Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Khatru on February 10, 2016, 12:07:55 PM
-
It would be helpful if this poll was answered by believers only! 8)
-
You do realise that "Jehovah" is a mistake made by a Christian when transcribing the Jewish Bible, don't you?
-
I found the phraseology of the questions clumsy Khatru and think it might be easier if you posed one question with the option of a yes or no answer. Just my opinion.
Jeremy is correct about ''Jehovah''; YHWH is the way Jews expressed the name of God - no vowels because God was considered too awesome for his name to be uttered. Another word that often used is ''Yahweh'' which is equally incorrect because of the vowels. The New Jerusalem Bible (widely used by Catholics), used ''Yahweh'', but corrected it in later editions.
-
If the Biblical deity actually existed instead of being the mythical entity I believe it to be, we should be doing our best to rid the universe of such an evil tyrant.
-
Some backflips by believers who don't like what they see when the question is asked?
OK, despite the semantics, I'll amend the question.
-
I'd like it on record that I have heeded the comment and neither of the two votes registered so far is mine.
-
Khatru, since the Biblical God's actions go far beyond the questionable list you give, I'm afraid that I can't honestly answer the poll. Mind you, I doubt whether you really want anyone to answer it, as we've done this set of issues multitudinous times - often courtesy of Floo.
-
Khatru, since the Biblical God's actions go far beyond the questionable list you give, I'm afraid that I can't honestly answer the poll. Mind you, I doubt whether you really want anyone to answer it, as we've done this set of issues multitudinous times - often courtesy of Floo.
Typical Hope cop-out! As expected.
-
Typical Hope cop-out! As expected.
Owl, cop-outs involve refusing to face the issues. Over the years, we have discussed the very examples Khatru has given on numerous occasions - often, as I pointed out, instigated by OPs from Floo - and seen that within nomadic tribes that were seeking to retain their identity such things were commonplace. It is interesting that, like Floo, Khatru has chosen examples that date to an era that the Jewish people were nomadic and small in numbers, compared with the other 'tribal nations' around them. Furthermore, he then tries to get Christians, especially, to judge the behaviour of people is such vastly different situations. Its a bit like asking 21st century atheists to condemn or condone Roman attitudes to women.
-
If the Biblical deity actually existed instead of being the mythical entity I believe it to be, we should be doing our best to rid the universe of such an evil tyrant.
How would you go about getting rid of God?
-
Owl, cop-outs involve refusing to face the issues. Over the years, we have discussed the very examples Khatru has given on numerous occasions - often, as I pointed out, instigated by OPs from Floo - and seen that within nomadic tribes that were seeking to retain their identity such things were commonplace. It is interesting that, like Floo, Khatru has chosen examples that date to an era that the Jewish people were nomadic and small in numbers, compared with the other 'tribal nations' around them. Furthermore, he then tries to get Christians, especially, to judge the behaviour of people is such vastly different situations. Its a bit like asking 21st century atheists to condemn or condone Roman attitudes to women.
Yes, I think we have to consider that these people were on a war footing.
War is obviously a failure but we are ourselves a civilisation who vilify people who say that weapons of mass destruction shouldn't be.
-
How would you go about getting rid of God?
Simple! Ignore him, and he would get bored and leave us to it.
-
I think this question is what is commonly known as a "straw man". It reminds me of the Daily Express phone polls with questions such as "Do you think that Britain should stay within such a morally bankrupt organisation such as the EU"?
-
Simple! Ignore him, and he would get bored and leave us to it.
Except that wouldn't get rid of either him oir the concept. Remember that he makes it very plain that what he wants is followers who believe in him, not followers out of a sense of duty or tradition. Luke, in his gospel, puts it this way - ‘It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but those who are ill.' Clearly, there are folk here who feel that they and society as a whole are perfectly 'healthy' and are without need of God; there are then others who believe that they and society as a whole are not well, and feel the need of such a helper.
You'll never get rid of God, or the sense of the divine.
-
Except that wouldn't get rid of either him oir the concept. Remember that he makes it very plain that what he wants is followers who believe in him, not followers out of a sense of duty or tradition. Luke, in his gospel, puts it this way - ‘It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but those who are ill.' Clearly, there are folk here who feel that they and society as a whole are perfectly 'healthy' and are without need of God; there are then others who believe that they and society as a whole are not well, and feel the need of such a helper.
