our diseases ourselves. We humans are INFINITELY more trustworthy than God. We have healed millions of people that God would have happily let die miserable deaths even as they begged him to save them. The fact that Christians are utterly blind to such blatant truths shows how "absolutely frightening" human delusion can be. A person can be permanently LOST in the UTTER DARKNESS of religious delusion! Scary shit!



And if it's not a delusion, if you really do have good reasons for the worldview you hold, then all these challenges will only clarify your worldview and reveal the good reasons there are for believing it.

Bingo! That's science. The results are CONFIRMED over and over and over again by thousands of scientists who are seeking fame by DESTROYING the theory of some other scientist. Science itself is Darwinian. Survival of the theory that is most fit.

This is what believers don't understand when they spew out their paranoid fantasies about evolution being a scientific conspiracy. They don't realize how science actually works - it is a COMPETITION amongst scientists. If some scientist could come up with a BETTER THEORY then she would win the Nobel prize and go down in history like Darwin. But no ... that's not what the creationists want to do. They just spew lies in the name of "truth" without understanding the most basic elements of the theory they criticize. It's truly pathetic.



And I guess nobody ever realises they're deluded while they're deluded to begin with! Upon relection, we probably hold our own powerful-misconceptions without realising it [subconsciously!]. Of course, psychologists have known for a long time that people don't always perceive the world exactly as it is - it's not a new field of study.

I agree that everyone is probably deluded to a degree. I think that's probably a necessary condition given our finite senses, finite intellect, finite point of view, and the fact we were born in ignorance in a world filled with delusions. But this is a far cry from consciously trying to rationalize (explain away) blatant falsehoods to support religious dogmas.

I can devote myself to TRUTH whereas believers are devoted to dogmas that are almost always false.



Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - any evidence - where is the evidence? Like People's relationship with a late Iron-Age Storm/Cloud God as an invisible friend who has foreknowledge, ordains and grants their wishes. If Fundamentalist Christianity is true, then demons can also still perform lying signs and wonders.

William Lane Craig is perhaps the most famous Christian apologist on the planet. He likes to deceive his audience of ignorant and gullible believers by pretending to do philosophy. Want to know what he says about evidence? He says Schmevidence! If the evidence ever contradicts your dogma, you can reject the evidence because you have the witness of the Holey Spittle! Watch this ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q78ahkiMtFk



I know many very highly-intelligent, talented and powerful-people are deluded hooked into cults like scientology etc., and other obvious frauds. And many people have strong political or religious views which they don't realise aren't based on facts or careful judgement.

Yep - Romney is a totally deluded Mormon (one of the most blatantly fraudulent religions ever invented, second only to Scientology perhaps) but he's got enough going on to make millions of dollars and run for president. I think it must be some sort of compartmentalization - somehow the delusion is kept separate from the part of the brain that knows not to walk in front of a speeding train ...



Delusion sometimes can have a Utility. Consider political and religious power! Yep: sometimes it can be beneficial to be delusional. A good example is that it signals you to be inside a social group, like a political party or a church, or religious denomination.

Good point. The primary purpose of religion is group cohesion.



A politician or screacher-preacher might gain wealth and favour by denying science, but that won't help him when he needs the medical cures that he blocked the scientist from developing, or when his children must face the environmental impacts of his policies. Even when it's "better" to be delusional, there might be other real costs for the delusion. Persisting in a delusion leaves you vulnerable to forces you don’t understand.

That reminds me of this Doonsbury cartoon:

1156

:lol:



But there are such a vast number of versions of this god that everyone seems to have a different opinion about what this god is like. Chances are even people in their church have very different ideas about god, although such conflicts are generally glossed over and validated as just a difference of opinion.

The Jews worship a god who appeared physically to the Israelite priests over a meal. This god loves the smell of ritual blood sacrifices.
The Muslims worship a god who had no son. This god regards Muhammad as his prophet.
The Christians worship a triune god whose son incarnated as a human.
The Mormons worship a god who went physically to the American continent, and later revealed knowledge to a guy named Joseph Smith.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses worship a god who will bring precisely 144,000 people to heaven.

Up until a few hundred years ago, all versions of this god approved of slavery. The anti-slavery version is a fairly new invention.

Those facts alone should be sufficient to free any serious thinker from the delusion of religion.



Here are some other odd characteristics:

A god who approves of speaking in tongues? A god who will cure all diseases?
A god who will genuinely help find car parking spaces, locate lost objects, etc.?
A god who protects your nation from military conquest?
A god who reliably provides food and basic provisions for all followers who ask?
A god who sends people to a literal hell for eternal torment?
A god who literally created the world within the last 6 thousand years?
A god who considers financial prosperity a good thing?
A god who has appointed a man as the authoritative head of his church?
A god who approves of infant genital cutting?
A god who permits ~3% of babies to be born with severe defects?
A god who made a bet with Satan about Job?

MARVELOUS! LOL. :rolleyes:

It's like a Twilight Zone episode. :pop2: "You are traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, the Twilight Zone! :D

:yo:
Indeed. Well stated. :thumb:

Nothing
05-01-2014, 09:39 AM
I've changed my ideas and decided to remove this post. Rest assured I still love and believe in God <3

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
05-02-2014, 03:15 AM
Originally Posted by Nothing
SATAN

I REBUKE you in the name of JESUS CHRIST

You are using that soul right there to TWIST Gods word and blatantly spew LIES

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." -John 8:44

Satan, don't think I haven't noticed that you've set your sights on Richard as he is going through this period of his life.

I am exposing you right now.

1161
(Y'all remember Pauline, don't you? She was the older church lady with her hair fixed in a bun, who had thick, silver-rimmed glasses and who always sat near the pulpit so the screacher-preacher's spit could shower her face- that really turned her on!)

:hysterical:

First of all, I apologize for the colourful-language and whatnot! LOL. I know sometimes I get carried away with my strong passion and emotional desire, losing it and over the top with it. I plead guilty. Hey, i'm not Perfect.

To be honest, I am an anti-theist, and, on top of that, i'm someone who really enjoys and revels making fun of the stupidity of fundamentalist religion. I admit it. So indeed, my anti-theism (that is, my belief that fundamentalist belief in god, religion is harmful, stupid, worthy of mockery, etc.) informs my actions because it's a *Belief* of mine. That's it. My anti-theism *informs* on many of my posts, but it's far from being the only solitary cause.

It is Destructive, Hateful, Harmful and should be Opposed. That is, my belief that it is divisive, harmful, and absoultely worthy of mockery! This is my *Belief.* The absurd things and extraordinary claims fundamentalists and other religionist believe could never really really stand up to skeptical, rational scrutiny.

It is this blood-thirsty butcher-God, who seems to kill out of [revelry and sadistic glee], who destroys life constantly, "as if it's a favourite hobby of His."

"After seeing the golden calf, God commanded the Levites, "Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, 'each killing his brother and friend and neighbor'." 3,000 "were slaughtered" [butchered], and "God was pleased!"(EXODUS 32:27); "God 'divided the plunder' to the soldiers,...and '32,000 virgin' women." (NUMBERS 31:31-40); "God helped Joshua battle and slaughter' [butchered] of 12,000 'men and women' in the city of Ai. None escaped (JOSHUA 8:22-25); JUDGES 20:43-48 "The Israelites went and 'put everyone in the towns to the sword', including the animals and everything else they found." (JUDGES 20:43-48); "Fourty-two children made fun of Elisha on the roadside because he was bald. 'Elisha cursed them.' Two bears came out of the woods and mauled them to death!" (2 KINGS 2:23-24).

The Wrathful Tyrant-God of Isaiah, "when the Lord "[REVELS!]" in the SLAUGHTER of the RIGHTEOUS and [INNOCENT]." Isai.45,7: I..."CREATE EVIL!" But it is not translated as "Unpleasant." "I make peace, and ["CREATE EVIL"].

EVIL:- "Calamity," + "Evil" + "Exceedingly Grief(-vous)", "Misery," "Wicked(-ly, -ness, one), "Wretchedness", "Evil Entreat," "Waste!"

This slaughtering ruthless God...and it all comes straight from the Bible. Biblegod-Yahweh [the one effective Will] in creation so that "he was behind everything that happened or was done." All these poor people are simply inhumanely-dismissed and written-off as "God-blinded", "REPROBATES", "ABOMINATIONS" and "EVIL."

He it was "who killed and caused manslaughter." (Ex 21:13). If it was Evil destruction and disintegration then "Yahweh was the source of such wicked-evil and terrors." "I make peace, and I [CREATE] EVIL!"

I "CREATE": To create; as (Formative-Processes), Choose, Create (Creator).

I the LORD (Tyrant-Yahweh) DO ALL THESE THINGS." HE "REVELS!" (To take GREAT-DELIGHT and ORGIASTIC PLEASURE; A PARTY and CELEBRATION; To REVEL IN SUCCESS.)

I this truly "Godlike" behavior- or rather just the the Opposite? Who is the real Destroyer here, eh??

Anyone who by now can't see that the Bible is a book of ancient Iron-Age primitive people, by primitive people, and for primitive people, with a very constricted worldview, just isn't thinking, or, like a Fundamentalist, refuses to think at all! That's all i'm saying.