You'll never get rid of God, or the sense of the divine.
What fitless wuckery! If you believe in an omni god, then this is the only way society can be. Not believing in gods has nothing to do with one's opinion of society.
-
It would be helpful if this poll was answered by believers only! 8)
DID you answer it?
-
You do realise that "Jehovah" is a mistake made by a Christian when transcribing the Jewish Bible, don't you?
You means the Jewish scholars who translated the OT got it wrong?
More chance of you being wrong... isn't there?
-
Except that wouldn't get rid of either him oir the concept. Remember that he makes it very plain that what he wants is followers who believe in him, not followers out of a sense of duty or tradition. Luke, in his gospel, puts it this way - ‘It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but those who are ill.' Clearly, there are folk here who feel that they and society as a whole are perfectly 'healthy' and are without need of God; there are then others who believe that they and society as a whole are not well, and feel the need of such a helper.
You'll never get rid of God, or the sense of the divine.
There is no such thing as a "healthy society", except in the evolutionary sense. Humans are simply a product of evolution, and unavoidably come in all forms, ranging from what we call "good" to what we call "bad". But that is purely human nomenclature, and means nothing to nature or the rest of life on earth.
While life exists it has always been so and always will be so, and there is nothing that "God" or his cohorts and followers can do to change that.
We have a judicial system which aims at maximising our lives, but you can't make a silken purse out of a sow's ear. :)
-
There is no such thing as a "healthy society", except in the evolutionary sense. Humans are simply a product of evolution, and unavoidably come in all forms, ranging from what we call "good" to what we call "bad". But that is purely human nomenclature, and means nothing to nature or the rest of life on earth.
You're entitled to your opinion, Len - but evidence to support it would be useful. Notice that using evolution to prove itself won't be acceptable.
I would also disagree about whether or not there is such a think as a healthy or unhealthy society. In my view, a society that places individuals above community, money above people's welfare, regards the elderly as burdensome and the young as wasters - to name but a few - isn't just unhealthy but seriously sick.
While life exists it has always been so and always will be so, and there is nothing that "God" or his cohorts and followers can do to change that.
Oddly enough, there are places in this world where some, though not all, the ailments of western society don't exist. People in those societies are often far happier than their counterparts in the west.
We have a judicial system which aims at maximising our lives, but you can't make a silken purse out of a sow's ear. :)
Could you restate that comment in plain English, Len?
-
Khatru, since the Biblical God's actions go far beyond the questionable list you give, I'm afraid that I can't honestly answer the poll. Mind you, I doubt whether you really want anyone to answer it, as we've done this set of issues multitudinous times - often courtesy of Floo.
It's a simple enough question but it seems to cause you problems.
What is it with believers and their reluctance to answer questions?
Unlike the believers, I think most unbelievers will always try to answer a question posed by another person, regardless of the question, or indeed, who is posing it.
Will we always answer it to complete satisfaction?
Sometimes we will, sometimes not at all and sometimes never. However, as a believer, I for one really dislike walking away from a question without at least trying to answer it. Seems that this is a personal standard shared by many unbelievers and not-so-many believers. It's a good quality.
Sure, we can be seen as arrogant at times; even forceful in our pursuit of accountability. Unlike believers, we have no problem being scrutinised and we are also able to elucidate in a way that can be understood by anyone willing to apply the same effort at understanding that we place ourselves out there to be scrutinised.
What I notice with theists is they like to jut the chin out and challenge. However, try asking them a question that requires them to inspect what they think and you'll find they will try to shift the point of discussion to some sort of "only I can understand it" slant.
So, it's rare you run across an atheist that won't put themselves up to be picked apart or explain why they think as they do.
If it can be understood by one, it can by all, no desire or faith required.
-
You're entitled to your opinion, Len - but evidence to support it would be useful. Notice that using evolution to prove itself won't be acceptable.
In some ways I am like you! :)
I would also disagree about whether or not there is such a think as a healthy or unhealthy society. In my view, a society that places individuals above community, money above people's welfare, regards the elderly as burdensome and the young as wasters - to name but a few - isn't just unhealthy but seriously sick.
I agree, but that's nothing more than our opinion.
Oddly enough, there are places in this world where some, though not all, the ailments of western society don't exist. People in those societies are often far happier than their counterparts in the west.