And yet the Bible calls the Devil the destroyer?!

Moreover, they must be consistent in deciding what is literal and what is figurative. Bible-believers always throw the argument out "God didn't really kill all those people" when discussing clearly overt genocidal-passages. However, if the words "Lord", "Lord God", "the Lord thy God", and "Creator" were replaced with "Devil", "Lucifer", "Satan", these double-standard people would surely say the contexts and verses are literal and the homicides were real!

Why he can't possibly be the author of evil, even though his own autobiography says, He "Bara or Created" (Isaiah 45 and other chaps of the Bible), which I have quite clearly pointed out. While Fundamentalist Christianity created their "Satan" distortion in order to fashion an "evil-scarecrow and strawman-boogeyman" to "intimidate and control" their people and societies.


Originally Posted by Nothing
Satan does exist and he lives in people without the person themselves realizing it. Even something as small as insomnia, or back pain can be a devil. People think the thoughts and lusts that they have are their own and it is not until these devils are exposed that the person begins to realize it was influencing their train of thought this whole time. When you are not firmly rooted in the truth you are easily controlled and manipulated by Satan. You become his pawn and lead others astray. In some cases, you become completely defenseless and are open to full blown possession. Who do you think is responsible for "voices", insanity and schizophrenia? Why do you think people do messed up unexplainable things like randomly shooting up a school or some other twisted fantasy?

Richard, they love having the Devil as a Scapegoat and Strawman...Have you ever noticed how the Bible-Babblers blame the Devil for everything bad in their life, back-pain, insomnia, "voices," insanity and schizophrenia etc., and they illogically boast their God is Pure Love, Light, Righteousness, Goodness and can do nothing wrong. And to be entirely consistent, and therefore logical, these believers in the Word, since they blame the Devil for everything. "The Devil made me do it".

In keeping with fundamentalist religious underpinnings, this is generally negative at its core! All are born in Sin. However, this is compensated for with healthy doses of self-importance arrogance and self-congratulation. Guilt over a feeling of inferiority or a sense of original sin is assuaged with affirmations of superiority!

The underlying sense of guilt, shame, and recrimination is further alleviated by projecting these delusional-attributes onto "God," "the others," "devils," "imaginary adversaries and enemies," who are always the opponents of good values. Therefore, "the others" are weak, cowardly, immoral, unfaithful, sinful etc. The overall tendency is toward emotional-immaturity. This notion of God implies arbitrary will, caprice, anger, susceptibility to propitiation, and many other human weaknesses; and [the attempt to reconcile these wholly human projections of thought with God results in contradiction and absurdity!]

That seems utterly-batty and insane to me, since there is no rhyme nor reason to such things. :doh: I feel like my head is going to Explode! :sFun_banghead2:

:lol:

The Satan of sacerdotal belief is "but an effigy in shoddy and shabby clothes that only wants to be ripped up to show you that it is stuffed with straw-man of sawdust! Some people may cry out in an agony of earnestness, 'But this is doing away with the devil; d-d-d-don't deprive me of my devil!' We hope for better things. How now shall we be able to force people into thinking as we do, "and frighten them into our fold of faith," for the glory of the Tryant-God.

Their actions are so typical and arrogant. Fundamentalist Christians go on a Jihadi attack to anyone who has the CAJONES and dares to honestly question, think, freely and speaks truth.

If I have said something that is FALSE, you should expose my error by all means, and not invent crazy straw-men arguments and ideas like some imaginary "Boogeyman," "Satan," "Devil" has "Blinded" me in some non-specified way.

Your arguments are a metric butt-load of Horse-Hockey and beyond Pathetic! YOU, my dear beloved creature, are INSANE! Your are thoroughly insane. You enslave yourself. Those who have learned to embrace the insanity, become the craziest inmates of the crazy house. You in Heap big trouble, Kemosabe! :D

So we should not question religion, Right? Got it. LOL. But what they (Fundamentalists) are advocating is IGNORANT MINDLESS DEATH-TRIP CULT MEMBERSHIP! Thanks, but no thanks! :arghh:

"The mind is its own place, and in it self
Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n."
-Milton, Paradise Lost.

:alien011:
Beam me up, Scotty!

*32-skidoo*

:yo:

David M
05-02-2014, 04:14 AM
Hi Richard,

Satan does exist and he lives in people without the person themselves realizing it. Even something as small as insomnia, or back pain can be a devil. People think the thoughts and lusts that they have are their own and it is not until these devils are exposed that the person begins to realize it was influencing their train of thought this whole time. When you are not firmly rooted in the truth you are easily controlled and manipulated by Satan. You become his pawn and lead others astray. In some cases, you become completely defenseless and are open to full blown possession. Who do you think is responsible for "voices", insanity and schizophrenia? Why do you think people do messed up unexplainable things like randomly shooting up a school or some other twisted fantasy?

Satan does not want you to think that he exists, he does everything he can to keep himself in secrecy.


We can all be entitled to our opinion and mine happens to be that there is no fallen Angel or spirit being that is Satan, or the Devil. Whilst those terms/titles/office can be given to many things, the one thing those terms do apply to is our mind. Satan or the Devil do not exist separately as spirit beings, they are the process of the mind.


"Resist the devil and he will flee from you" That is probably understood in different ways and I think it simply means you have to set your mind on things which are not devilish. This is explained in that Jesus when he was tempted in his mind to do things to test God or were for himself, he would set his mind on what the scripture said and would recall scripture. Having recalled from his memory (mind) what the scripture says, he was then able to apply that to his temptation. The temptation was overcome as if the Devil had fled from him.

In our minds is where our personal battle takes place. If we want to overcome the devil and win the battle, we have to work on our own minds and change the way we think. For some, they do not think they have a battle to overcome and are content with the way they are. That goes for murderers, extortioners and all manner of evil people, who have no conscience. The one thing that Evolutionists do not give credence to is a supernatural being, and the devil as a spiritual being is one of the few points on which I would agree with Evolutionists.

The fact that we can be undecided and unable to make a decision does not mean that we have a separate spiritual being inside us, it simply means that we have weak minds in not being able to reach a decision. Often, we make wrong decisions and this has nothing to do with the devil, it simply is the way our minds are.

For those sitting on the fence unable to make a decision whether to believe in God or not, then the Bible does not hold that sort of person in high regard; just the opposite; (James 1:8) 8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. (Rev 3:15) I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

It is an excuse to blame our failings on the Devil as something separate from us influencing us. We are influenced all the time from the people around us, who are speaking to us, and bombarding us with advertising and the like. We have to acknowledge that unless we develop the mind of Christ within us and think and do as he did, then if we do not, we succumb to the carnal mind which is enmity with God. The carnal mind is the only enemy God.

So the Devil is in you and me, but the devil is our own carnal mind. Until this human mortal body is transformed at the resurrection, we have always the propensity to sin; it never leaves us. That was the battle and the victory that Jesus won. It was a struggle for Jesus and we should never belittle that struggle by saying it was impossible for Jesus to sin because he was God. God never has that battle, for the mind of God cannot be compared to the human mind.


David

Nothing
05-02-2014, 05:30 AM
I've changed my ideas and decided to remove this post. Rest assured I still love and believe in God <3

Rose
05-02-2014, 07:07 AM
Unfortunately David, I completely disagree with that and with all my might I disagree. I am being attacked by devils right now and it has been going on for a while. I'm not going to go into detail here about what type of devil it is, but I know it is putting thoughts and suggestions into my mind constantly. It is even able to manipulate the blood flow in my body causing pins and needles as a sensation of touch and sudden jolts cause my muscles to spasm or twitch. I have episodes of sleep paralysis where when I start to fall asleep I hear its voice in my "third eye" or minds eye that seems to be vulnerable during sleep. I have had a shadow person/devil drain me of my energy and I've had devils try to pull my spirit out of my body. When I'm lying in bed I can hear my computer keyboard being typed on or pressed loud and clear while I'm fully awake. They flee and respond to the name of "Jesus". Jesus also cast out devils, so how could you deny this?



Hello Nothing,

Have you seen a doctor? We live in modern times when doctors are able to diagnose neurological diseases, which may be what you have. I would encourage you to see a doctor if you haven't already.

Nothing
05-02-2014, 07:59 AM
I've changed my ideas and decided to remove this post. Rest assured I still love and believe in God <3

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
05-02-2014, 06:54 PM
:signthankspin:

Thank you for Exposing Me! :arghh:

:clap2::congrats::applause::smiley_applause:

I REBUKE you in the NAME of the Marlboro Man, the Pope, Jeff Goldblum, James Quirk, Peter Lynds, Sir Roger Penrose, Andrei Linde, John Cramer, Brother Stair, Nurse Ratchet, Socrates, Jesus, Orville Redenbacher, Noodly Appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Oprah Winfrey, Captain Jean-Luc Picard, Jiddu Krishnamurti, D.T. Suzuki, John Lennon, Mister Rogers, Mickey Mouse, L. Ron Hubbard, Jack Parsons, Captain America, Rick James, Jimbo Cobb, Charlie Manson, Benny Hinn, Pat Roberston, Robert Tilton, the Buddha, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, Spider-Monkey, Lao-Tsu, the Dalai Lama, and Swami Anybodyananda.

:pray:

P.S. Seriously, Good luck to you, and may you do whatever is in your power to cure the suffering.

:sunny:

:yo:

CWH
05-02-2014, 07:49 PM
SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777,

I know you are on line now, please answer this question, who is the greater killer, God or Humans? Thank You.


Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)
49-78,000,000
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945)
12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians deliberately killed in WWII plus 3 million Russian POWs left to die)
Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)
8,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)
7,000,000 (the gulags plus the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)
5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)
Ismail Enver (Ottoman Turkey, 1915-20)
1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)
1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)
1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)
1,500,000
Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)
1,000,000
Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)
900,000
Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)
800,000
Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88)
600,000
Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1980)
570,000
Suharto/Soeharto (Indonesian communists 1965-66)
500,000
Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39)
500,000? (Chinese civilians)
Jonas Savimbi - but disputed by recent studies (Angola, 1975-2002)
400,000
Mullah Omar - Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001)
400,000
Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979)
300,000
Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1970-71)
300,000 (Bangladesh)
Ante Pavelic (Croatia, 1941-45)
359,000 (30,000 Jews, 29,000 Gipsies, 300,000 Serbs)
Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Libya, 1934-45; Yugoslavia, WWII)
300,000
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97)
?
Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996)
220,000
Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone, 1991-2000)
200,000
Suharto (Aceh, East Timor, New Guinea, 1975-98)
200,000
Ho Chi Min (Vietnam, 1953-56)
200,000
Michel Micombero (Burundi, 1972)
150,000
Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, 1992-99)
100,000
Hassan Turabi (Sudan, 1989-1999)
100,000
Jean-Bedel Bokassa (Centrafrica, 1966-79)
?
Richard Nixon (Vietnam, 1969-1974)
70,000 (Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians)
Efrain Rios Montt - but disputed by recent studies (Guatemala, 1982-83)
70,000
Papa Doc Duvalier (Haiti, 1957-71)
60,000
Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic, 1930-61)
50,000
Bashir Assad (Syria, 2012-13)
50,000
Francisco Macias Nguema (Equatorial Guinea, 1969-79)
50,000
Hissene Habre (Chad, 1982-1990)
40,000
Chiang Kai-shek (Taiwan, 1947)
30,000 (popular uprising)
Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20)
30,000 (dissidents executed)
Francisco Franco (Spain)
30,000 (dissidents executed after the civil war)
Fidel Castro (Cuba, 1959-1999)
30,000
Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam, 1963-1968)
30,000
Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez (El Salvador, 1932)
30,000
Hafez Al-Assad (Syria, 1980-2000)
25,000
Khomeini (Iran, 1979-89)
20,000
Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe, 1982-87, Ndebele minority)
20,000
Rafael Videla (Argentina, 1976-83)
13,000
Guy Mollet (France, 1956-1957)
10,000 (war in Algeria)
Harold McMillans (Britain, 1952-56, Kenya's Mau-Mau rebellion)
10,000
Paul Koroma (Sierra Leone, 1997)
6,000
Osama Bin Laden (worldwide, 1993-2001)
3,500
Augusto Pinochet (Chile, 1973)
3,000
For a list of casualties in wars, see this page.
1860-65: USA civil war (628,000)
1886-1908: Belgium-Congo Free State (8 million)
1898: USA-Spain & Philippines (220,000)
1899-02: British-Boer war (100,000)
1899-03: Colombian civil war (120,000)
1899-02: Philippines vs USA (20,000)
1900-01: Boxer rebels against Russia, Britain, France, Japan, USA against rebels (35,000)
1903: Ottomans vs Macedonian rebels (20,000)
1904: Germany vs Namibia (65,000)
1904-05: Japan vs Russia (150,000)
1910-20: Mexican revolution (250,000)
1911: Chinese Revolution (2.4 million)
1911-12: Italian-Ottoman war (20,000)
1912-13: Balkan wars (150,000)
1915: the Ottoman empire slaughters Armenians (1.2 million)
1915-20: the Ottoman empire slaughters 500,000 Assyrians
1916-23: the Ottoman empire slaughters 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks
1914-18: World War I (20 million)
1916: Kyrgyz revolt against Russia (120,000)
1917-21: Soviet revolution (5 million)
1917-19: Greece vs Turkey (45,000)
1919-21: Poland vs Soviet Union (27,000)
1928-37: Chinese civil war (2 million)
1931: Japanese Manchurian War (1.1 million)
1932-33: Soviet Union vs Ukraine (10 million)
1932: "La Matanza" in El Salvador (30,000)
1932-35: "Guerra del Chaco" between Bolivia and Paraguay (117.500)
1934: Mao's Long March (170,000)
1936: Italy's invasion of Ethiopia (200,000)
1936-37: Stalin's purges (13 million)
1936-39: Spanish civil war (600,000)
1937-45: Japanese invasion of China (500,000)
1939-45: World War II (55 million) including holocaust and Chinese revolution
1946-49: Chinese civil war (1.2 million)
1946-49: Greek civil war (50,000)
1946-54: France-Vietnam war (600,000)
1947: Partition of India and Pakistan (1 million)
1947: Taiwan's uprising against the Kuomintang (30,000)
1948-1958: Colombian civil war (250,000)
1948-1973: Arab-Israeli wars (70,000)
1949-: Indian Muslims vs Hindus (20,000)
1949-50: Mainland China vs Tibet (1,200,000)
1950-53: Korean war (3 million)
1952-59: Kenya's Mau Mau insurrection (20,000)
1954-62: French-Algerian war (368,000)
1958-61: Mao's "Great Leap Forward" (38 million)
1960-90: South Africa vs Africa National Congress (?)
1960-96: Guatemala's civil war (200,000)
1961-98: Indonesia vs West Papua/Irian (100,000)
1961-2003: Kurds vs Iraq (180,000)
1962-75: Mozambique Frelimo vs Portugal (10,000)
1962-75: Angolan FNLA & MPLA vs Portugal (50,000)
1964-73: USA-Vietnam war (3 million)
1965: second India-Pakistan war over Kashmir
1965-66: Indonesian civil war (250,000)
1966-69: Mao's "Cultural Revolution" (11 million)
1966-: Colombia's civil war (31,000)
1967-70: Nigeria-Biafra civil war (800,000)
1968-80: Rhodesia's civil war (?)
1969-: Philippines vs the communist Bagong Hukbong Bayan/ New People's Army (40,000)
1969-79: Idi Amin, Uganda (300,000)
1969-02: IRA - Norther Ireland's civil war (3,000)
1969-79: Francisco Macias Nguema, Equatorial Guinea (50,000)
1971: Pakistan-Bangladesh civil war (500,000)
1972-2014: Philippines vs Muslim separatists (Moro Islamic Liberation Front, etc) (150,000)
1972: Burundi's civil war (300,000)
1972-79: Rhodesia/Zimbabwe's civil war (30,000)
1974-91: Ethiopian civil war (1,000,000)
1975-78: Menghitsu, Ethiopia (1.5 million)
1975-79: Khmer Rouge, Cambodia (1.7 million)
1975-89: Boat people, Vietnam (250,000)
1975-87: civil war in Lebanon (130,000)
1975-87: Laos' civil war (184,000)
1975-2002: Angolan civil war (500,000)
1976-83: Argentina's military regime (20,000)
1976-93: Mozambique's civil war (900,000)
1976-98: Indonesia-East Timor civil war (600,000)
1976-2005: Indonesia-Aceh (GAM) civil war (12,000)
1977-92: El Salvador's civil war (75,000)
1979: Vietnam-China war (30,000)
1979-88: the Soviet Union invades Afghanistan (1.3 million)
1980-88: Iraq-Iran war (435,000)
1980-92: Sendero Luminoso - Peru's civil war (69,000)
1984-: Kurds vs Turkey (35,000)
1981-90: Nicaragua vs Contras (60,000)
1982-90: Hissene Habre, Chad (40,000)
1983-: Sri Lanka's civil war (70,000)
1983-2002: Sudanese civil war (2 million)
1986-: Indian Kashmir's civil war (60,000)
1987-: Palestinian Intifada (4,500)
1988-2001: Afghanistan civil war (400,000)
1988-2004: Somalia's civil war (550,000)
1989-: Liberian civil war (220,000)
1989-: Uganda vs Lord's Resistance Army (30,000)
1991: Gulf War - large coalition against Iraq to liberate Kuwait (85,000)
1991-97: Congo's civil war (800,000)
1991-2000: Sierra Leone's civil war (200,000)
1991-2009: Russia-Chechnya civil war (200,000)
1991-94: Armenia-Azerbaijan war (35,000)
1992-96: Tajikstan's civil war war (50,000)
1992-96: Yugoslavian wars (260,000)
1992-99: Algerian civil war (150,000)
1993-97: Congo Brazzaville's civil war (100,000)
1993-2005: Burundi's civil war (200,000)
1994: Rwanda's civil war (900,000)
1995-: Pakistani Sunnis vs Shiites (1,300)
1995-: Maoist rebellion in Nepal (12,000)
1998-: Congo/Zaire's war - Rwanda and Uganda vs Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia (3.8 million)
1998-2000: Ethiopia-Eritrea war (75,000)
1999: Kosovo's liberation war - NATO vs Serbia (2,000)
2001-: Afghanistan's liberation war - USA & UK vs Taliban (40,000)
2001-: Nigeria vs Boko Haram (1700)
2002-: Cote d'Ivoire's civil war (1,000)
2003-11: Second Iraq-USA war - USA, UK and Australia vs Saddam Hussein's regime and Shiite squads and Sunni extremists (160,000)
2003-09: Sudan vs JEM/Darfur (300,000)
2004-: Sudan vs SPLM & Eritrea (?)
2004-: Yemen vs Shiite Muslims (?)
2004-: Thailand vs Muslim separatists (3,700)
2007-: Pakistan vs PAkistani Taliban (38,000)
2012-: Iraq's civil war after the withdrawal of the USA (?)
2012-: Syria's civil war (130,000)