Oh dear, I agree again. :( Modern society is far too interested in "getting on in life" than in creating happiness.
Could you restate that comment in plain English, Len?
Certainly. Our judicial system attempts to control antisocial activity and punish miscreants, but you can't alter human nature.
-
Owl, cop-outs involve refusing to face the issues. Over the years, we have discussed the very examples Khatru has given on numerous occasions - often, as I pointed out, instigated by OPs from Floo - and seen that within nomadic tribes that were seeking to retain their identity such things were commonplace. It is interesting that, like Floo, Khatru has chosen examples that date to an era that the Jewish people were nomadic and small in numbers, compared with the other 'tribal nations' around them. Furthermore, he then tries to get Christians, especially, to judge the behaviour of people is such vastly different situations. Its a bit like asking 21st century atheists to condemn or condone Roman attitudes to women.
We really don't need to be told about the prevailing social economics/culture/morality of the day.
The fact is that you refuse to condemn the murderous acts carried out by the Bible god which is why you appear to favour the following:
Slavery
Genocide
Incest
Killing homosexuals
Killing people who have sex outside of marriage
Killing people who opt for freedom of religion
Killing brides who aren't virgins on their wedding night
Killing your children if they curse or strike you
Killing people who blaspheme against your god
Killing people who work on a Saturday
Of course, you only favour the items in the above list when you believe them to be divinely endorsed. Otherwise you'd be the first to condemn. Right?
-
DID you answer it?
I didn't answer it but if I certainly don't approve of the tyrannical acts that believers seem to.
-
I think this question is what is commonly known as a "straw man". It reminds me of the Daily Express phone polls with questions such as "Do you think that Britain should stay within such a morally bankrupt organisation such as the EU"?
A straw-man argument is all about deliberately mis-representing someone's position in order to make them look weak.
I'm trying to find out believers positions.
What I'm getting from them are metaphorical somersaults and backflips. Anything but answer the question.
-
There is no such thing as a "healthy society", except in the evolutionary sense. Humans are simply a product of evolution, and unavoidably come in all forms, ranging from what we call "good" to what we call "bad". But that is purely human nomenclature, and means nothing to nature or the rest of life on earth.
While life exists it has always been so and always will be so, and there is nothing that "God" or his cohorts and followers can do to change that.
We have a judicial system which aims at maximising our lives, but you can't make a silken purse out of a sow's ear. :)
Nicely put
In very much the same way, no nation is evil.
Those that govern/rule -yes
An entire nation/people - no
Of course, if the Bible god approves, then the slaughter of an entire nation is a wonderful thing!
-
Of course, if the Bible god approves, then the slaughter of an entire nation is a wonderful thing!
Which only goes to show what rubbish all this "God" stuff is. :)
-
Dear Khatru,
All depends
Slavery, we are all slaves, slaves to the man, bloody Tories.
Genocide, a bit harsh, but rounding them up for a damn good thrashing, bloody Tories.
Incest, well that lovely Mr Cameron is a Mother******
Killing homosexuals, harsh again, but if they are Tories, then a damn good thrashing is in order.
Killing people who have sex outside of marriage, praise the Tories, well don't you pay less tax.
Killing people who opt for freedom of religion, well you can't be a Tory and a Christian, one of those poxymorons.
Killing brides who aren't virgins on their wedding night, no such thing as a virgin, we are all F***** by the Tories.
Killing your children if they curse or strike you, are these children standing with you in the queue for the foodbank, bloody Tories.
Killing people who blaspheme against your god, blaspheme, blasforyou, blasforeveryone, is Eddie Izzard a Tory.
Killing people who work on a Saturday, well if they are a meter reader and they appear at your door at 8 o'clock on a Saturday morning and you have a hangover, oh! and they happen to be a Tory.
Gonnagle.
-
It's a simple enough question but it seems to cause you problems.
What is it with believers and their reluctance to answer questions?
Unlike the believers, I think most unbelievers will always try to answer a question posed by another person, regardless of the question, or indeed, who is posing it.
Will we always answer it to complete satisfaction?
Sometimes we will, sometimes not at all and sometimes never. However, as a believer, I for one really dislike walking away from a question without at least trying to answer it. Seems that this is a personal standard shared by many unbelievers and not-so-many believers. It's a good quality.