God Bless and let's pray.:pray:

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
05-02-2014, 08:06 PM
The imaginative, creative and twisted human-mind is thematic in its creation of myths just as it is in its invention of deities. The mythologist and comparative religionist Joseph Campbell has detailed this reality in his brilliant and entertaining books, including the four volumes of "The Masks Of God" series. Similarly, the brilliant, innovative psychotherapist Carl G. Jung has noted in his literature and research that humans create, recognize and assimilate universal archetypes and symbols which recur in dreams, art, myths and fairy tales, including those of the religious variety.

As in Isaiah 45, JehovahAlmightyYahweh (J.A.Y.) claims responsibility for Evil. Those are not Not my Words! This leaves no room for doubt for the theologians, and that's probably what pisses them off! They can sit there and read the verses and see that God, even in first person narrative, "admits being the author of evil," [yet they will still try to figure it all out for themselves, showing their lack of faith and belief in JAY.

Sounds [KIND OF HUMAN] :winking0071:, doesn't it, like maybe JAYGod is [a concoction of the human mind], Wouldn't a God be Above [having a human trait] like jealousy? But i'm the Blinded and Crazy one! :rolleyes:


Originally Posted by Nothing
Your pride will keep you in bondage.

Oh, and Speaking of BONDAGE...(and S & M)

:pop2:

Deuteronomy 21

In verse 12, they are commanded, by none other than the Brute in the Sky, [to tell the newly conquered women to shave their heads and trim their fingernails.] Why in the hell this is commanded in the allegedly holy Bible is beyond me?

But I guess it's a mysterious question that can be answered only when we all get to Heaven...

So those young studs must have been rock-hard as they talked about the sexy virgin-babes they'd capture when sunrise came...Let's be honest, this is all about fulfilling Lust, which other parts of the Bible say men are supposed to suppress and resist!

This is also all about cruelty to women, and fulfilling one's misogynistic duty. It's okay to make a woman yours by enslaving her and porking-her, but nowadays you must marry her first. How could any man except a practitioner of Bondage & Discipline treat a woman like this?! Kidnap her, shave her head, trim her fingernails and toenails, strip her naked, make her mourn for her parents for an entire month, then make her your sex slave!?!

Keep them in bondage, bend them over and defile them as much as you want, (after that first long month's wait is over), show them total disrespect, don't let them out of your house, but don't sell them after you've used them for the sake of your pleasure.

Yep, the Multi-faceted, Multi-tasking BibleGod is The Great ObGyn in the Sky!- a veritable expert on "WOMEN'S MATTERS"...GYNO-GOD!

:yo:

:sunny:

CWH
05-02-2014, 10:13 PM
Strawman Argument...nice try, BITCH! LOL. :lol:

1162

*32-Skidoo*

:yo:

You Got Nothing Better to Say? BITCH!

Now Let's Pray.:pray:

CWH
05-02-2014, 10:51 PM
The imaginative, creative and twisted human-mind is thematic in its creation of myths just as it is in its invention of deities. The mythologist and comparative religionist Joseph Campbell has detailed this reality in his brilliant and entertaining books, including the four volumes of "The Masks Of God" series. Similarly, the brilliant, innovative psychotherapist Carl G. Jung has noted in his literature and research that humans create, recognize and assimilate universal archetypes and symbols which recur in dreams, art, myths and fairy tales, including those of the religious variety.

As in Isaiah 45, JehovahAlmightyYahweh (J.A.Y.) claims responsibility for Evil. Those are not Not my Words! This leaves no room for doubt for the theologians, and that's probably what pisses them off! They can sit there and read the verses and see that God, even in first person narrative, "admits being the author of evil," [yet they will still try to figure it all out for themselves, showing their lack of faith and belief in JAY.

Sounds [KIND OF HUMAN] :winking0071:, doesn't it, like maybe JAYGod is [a concoction of the human mind], Wouldn't a God be Above [having a human trait] like jealousy? But i'm the Blinded and Crazy one! :rolleyes:



Oh, and Speaking of BONDAGE...(and S & M)

:pop2:

Deuteronomy 21

In verse 12, they are commanded, by none other than the Brute in the Sky, [to tell the newly conquered women to shave their heads and trim their fingernails.] Why in the hell this is commanded in the allegedly holy Bible is beyond me?

But I guess it's a mysterious question that can be answered only when we all get to Heaven...

So those young studs must have been rock-hard as they talked about the sexy virgin-babes they'd capture when sunrise came...Let's be honest, this is all about fulfilling Lust, which other parts of the Bible say men are supposed to suppress and resist!

This is also all about cruelty to women, and fulfilling one's misogynistic duty. It's okay to make a woman yours by enslaving her and porking-her, but nowadays you must marry her first. How could any man except a practitioner of Bondage & Discipline treat a woman like this?! Kidnap her, shave her head, trim her fingernails and toenails, strip her naked, make her mourn for her parents for an entire month, then make her your sex slave!?!

Keep them in bondage, bend them over and defile them as much as you want, (after that first long month's wait is over), show them total disrespect, don't let them out of your house, but don't sell them after you've used them for the sake of your pleasure.

Yep, the Multi-faceted, Multi-tasking BibleGod is The Great ObGyn in the Sky!- a veritable expert on "WOMEN'S MATTERS"...GYNO-GOD!

:yo:

:sunny:

Isaiah 45:
I have no issue with God creating evil... for good. This is its exact interpretation. It's like people hanging murderers (which is considered evil) yet it is good for justice. God killed the evil men (i.e. do evil) in order to save the good and for the sake of the future generations; analogous to American soldiers killing the terrorists (i.e. doing evil) for justice in revenge for the killing of innocent souls in 9/11 so that the world can be a safer place to live.

Deuteronomy 21:
The cutting of nails and shaving or hair was an ancient Jewish purification ritual to assimilate them into the Jewish tribe signifying to remove the old self (life) and to grow a new self (life). This will ensure same God blessings as those enjoyed by the Jews.

The Israelites married them, (nothing mentioned about enslaving them) but have to divorce them so that they can remarried again. They did not wished to see those women become widows as they were expected to die in battles or settled in faraway lands and not to see their ex-wives again.

God Bless:pray:Let's pray :pray:

David M
05-02-2014, 10:56 PM
The Straw Man argument ought to be a thread of its own, like the 38-dishonest tricks to win an argument (or put another way "What is your fallacy?").

We all get sucked in to getting off topic. That might be a reason I sometimes do not want to continue with a conversation in a thread and can wait till the topic is started in another thread.

Maybe the question asked should be started as a question in new thread. The question might be rephrased as not to dwell on numbers, but who is responsible?

Who is responsible for Adam dying? God takes ultimate responsibility, having created things the way they are, but was Adam responsible for his own death, by not following the instruction given him?


Re the Straw Man Argument: Is the accusation correct? Here is what Wikipedia defines the phrase as meaning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument, ("knock down a straw man,") instead of the original proposition.[3][4]

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

CWH
05-02-2014, 11:30 PM
YOUR GOD SUCKS...And not only that, but anyone who worships a baby killer is a prick. YOU are SO INSANE...So why don't you fuck-off, Pal! And stay the fuck away from me!!
Ya, Go and suck your Evolution God. Same as anyone who worship their country soldiers killing everyone around the world.
YOU are SO INSANE too...So why don't you go and fuck spider, Pal! And stay the fuck away from me! Go to Hell SOPHIA-BAPHOMET666!

Now let's pray. SOPHIA-BAPHOMET666 :pray:

CWH
05-02-2014, 11:41 PM
The Straw Man argument ought to be a thread of its own, like the 38-dishonest tricks to win an argument (or put another way "What is your fallacy?").

We all get sucked in to getting off topic. That might be a reason I sometimes do not want to continue with a conversation in a thread and can wait till the topic is started in another thread.

Maybe the question asked should be started as a question in new thread. The question might be rephrased as not to dwell on numbers, but who is responsible?

Who is responsible for Adam dying? God takes ultimate responsibility, having created things the way they are, but was Adam responsible for his own death, by not following the instruction given him?


Re the Straw Man Argument: Is the accusation correct? Here is what Wikipedia defines the phrase as meaning:

Thanks David, My friend,

Don't be appalled, when dealing with this type of satanic sucks, you cannot be too kind with your mouth and actions. Do unto others what you want others to do unto you.... well, she did it on me first.

Thanks for your support.

God Bless.:pray:

David M
05-03-2014, 02:22 AM
Hello Nothing,

Have you seen a doctor? We live in modern times when doctors are able to diagnose neurological diseases, which may be what you have. I would encourage you to see a doctor if you haven't already.

Hello Nothing
I would also advise you to seek medical advice. There is no harm in seeking a physician's help for things that can be treated and cured by man's help. It is when things are not able to be cured by man that we turn to God for help and then we have to accept his answer, even if it is a "no" by default.


Unfortunately David, I completely disagree with that and with all my might I disagree. I am being attacked by devils right now and it has been going on for a while. I'm not going to go into detail here about what type of devil it is, but I know it is putting thoughts and suggestions into my mind constantly. It is even able to manipulate the blood flow in my body causing pins and needles as a sensation of touch and sudden jolts cause my muscles to spasm or twitch. I have episodes of sleep paralysis where when I start to fall asleep I hear its voice in my "third eye" or minds eye that seems to be vulnerable during sleep. I have had a shadow person/devil drain me of my energy and I've had devils try to pull my spirit out of my body. When I'm lying in bed I can hear my computer keyboard being typed on or pressed loud and clear while I'm fully awake. They flee and respond to the name of "Jesus". Jesus also cast out devils, so how could you deny this?The fact is you write lucidly, and your illness is not apparent in your writing. I know many brethren in Christ you have their own physical and mental problems, but that does not diminish their faith in God or make them think they have demons by the way of invading spirits that have some form of intelligence.

What are demons? How intelligent are they? What form do they take? Demons are different to the Devil or Satan. Are you being attacked by the Devil or demons? You say "devils", but that just sounds like some physical condition which medical science has an explanation for. I do not know all the conditions, but I know of some and for example; Tourette syndrome. Now that is a condition whereby people involuntary shout out obscenities and the like. Do you think Tourette syndrome is a demon? Could that be an explanation for those who shouted out in the presence of Jesus and he healed them?
How do demons breed, since there are many? Where do demons come from? We have so many unanswerable questions that I expect the answers will be invented as much as demons are man's invention to explain medical conditions, which today can be explained as being a mental condition, instead of spirit possession. Spirit possession does not make sense to me, which is why I do not believe it. You mention many things, which makes me want to be consultant-like and ask you; what do you mean by that?
Alas, there are many who go to psychiatrists and therapists because of their mental condition and have been doing so for years and never get cured. These people earn fortunes for not curing people of the psychological disorders. We have to bear in mind the difference between psychology and psychiatry.

I do not support Scientology, but I did read L. Ron Hubbard's book in which he dealt with mental aberrations and their possible cause and the method to get rid of mental aberrations, which begin to develop as early as in the womb. I remember that Ron Hubbard explained we might have mental aberrations which never reveal themselves because all the factors required do not come together. Also, Ron Hubbard explained how mental aberrations can also be suppressed by having a strong faith. Maybe you faith shows up when you say; "They flee and respond to the name of "Jesus". Is that the same for the name Yeshua or Yahoshua? Is it the actual name, or is it the person you are thinking about? Can this be a result of your attention focusing elsewhere?

I can remember as a very young child having unusual sensations going to bed and being left in a totally dark room. It used to frighten me a little. That is not anywhere the condition that others suffer from, and I grew out of it, but it goes part way to being able to sympathize with those that have mental fears. Mental fears/conditions have to be recognized for what they are and not superstition by way of demons.


I am also aware that we have carnal minds that succumb to the temptation that they entice us into. That doesn't mean that Satan doesn't exist. What is your definition of Satan and how did Satan come about? I see no hard evidence in the Bible for saying Satan is a fallen Angel of God. Jesus knew Judas was going to betray him and told Judas to go quickly and do what he had to. Do you think Jesus at that time saw Satan enter Judas (which is what the record tells us)? Judas knew exactly what he had to do before Jesus told him to go and do it. Jesus knew what Judas was thinking. Jesus does not put the blame on Satan as some external spirit influence taking possession of Judas's mind at that moment. The thought of Judas going to betray Jesus was the thought of Judas's own making and that is the Satan that was Judas's carnal mind that was not centered on the things of God.


"And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it." -Job 2:2 Satan represents the thoughts of Job's friends, who at that time (in the time of Moses) were wandering up and down the wilderness. God gave the jealous thoughts of Job's friend empowerment. It was God, who did the things to Job in order to and test Job and prove top Job's friends that they were wrong. It was God who took on the office of the Satan for the purpose of testing Job. The Satan is being personified for the sake of presenting this play-like story of Job.


It is extremely dangerous to think that Satan does not exist.Why is it dangerous? You say that at the mention of Jesus's name, the devils flee from you; that does not sound like Satan (or the Devil) is anything to be feared. It depends on how you think Satan exists. I do not see Satan existing as a fallen Angel of God. Satan exists in lots of humans and human forms such as governments and as "power in high places". How does the single entity of Satan (that is thought to be a fallen Angel of God), exist in billions of people at the same time all around the world?



Your intentions are completely transparent. Your pride will keep you in bondage.Is that a general statement? That is true in that God is able to search all our hearts and nothing is hid from him. Pride is our killer. The Satan is self-centered and associated with selfish pride. That is why we have to empty our self of pride and be humble. It is something we have to work at until it is innate and permeates every aspect of our life as it did Jesus.

All the best
David

Nothing
05-03-2014, 04:42 AM
I've changed my ideas and decided to remove this post. Rest assured I still love and believe in God <3

David M
05-03-2014, 05:20 AM
Hello Nothing
Just a quick reply as this is my last post possibly for today.

Hi David,

The fact that I write lucidly is because I am fully sane and aware of what is going on. I have no "mental illness" (which is a devil). The reason you say this is because we've all been conditioned by society to think and act a certain way. Satan really is the ruler of this world:

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." -2 Corinthians 4:4
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." -Ephesians 6:12

When you read the things I say it is unsettling to you because I am venturing outside of the hive-mindedness we've been taught to believe.I agree that Satan is the ruler of this world, because man is ruling himself, or at least until Christ returns and begins to rule in righteousness. Man's rule is a Satan, because it is opposed to the rule of God.


I started my journey of discovery as a truth seeker. The question "Why do I exist?" has been the #1 ultimate thought of my mind throughout my whole life. I couldn't just live my life without knowing the reason why. I was stubborn and utterly rejected this life. I would never accept it without finding out the reason "why?". How could people just accept life and not question it? This always frustrated me. This rejection of existence was my drive to find answers.

I did not just accept what I was told by other people, I disliked peer-minded thinking and always had to find out things for myself. I was the weird eccentric child that never seemed to fit in until I learned how to "act" like others. I was given what I would call "intuition by God" to be able to tell what was wrong and what was right. It was as if God was leading me and taking me through all the right experiences in life. I've investigated almost all major belief systems and was a solid atheist before I found God. My mind has been dragged through the mud of this world and dark places all to have emerged to where I am now.Our journey is different for all of us. I appreciate the journey you are on,


I've seen devils, with my own eyes having manifested here in physical reality. I also notice how subtle they are and how they affect our conscious minds because I am aware of what's going on. The reason Devils harass me is because I really want God in my life and I really want the truth. To me there is no point in existing without God.Maybe if I had been with you at the time, I might think differently. I have not seen ghosts and so I might think differently if I had. The mind can play tricks, so I keep an open mind on things I have not experienced but could have an explanation.


This makes me question if you are a real seeker, as a real seeker will definitely come under spiritual attack. And you'll recognize it when it happens. Devils don't bother you at all until you really start digging deep and seeking answers. When you start venturing into forbidden territory you're not supposed to be in that's when they will come. And when you do learn the truth, it is not unusual to have panic attacks and severe anxiety, you may even vomit or feel sick. You will need Jesus during this time... The full awareness that Jesus really exists and that this is all real can be overwhelming, you might even feel like you're going insane. Your own mind will turn on you, you've been living a lie this whole time. You will begin to see this world for what it really is.I come across enough devils on this forum. None have made me think differently, even though they have challenged me by stating things that are not what I find in the Bible. When I perhaps doubt that I have understood some things incorrectly, I find that others are using different translations that give meanings from different to say the KJV. I examine a cross-selection of different translations of the Bible to see the range of possibilities. Ultimately, I have to decide based on all the information I have available. I seek the truth in whatever, even those things totally unrelated to the Bible.


All questions you have are probably answered in my "nothing" thread found in the Christianity sub-forum. The fact that you don't believe devils exist shows me that you may have become stagnant in your search for truth.I will have to have another look at that post. I did read most of it at a quick pace.


"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." -Jeremiah 29:13
"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." -Matthew 16:25

That means everything you have. Not just dipping your toes in the water to see how cold it is. You have to take the plunge. You're all in, you're placing your bets on Jesus. Whatever happens, you hope in Jesus. You have to sacrifice this life, that's why the gate is narrow and few will find it.