Sure, we can be seen as arrogant at times; even forceful in our pursuit of accountability. Unlike believers, we have no problem being scrutinised and we are also able to elucidate in a way that can be understood by anyone willing to apply the same effort at understanding that we place ourselves out there to be scrutinised.
What I notice with theists is they like to jut the chin out and challenge. However, try asking them a question that requires them to inspect what they think and you'll find they will try to shift the point of discussion to some sort of "only I can understand it" slant.
Looks as though seven people have answered the question Khatru so not that much reluctance. The majority do not approve of the 'Bible God's' actions which is to be expected. Of course there is more to it than that but you wanted a simple answer and you got it.
I agree that sometimes believers do not give a straight answer to a straight question. I experienced that myself when I was younger and searching. I clearly remember asking a couple of Christian people, friends, if they believed non-Christians - more precisely, people of non-Christian faith - would not go to Heaven. They went all round the houses rather than answer me but I stuck to my guns. Still didn't get a straight answer.
Just in case you are wondering, I'm a believer and I believe people of non-Christian faith will go to Heaven.
-
And people of no faith?
-
Why not? A non-believer cannot be judged in the same way as a believer.
-
Why not? A non-believer cannot be judged in the same way as a believer.
According to what criteria?
-
Owl, cop-outs involve refusing to face the issues. Over the years, we have discussed the very examples Khatru has given on numerous occasions - often, as I pointed out, instigated by OPs from Floo - and seen that within nomadic tribes that were seeking to retain their identity such things were commonplace. It is interesting that, like Floo, Khatru has chosen examples that date to an era that the Jewish people were nomadic and small in numbers, compared with the other 'tribal nations' around them. Furthermore, he then tries to get Christians, especially, to judge the behaviour of people is such vastly different situations. Its a bit like asking 21st century atheists to condemn or condone Roman attitudes to women.
When, oh when, are you going to realise that "the examples" chosen are what people in the present day, like Floo, Khatru, and I, see as the state of Christianity and Christians as they are TODAY! Not as it and they were 2,000 years ago.
I for one can, on some subjects, see absolutely no change between the attitudes and opinions posted here and those of the bible. Antiquated, outdated, mysogynistic, sexist, homophobic, vindictive, etc, and, until you and others like you get this fact throiugh your skulls, the same things are going to be brought up agian and again.
The ball is firmly in the Christian/Christians court - do something about this or continue to be maligned as now.
(Edited for typo's)
-
Owl, cop-outs involve refusing to face the issues. Over the years, we have discussed the very examples Khatru has given on numerous occasions - often, as I pointed out, instigated by OPs from Floo - and seen that within nomadic tribes that were seeking to retain their identity such things were commonplace. It is interesting that, like Floo, Khatru has chosen examples that date to an era that the Jewish people were nomadic and small in numbers, compared with the other 'tribal nations' around them. Furthermore, he then tries to get Christians, especially, to judge the behaviour of people is such vastly different situations. Its a bit like asking 21st century atheists to condemn or condone Roman attitudes to women.
In what way is it like asking atheists about what i presume is Ancient Rome? It's supposedly the actions approved of in your holy book that are the issue. Your analogy makes no sense .
-
Dear Khatru,
All depends
Slavery, we are all slaves, slaves to the man, bloody Tories.
Genocide, a bit harsh, but rounding them up for a damn good thrashing, bloody Tories.
Incest, well that lovely Mr Cameron is a Mother******
Killing homosexuals, harsh again, but if they are Tories, then a damn good thrashing is in order.
Killing people who have sex outside of marriage, praise the Tories, well don't you pay less tax.
Killing people who opt for freedom of religion, well you can't be a Tory and a Christian, one of those poxymorons.
Killing brides who aren't virgins on their wedding night, no such thing as a virgin, we are all F***** by the Tories.
Killing your children if they curse or strike you, are these children standing with you in the queue for the foodbank, bloody Tories.
Killing people who blaspheme against your god, blaspheme, blasforyou, blasforeveryone, is Eddie Izzard a Tory.
Killing people who work on a Saturday, well if they are a meter reader and they appear at your door at 8 o'clock on a Saturday morning and you have a hangover, oh! and they happen to be a Tory.
Gonnagle.
[/quote}
Even this load of pathetic crap will not get that commie arse Corbyn elected!
It is the fact that there are only the two extremes - Tory and Labour - from which to chose that make this country like a pendulum from good to bad regardless of which side you support.