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:" -Matthew 7:13
"Because narrow is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads unto life, and few there be that find it." -Matthew 7:14 We can both quote the same verses to support our understanding. That goes to show how different some of the verses can be understood. Like the jigsaw puzzle, only when we get nearer to completing the picture do we find where we have placed pieces in the wrong place. The search is not complete until all the pieces are in place. I do not claim to have got all prophecy into place, but I am fairly confident about many other things that have been thought about and reasoned.

All the best
David

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
05-04-2014, 09:53 PM
OH HOW PREDICTABLE...Without a doubt, brain-washed and hypnotised Christian readers will try to throw in an FUI (F'ed-Up Interp) at this juncture. Those Cracked Christians are full of those and never have to worry if they run out because they possess an uncanny ability to always manufacture more of the same sh@t!

All this is from a Loving God on how to treat your fellow human beings with Compassion and Respect.

I think that's Totally Delusional...Folks, please stop hurling FUI's (-Up Interpretations) and "Context and Verse Pablum" at Overtly Clear like this! No butt-load of PFUIs (Possible F'ed-Up Interpretations) will ever change this fact! No interpretation necessary. No PFUIs can rescue pious Fundmentalist Christians this time!

Read this passage. This is not symbolic. This is LITERAL. This is CRUEL. This is SLAVERY. I wonder if the Christians think about this passage when they have their babies christened in front of the congregation during a Sunday Church service...Hmmm.

DEUTERONOMY 21:10-13, "According to God's law, if an Israelite soldier was at war with an enemy, and he saw a beautiful woman [THAT HE FOUND!] attractive, [HE CAPTURED!] her to be his wife...[SHE MUST!] then shave her head, trim her nails and discard the clothing she was wearing [WHEN CAPTURED!]"...

CAPTIVES HAVE NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER...the innocent unlucky virgins. They did not choose. Yep, Fornication was just fine and dandy if it was ordained and done by his proxy-warriors in lust with war Booty. Captive War brides in slave-bondage...

What loving or rational God would fulfill such a Satanic desire? Now that is TRULY SATANIC if there ever was!

It has to do with breaking commands and laws of God, [not with right and wrong], which is a very important distinction since so many of [the laws of BibleGod are arbitrary and capricious]. Ethics and morals are a different matter altogether- they are [created by humans] not by fictional man-made deities! (This alone proves he was is mythical.)

(What a primitive fickle God he was...an account of war against man!)

Murdering someone is not judging them. How can they have a ever chance to repent or accept BibleGod if they're f'ing dead? A just and loving God would not judge people in such a way, he wouldn't create evil, he wouldn't send evil mercenary angels to F up his own creation, he wouldn't rip [murder] innocent unborn babies out of their wombs as the Old Testament says he did.

And obviously Yahweh lacked "Two-Somethings!": "A Conscience, and its associated Sense of Morality!"

YES, THIS TYPE OF SATANIC DOES SUCK...THE FICKLE STORM-GOD! Christ spoke of the loving your neighbor as yourself...It is impossible to be both moral and immoral at the same time. One would never call Hitler a good and moral person because he treated his own family well. The same holds true for the Biblegod, [he cannot commit horrendous atrocities and still be called loving and merciful.]

Mystykal
05-05-2014, 12:47 AM
Hello Nothing
Just a quick reply as this is my last post possibly for today.
I agree that Satan is the ruler of this world, because man is ruling himself, or at least until Christ returns and begins to rule in righteousness. Man's rule is a Satan, because it is opposed to the rule of God.

Our journey is different for all of us. I appreciate the journey you are on,

Maybe if I had been with you at the time, I might think differently. I have not seen ghosts and so I might think differently if I had. The mind can play tricks, so I keep an open mind on things I have not experienced but could have an explanation.

I come across enough devils on this forum. None have made me think differently, even though they have challenged me by stating things that are not what I find in the Bible. When I perhaps doubt that I have understood some things incorrectly, I find that others are using different translations that give meanings from different to say the KJV. I examine a cross-selection of different translations of the Bible to see the range of possibilities. Ultimately, I have to decide based on all the information I have available. I seek the truth in whatever, even those things totally unrelated to the Bible.

I will have to have another look at that post. I did read most of it at a quick pace.

We can both quote the same verses to support our understanding. That goes to show how different some of the verses can be understood. Like the jigsaw puzzle, only when we get nearer to completing the picture do we find where we have placed pieces in the wrong place. The search is not complete until all the pieces are in place. I do not claim to have got all prophecy into place, but I am fairly confident about many other things that have been thought about and reasoned.

All the best
David

Hi David:

It is attributed to Stephen Hawkin who said,

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance. it is the illusion of knowledge."


The problem with most of your comments are that the facts are non existent. You can say anything but with out a real basis for your statements the whole mess of KJV version or the Living Bible version or the NIV version are without merit! You cannot just say whatever you like and then not expect a fire storm coming from other people. You must look for ways to let go of ALL notions and begin again each day to study to find the Actual truth!


Namaste,


Mystykal

David M
05-05-2014, 03:09 AM
Hello Mystykal

Hi David:

The problem with most of your comments are that the facts are non existent. It would be better to be specific instead of making a general comment that is not substantiated. Tell me what is not fact.

The fact is we have a collection of books called the Bible, with a collection of facts in it. We have to take those facts and understand them correctly. It is up to us to find out what the Bible means and why it is important to find out.


You can say anything but with out a real basis for your statements the whole mess of KJV version or the Living Bible version or the NIV version are without merit! You cannot just say whatever you like and then not expect a fire storm coming from other people. I am not just saying what I like without backing it up. I do not repeat my backup statements every time., there are many strewn across this forum where I have backed up what I say. The same has to go for all of us to be able to back up what we say.

I do not expect unjustified comments from people who do not know me, yet stand in judgment of me, or make abusive comments, because I say things that they cannot agree with, or that I do not come around to their point of view. The Bible needs no defense. If I care to defend the Bible against the claims of unlearned people who misquote the Bible, then I shall do so to expose their lies and prevent others from being lead astray. I urge everyone to do their own study and research and find the truth for themselves. and not take my word or the word of anyone else with out checking it against what the Bible says. Since there are so many translations of the Bible, it is up to examine them and decide whether they have merit of not.


You must look for ways to let go of ALL notions and begin again each day to study to find the Actual truth! What if I start again and arrive at exactly the same of conclusion, are you going to tell me to start again and keep doing the same until I come to your way of seeing things? That is unlikely to happen once the truth has been found. It is like as Jesus describes in his parables of the kingdom. The Gospel is the most valuable possession we can have and that is why Jesus likens it to; (Matt 13:44) treasure hid in a field; or (Matt 13:46) "a pearl of great price"

Once you have the truth you will not let it go, so why expect me to let go of the only truth that leads to eternal life? May you find your pearl of great price too.

All the best
David

David M
05-05-2014, 04:01 AM
Hello James
I suppose you get satisfaction from your unsubstantiated rants as I do exposing your error.


OH HOW PREDICTABLE...Without a doubt, brain-washed Why do you not see yourself as brainwashed by your peers that are as misguided as you? This type of talk is fruitless and does not get down to understanding the facts.


DEUTERONOMY 21:10-13, "According to God's law, if an Israelite soldier was at war with an enemy, and he saw a beautiful woman [THAT HE FOUND!] attractive, [HE CAPTURED!] her to be his wife...[SHE MUST!] then shave her head, trim her nails and discard the clothing she was wearing [WHEN CAPTURED!]"... You mentioned this in your previous post in this thread and fail to quote the whole of the law to do with the capture of women. Most of us will recognize war as an horrific event and wars are still happening and many atrocities are taking place and going unpunished. Under the law given to Israel, the women taken captive were well treated and the law protected their rights. A law which the heathen nations did not have and those nations could abuse their captives. The things you point out like the shaving of the head are minor things and were probably done for good reasons. Would you ever bother to try and find out what the reasons are?

The women could be let go free if they did not want to marry or had no desire to be married after they accepted marriage. Women were to be let free and not be sold in to slavery. At least if you are going to quote the story, you could at least bring out the all the facts and give a balanced picture of events.

I can see it could be too much trouble for you to find out what the Bible really means, but that is OK with me. What you do not have, you do not miss. You cannot expect others to give up what they have found and be as spiritually poor as you show yourself to be.

If you say; "there is no God", then the fact is; the Bible has defined you as a fool. Stay that way and let God laugh at you (even if I am not laughing) and let God hold you, and people like you, in derision. To the wise who know the Bible, your words are utterly foolish. In terms of knowing what the Bible message is, you are far from wise. I expect your words resonate with like-minded people, but not with me.


That said, I do resonate with some of your comments about "the church". The large churches have gone astray and they make a mockery of what the Bible actually teaches. It does annoy me to be lumped in with the majority who are definitely on the broad way to destruction. I am trying to keep to the narrow way that leads to life and Jesus warns us all (Matt 7:14); Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.




All the best
David

Nothing
05-05-2014, 04:40 AM
I've changed my ideas and decided to remove this post. Rest assured I still love and believe in God <3

David M
05-05-2014, 08:08 AM
Hello Nothing
I thank you for your sensible reply.


Hi David,

It seems to me as if you are trying to interpret scripture in a way that makes it applicable to this reality and as realistic as possible. That is correct. We have to get past the myths and legends and bring the scriptures into the 21st Century. I believe in the invisible power that is God's Holy Spirit and he uses Angels as his messengers which he has given power to. How that works exactly, we can only compare to what we know now about networking and distributed power systems. We have no way of explaining God's power precisely, because it is beyond science to know.


You are logically analyzing scripture and in your world of thought you seem to not allow yourself to head out further past certain boundaries. Past these boundaries is where the real "meat" is though. This limited area of thought you are working with is like a comfortable prison cell. You can see what's outside but only through a small window, the door remains unlocked but it could be scary outside. Everyone lives their whole life in this room so it's better to just stay inside. This room protects our minds and our sanity, yet it is the very thing that imprisons it.We have various aspects of the Bible to consider. Life lessons, the Law, prophecy and things of a spiritual nature. Some of these things are what I would call common sense enquiry. I do not think we can see further than God has allowed us to see. There is little more for science to find out. Man has discovered practically everything there is to discover. Man is at the limits of discovery limited by how far he can see into space and how small the smallest particles can be seen. We are imprisoned on this planet earth and it is guessing to think what might happen in eternity. Science is fooling itself to think that man can travel to another habitable planet and colonize it. Beyond this solar system is total fantasy.


God wants us to use everything at our disposal to learn more about him. Our heart, thoughts, mind and intellect. Our feelings, intuition and soul yearning. When we do this we are not gimped in one area or another, we can see clearly. You can logically analyze the word but the word isn't brought to life without feelings. You can come to God because he satisfies your feelings yet without the mind and intellect you are gullible and misled. Without intuition you have no direction and can't properly synchronize what you have learned both logically and emotionally. And without the souls yearning we do not want to seek out the meaning of life and reconnect with our creator, we don't care or notice if he's not around.We are all so different in our make up. I am not so emotional as some people, but that does not stop me feeling emotional. I am not one for standing up and displaying my emotions in public. I will make a stand when I have to.
Intuition tells me there must be a God. Others will say that is not proof. What proof is there? The proof I find in prophecy and telling the future before a thing happens. I find the Bible highly consistent and not as error-ridden as others try to make out. The Bible has a sense of authority about it. The fact that I sense that authority is not proof to anyone else. I am suspicious of intuition or of secret knowledge only revealed to certain individuals. That is not how God operates. The prophets through whom God spoke, could be tested. False prophets were to be exposed. How do we go about that?


See, one area I struggle with is the heart. I know of God through my thoughts, intuition and experiences, yet I lack the feelings and emotions required to fully comprehend. I see others who have received the Joy of Jesus in their lives so fast yet they have not learned as much about things as I have for instance. I can feel that something is missing, something very important. I feel that "something missing" is present with you also, it may not be the same thing missing as I have but I definitely detect a hole.The heart is the mind in which our emotions and character are stored. The mind is complex and Jeremiah asks a searching question. Who can know the heart? It is mind boggling knowing what we know now with the trillions of cells that make up the mind and how God can know it and how God is going to be able to resurrect us after we die. In that respect, for all the knowledge science has given us, it does not tell us how God can do these things and we are at the same level as those people who thought mental illness was demon possession, and new nothing of 21st century science. We have to have faith like the people thousands of years ago. God's wisdom is not to be compared with the wisdom of the world. The world's wisdom you have to be careful of and not get misled by it.

Understanding the truth behind language and translation does appear to be an academic exercise, but it seems the more necessary, the more people depart from believing in God and looking to every excuse to discredit the Bible. There might be more than one aspect to the truth revealed in the Bible, but since it has come from one source, we can expect it to be consistent, which is what I find it to be.

For all the academic mental exercise trying to get across the true message of the Bible, the simple message is to do and follow the teaching of Jesus. If we put the two greatest commandments into practice in our lives then we cannot go far wrong.

I am going to pass bye anything that cannot be supported by what God has told us. I am not going to believe the imaginations of men and I do not go down that route. OK, so we have different understanding of God's word, but at least that is the source from which we get our different ideas. What God has not revealed, we are told belongs to him and the things that belong to men are the things that God has revealed. As I said, science has very little left to find out and what is left to find out requires God to fill in the explanation.


I hope you find what is missing, I am on that same search.We all have a problem, when we do not know what we do not know. Unless you can tell me what I am missing, how do I know I am missing it? I might be seen to be lacking something from what I have written so far. You will not get to know me without meeting me or having a conversation with and then in one meeting you might not find out all there is to know about me. That is why, we cannot trust humans who we know nothing about and who are unreliable and fickle. There is only one who can be trusted to do righteously and those who do not see God acting righteously do not understand the working of God, or giving God a balanced view. That is what makes the Bible so interesting and a valuable source of lessons on life in the way God has worked in peoples lives. Considering all the believers that will get resurrected, the number of people who are mentioned in the Bible are few in number. I expect there will be lots of ordinary people who have lead quiet peaceful lives that are acceptable to God. Not everyone is called on to lay down their lives even if they are prepared to. I stand up and get cut down to pieces in order to speak of the things in which I believe. Not everyone can do that and even in thos respect, I do not count myself as good as a lot of other people I admire for the stand they take and the amount of public speaking they do. We can show our faith in our ordinary lives doing the mundane things in life.

One thing is hard to imagine is what it was like for those prophets who died horrible deaths in God's service. God allowed men to do terrible things to them. It shows the great faith those prophets had and the surety of the resurrection they believed in. We do not hear any accusation from Jesus towards God for allowing those situations to happen. It is all seen as part of God's plan and the testimony of the prophets and their faith is what can give us faith to be prepared to put our life on the line if called to do so. By comparison, I have not been tested yet to anything like the prophets were tested. It is up to God how he uses people in his plan and purpose. There was only one Jesus, so that role has been filled. What vacancies are waiting to be filled?

Who knows what time of testing is to come? It shows the cruelty of man that he kills his fellow man, just because his fellow man believes in God. Man has a lot to answer for and as I keep telling Rose, we have to blame man first, before jumping to blame God. God's justice to those types of murdering people cannot come soon enough. God's plan is still on course and prophecy is still being outworked, so I have no reason to doubt within my lifetime.

All the best
David

Rose
05-05-2014, 09:53 AM
I am going to pass bye anything that cannot be supported by what God has told us. I am not going to believe the imaginations of men and I do not go down that route. OK, so we have different understanding of God's word, but at least that is the source from which we get our different ideas. What God has not revealed, we are told belongs to him and the things that belong to men are the things that God has revealed. As I said, science has very little left to find out and what is left to find out requires God to fill in the explanation.



All the best
David

What makes you think that the Bible isn't also just the imaginations of primitive men? Aren't you just using your human reasoning like the rest of us?

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
05-05-2014, 11:55 PM
QUOTE]Originally Posted David M
"...unsubstantiated rants and exposing your error."[/QUOTE]

Error...You wouldn't know Error if bit you on your Ass and held on for a Reach-Around! :lol:


A law which the heathen nations did not have and those nations could abuse their captives?

Where's the Beef? Where do you people get all those so-called facts heathen nations? Just more unsubstantiated and meaningless-crap as always from you.


I can see it could be too much trouble for you to find out what the Bible really means, but that is OK with me. What you do not have, you do not miss. You cannot expect others to give up what they have found and be as spiritually poor as you show yourself to be.

If you say; ["there is no God"], then the fact is; the Bible has defined you as a fool. Stay that way and let God laugh at you (even if I am not laughing) and let God hold you, and people like you, in derision. To the wise who know the Bible, your words are utterly foolish. In terms of knowing what the Bible message is, you are far from wise. (I expect your words resonate with like-minded people, but not with me.)

YEAH, I AM ALWAYS LAUGHING MY ASS OFF AT YOU! lol: Because it is so easy to get a reaction out of you and push your buttons. :lol: As always, you are such a GULLIBLE-SOP! Awwww...but it's actually very Amusing and Entertaining to watch! Gullibility is the salient feature of people like yourself. But you take that bait every time...hooks, lines and sinkers! Never fails. :p But You are so Wrong. I have absolutely no expection or care whatever others have found in the Bible. And I don't give one rip about your make-believe primitive Stormgod. :lol:

YOUR FICKLE EL STORM/CLOUD-RIDER DEITY NEVER EXISTED TO BEGIN WITH...IT WAS ALL FICTIONAL, LITERARY-PROPAGANDA, A POLEMIC- DELIBERATELY CHALLENGING BRONZE-AGE MESOPOTAMIAN VIEWS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MAN AND THE GODS- MAN-MADE AND SIMPLY DID NOT EXIST! THAT IS IRREFUTIBLE. (Sorry to be the bearer of bad news..If the people are offended andupset, that is not my roblem!)