Come the revolution ALL politicians (including the amateur ones if vocal enough) will be the first against the wall! Any ideas of who will be second!
Gonners, i like you on every subject except politics.
(edited for omitted "end quote" marker)
-
Tory and Labour are not extremes.
-
Tory and Labour are not extremes.
Then WTF are they? This has got to be one of the silliest comments posted here.
-
According to what criteria?
To me it makes sense Rhiannon.
-
Then WTF are they? This has got to be one of the silliest comments posted here.
They are both fairly centrist mixed economy parties.
-
To me it makes sense Rhiannon.
Doubtless, but she's asking why you think it does.
-
Dear Owlswing,
Antiquated, me, young folk nowadays.
outdated, me again, although I would never want a return to flair trousers.
mysogynistic,misogynistic, ( think that is the right spelling ) no not me, I love women, I worship the ground they walk on, well you have to.
sexist, don't think so, but I do love a good dumb blonde joke.
homophobic, most people say I am not, but I think there are varying degrees, it's icky, then again most sex is icky, is wiping your todger on the curtains allowed, so many rules.
vindictive, most definitely not, being vindictive takes time and effort, I am a lazy bar steward.
etc, what's etc? Tory bashing, now I would join any Church that preached this from the pulpit.
Am I bored, yes, where have all the great threads gone.
Gonnagle.
-
Am I bored, yes, where have all the great threads gone.
Down the khazi with the rest of this forum.
-
Down the khazi with the rest of this forum.
Unsurprising - the standard of debate has been atrocious lately:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11565.msg589792#msg589792
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11565.msg589788#msg589788
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11565.msg589580#msg589580
-
Dear Owlswing,
Come the revolution ALL politicians (including the amateur ones if vocal enough) will be the first against the wall! Any ideas of who will be second!
Is it Christians, bet you it's Christians, well you will have to catch me first, if the ehoose polis failed, you have no chance pal.
Gonnagle.
-
Unsurprising - the standard of debate has been atrocious lately:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11565.msg589792#msg589792
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11565.msg589788#msg589788
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11565.msg589580#msg589580
What it is is atheists and pagans destroying every thread on this board. There hasn't been a decent thread on this board for years.
-
What it is is atheists and pagans destroying every thread on this board.
That may very well be what the pagans think and certainly at least one atheist thinks of your "Only Christianity interprets the seasons correctly" bullshit on the Pagan sub-forum.
There hasn't been a decent thread on this board for years.
I've seen lots of superb threads. Perhaps it's just you.
Doubtless you are in need of a forum where everybody thinks as you do, using the word loosely of course, believes as you do (what a horrendous prospect!) and never criticises or challenges you on anything, ever.
-
Doubtless, but she's asking why you think it does.
I realise that Shaker, I'm trying to find the words. I don't set myself up as an authority but it seems to me that only God can judge and he will not judge non-Christians in the same way as he will judge Christians. We cannot walk in the shoes of another and, if we believe in God, we'll believe that only He (or She if you like) can see into their hearts. This is a topic that I found very difficult at one time, I could not understand why or how some Christians - and it is only some - really thought that non-believers were somehow lost. It didn't fit in with my idea of a loving Father, or with the mercy of Jesus.
There's also the fact that people who practice a different religion are just as convinced of its validity as Christians. Generally, they don't try to convert us (radical Islam is an exception but not all Muslims are so radical), they are happy for us to be Christians so why can we not leave them alone.
Occasionally I've been labelled a ''Universalist'' (and sometimes wishy washy with it). That doesn't bother me, all I can say is, for me, Christianity works and others can seek God in their own way. There must be room for all. I would be arrogant if I thought I had all the answers just because I'm a Christian and surely God would chastise me for that.
We've gone a bit off the point of the thread though.
-
What it is is atheists and pagans destroying every thread on this board. There hasn't been a decent thread on this board for years.
If you believe that why bother to post on the forum? I doubt too many would weep buckets if you left! ::)
-
If you believe that why bother to post on the forum? I doubt too many would weep buckets if you left! ::)
I doubt it too but then I wouldn't lose any sleep over it either. Bless you, but you're just not very bright and Shaker is a poor excuse for a human being, so what either of you think (if indeed you do think) is neither here nor there.