The 3,000 year-old storm/cloud "god doesn't exist, and so the hell what?" LEARN TO DEAL WITH IT! Things still matter whether or not people believe an imaginary crator-deity of the traditional sort is a part of reality. Obviously, you see value in it! I do not. I don't take any of this stuff SERIOUSLY as YOU DO! LMAO. :lol:

Your make-believe gory-ghost of a god only operates within extremey narrow-margins, and those margins are slowly shrinking more everyday. You whole Tyrannical-Stormgod and Stormtrooper "God Model" along with ten thousand deathly and shitty-dogmas, why pursue it?

Society isn't turning to crap. But your Apocalyptic and Conspiratorial twisted-view of society and everything you believe in is dying! And just that very thought in itself gives me and great comfort! You have made all this nonsense up inside your head, but that world is coming to an End. The syphillitic mind-killing virus of fundamentalist God and Religion is slowly going-away with a Whimper, but surely losing its grip on Society more and more each and everyday.

The world is going the way I and others want it to be. And it's getting better and better every day! You paint the world as such a terrible place. It's not that way at all! People make up silly crap all the time. You just Gotta love that old time religion!

Remember, It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood, "if YOU choose to make it one! Mister Rogers (one of our truly great spiritual leaders and a thoroughly sane man) told you this as a but SADLY the insane world has beat it out of you. Oh, and by the way, I don't give a dam about YOU, or what you think, or the silly and perverted and twisted god-ideas whirling about in the folds of your Grey Matter.

I DON'T CARE WHAT NOT ONE WHIT ABOUT YOU AND YOUR CRAZY FELLOW-INMATES SHIT-HOUSE RATS. :lol:

:yo:

Mystykal
05-06-2014, 12:45 AM
Hello Mystykal
It would be better to be specific instead of making a general comment that is not substantiated. Tell me what is not fact.

The fact is we have a collection of books called the Bible, with a collection of facts in it. We have to take those facts and understand them correctly. It is up to us to find out what the Bible means and why it is important to find out.

I am not just saying what I like without backing it up. I do not repeat my backup statements every time., there are many strewn across this forum where I have backed up what I say. The same has to go for all of us to be able to back up what we say.

I do not expect unjustified comments from people who do not know me, yet stand in judgment of me, or make abusive comments, because I say things that they cannot agree with, or that I do not come around to their point of view. The Bible needs no defense. If I care to defend the Bible against the claims of unlearned people who misquote the Bible, then I shall do so to expose their lies and prevent others from being lead astray. I urge everyone to do their own study and research and find the truth for themselves. and not take my word or the word of anyone else with out checking it against what the Bible says. Since there are so many translations of the Bible, it is up to examine them and decide whether they have merit of not.

What if I start again and arrive at exactly the same of conclusion, are you going to tell me to start again and keep doing the same until I come to your way of seeing things? That is unlikely to happen once the truth has been found. It is like as Jesus describes in his parables of the kingdom. The Gospel is the most valuable possession we can have and that is why Jesus likens it to; (Matt 13:44) treasure hid in a field; or (Matt 13:46) "a pearl of great price"

Once you have the truth you will not let it go, so why expect me to let go of the only truth that leads to eternal life? May you find your pearl of great price too.

All the best
David

Hi David:

I am not really here to argue with you or anyone... I find your understanding of the laws of logic to be insufficient for me to really have a conversation with you. I do not expect you to ever come to my views or to my side of the fence on anything! I do however think that you should discard all your notions you regard as truth and start over. I guess you believe your conclusions are right and have no need for modification. I also believe in my views but I do let it all go every day and start over. Many times I find that the reasoning I used in the past is not sound. I then re-evaluate my thought process and many times I find that I made an error coming to a particular conclusion. So its ok to be wrong and to let go...

So... I guess it is not in me to try and reason with you. You are not a good student or someone I would teach as you do not have a teachable spirit. I mean no offense by that! I just do not think I would be able to reason with you as you do not understand logic. Perhaps if you were to train in a Zen monastary for 20 years with a Master I might be able to talk with you!:pop2:

Namaste,

Mystykal

Mystykal
05-06-2014, 05:00 AM
Hi David,

It seems to me as if you are trying to interpret scripture in a way that makes it applicable to this reality and as realistic as possible. You are logically analyzing scripture and in your world of thought you seem to not allow yourself to head out further past certain boundaries. Past these boundaries is where the real "meat" is though. This limited area of thought you are working with is like a comfortable prison cell. You can see what's outside but only through a small window, the door remains unlocked but it could be scary outside. Everyone lives their whole life in this room so it's better to just stay inside. This room protects our minds and our sanity, yet it is the very thing that imprisons it.

God wants us to use everything at our disposal to learn more about him. Our heart, thoughts, mind and intellect. Our feelings, intuition and soul yearning. When we do this we are not gimped in one area or another, we can see clearly. You can logically analyze the word but the word isn't brought to life without feelings. You can come to God because he satisfies your feelings yet without the mind and intellect you are gullible and misled. Without intuition you have no direction and can't properly synchronize what you have learned both logically and emotionally. And without the souls yearning we do not want to seek out the meaning of life and reconnect with our creator, we don't care or notice if he's not around.

See, one area I struggle with is the heart. I know of God through my thoughts, intuition and experiences, yet I lack the feelings and emotions required to fully comprehend. I see others who have received the Joy of Jesus in their lives so fast yet they have not learned as much about things as I have for instance. I can feel that something is missing, something very important. I feel that "something missing" is present with you also, it may not be the same thing missing as I have but I definitely detect a hole.

I hope you find what is missing, I am on that same search.

Hi Nothing:

Since you are referencing David's rant to me I will comment here on a few things. Do you know what the definition of insanity is? Ok... Then if you do you will see that it is defined in such a way as to defy logic. Reason is not easily found in this world. Common sense is not too common!

The first mistake David makes is knowing what his conclusion is he works his argument backwards to an undefined starting point. To suggest that the Bible is FACTUAL is to ignore the FACT that GOD is NEVER defined as anything with a starting point. GOD by definition does not exist BECAUSE GOD is as a completed Circle. Such an object does not exist in this known world without first having a starting point. This means that GOD is the first ASSUMPTION the Bible gives. NOT a FACT!

Notice that I did not say it wasn't true! I said it wasn't a fact! David cannot understand such differences in logic and words...

A Biblical "fact" or set of facts only exists when we can later test the assumption and see if it holds up under pressure of the scientific method of testing. What David fails to see is that ALL of religious/Biblical statements are built on someone's idea of GOD and what they think GOD might have said. That in and of itself is an assumption!

So we then look at the 66 books of the Bible and see that they are put together in a way which is illogical. the books are thrown together from other sources. Things are added and things were taken away. Maybe the person who decided on 66 books was to tired to read the other 33 or 50 books in his library so he burned them! I know it sounds crazy! But many of the Catholic writers who sat on the committee which produced the Bible in books did just that by their own admission....http://www.tentmaker.org/books/GatesOfHell.html // http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/ // http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_in_the_Middle_Ages

So, for starters... If we accept the history of how we got our KJV in the first place and all the revisions it went through - there can be little doubt that as a translation it is NOT the INNERENT book David claims it to be.


John 16:13
"I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14"He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.…

Namaste,

Mystykal

Rose
05-06-2014, 03:14 PM
The first mistake David makes is knowing what his conclusion is he works his argument backwards to an undefined starting point. To suggest that the Bible is FACTUAL is to ignore the FACT that GOD is NEVER defined as anything with a starting point. GOD by definition does not exist BECAUSE GOD is as a completed Circle. Such an object does not exist in this known world without first having a starting point. This means that GOD is the first ASSUMPTION the Bible gives. NOT a FACT!

Notice that I did not say it wasn't true! I said it wasn't a fact! David cannot understand such differences in logic and words...

A Biblical "fact" or set of facts only exists when we can later test the assumption and see if it holds up under pressure of the scientific method of testing. What David fails to see is that ALL of religious/Biblical statements are built on someone's idea of GOD and what they think GOD might have said. That in and of itself is an assumption!

So we then look at the 66 books of the Bible and see that they are put together in a way which is illogical. the books are thrown together from other sources. Things are added and things were taken away. Maybe the person who decided on 66 books was to tired to read the other 33 or 50 books in his library so he burned them! I know it sounds crazy! But many of the Catholic writers who sat on the committee which produced the Bible in books did just that by their own admission....http://www.tentmaker.org/books/GatesOfHell.html // http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/ // http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_in_the_Middle_Ages

So, for starters... If we accept the history of how we got our KJV in the first place and all the revisions it went through - there can be little doubt that as a translation it is NOT the INNERENT book David claims it to be.



Namaste,

Mystykal

Hello Mystykal :yo:

You make many good points about the difference between facts and assumptions when it comes to god, and how the Bible was cobbled together for biased and arbitrary reasons ... leading to the conclusion that it definitely is not inerrant. The thing that puzzles me is why you think the Biblegod has any validity at all when it comes to being a true deity. Why not construct your own deity that conforms to the way you perceive truth, instead of basing your beliefs on the imaginings of primitive men who were totally gender biased?

Take care,
Rose