-
I realise that Shaker, I'm trying to find the words. I don't set myself up as an authority but it seems to me that only God can judge and he will not judge non-Christians in the same way as he will judge Christians. We cannot walk in the shoes of another and, if we believe in God, we'll believe that only He (or She if you like) can see into their hearts. This is a topic that I found very difficult at one time, I could not understand why or how some Christians - and it is only some - really thought that non-believers were somehow lost. It didn't fit in with my idea of a loving Father, or with the mercy of Jesus.
There's also the fact that people who practice a different religion are just as convinced of its validity as Christians. Generally, they don't try to convert us (radical Islam is an exception but not all Muslims are so radical), they are happy for us to be Christians so why can we not leave them alone.
Occasionally I've been labelled a ''Universalist'' (and sometimes wishy washy with it). That doesn't bother me, all I can say is, for me, Christianity works and others can seek God in their own way. There must be room for all. I would be arrogant if I thought I had all the answers just because I'm a Christian and surely God would chastise me for that.
We've gone a bit off the point of the thread though.
When I was a Christian I was a universalist (small u in my case) as it was the only thing that squared with a loving god. But then that brought into question - why the cross, and the only answer that made sense for me was that a Jewish rebel was put to death by the Romans. And without a meaningful explanation for the Crucifixion Christianity loses its meaning and I lost my faith.
What puzzles me is why you think non-believers will be judged differently to believers. For non-belief or for their behaviour?
-
I doubt it too but then I wouldn't lose any sleep over it either. Bless you, but you're just not very bright and Shaker is a poor excuse for a human being, so what either of you think (if indeed you do think) is neither here nor there.
Whilst I might not be in the top drawer intelligence wise, I have been around those who are all my life, so I know who is, and who isn't. Sorry to tell you dear, you don't make it into the bottom drawer. ;D
Anyway we had better stop this banter, or Gordon will spank our bottoms! ;D
-
I doubt it too but then I wouldn't lose any sleep over it either. Bless you, but you're just not very bright and Shaker is a poor excuse for a human being, so what either of you think (if indeed you do think) is neither here nor there.
This from an anti-Semitic misogynistic homophobe.
-
This from an anti-Semitic misogynistic homophobe.
Wrong on all three, now piss off!
-
Wrong on all three, now piss off!
You might want to work on your debating skills there, ad-o.
-
When I was a Christian I was a universalist (small u in my case) as it was the only thing that squared with a loving god. But then that brought into question - why the cross, and the only answer that made sense for me was that a Jewish rebel was put to death by the Romans. And without a meaningful explanation for the Crucifixion Christianity loses its meaning and I lost my faith.
What puzzles me is why you think non-believers will be judged differently to believers. For non-belief or for their behaviour?
They will be judged on what they know and their behaviour. God will meet all of us where we are. The Bible says that God will judge righteously and, from memory, Paul says something along the lines that those who do not know ''the law'' cannot be judged in the same way as those who do.
I think 'universalist' with a small 'u' is a fair description of my beliefs, I was always deeply disturbed by some Christians - and churches - because of their attitude to non-Christians. After many years of searching and agonising, I truly believe that the Lord has given me peace about this.
-
You might want to work on your debating skills there, ad-o.
What debating skills - he gets pushed into a coener and he has only two replies - Piss Off or Fuck Off!
You got the first and I the second!
We are brother a sister in adversity against anti-Semetism, misogyny, homophobia and ulta-OrthodoxChristianity!
-
What it is is atheists and pagans destroying every thread on this board. There hasn't been a decent thread on this board for years.
And yet you still post here.
-
Wrong on all three, now piss off!
Great post Ad O. Soon this thread will be a shining example.
-
Great post Ad O. Soon this thread will be a shining example.
As I said, there hasn't been anything of quality on this forum for years.
-
As I said, there hasn't been anything of quality on this forum for years.
That includes, and may well be because of, you!
P S - I know, I know - I can fuck off! (saves you having to type it - you might misspell it)
-
What debating skills - he gets pushed into a coener and he has only two replies - Piss Off or Fuck Off!
You got the first and I the second!
We are brother a sister in adversity against anti-Semetism, misogyny, homophobia and ulta-OrthodoxChristianity!
Swearing is my frustration at this forum. I have gone into this before. There are hundreds of threads with different titles here but ultimately only one topic because they all get diverted by the usual suspects. It really is just a load of old pony. There's no point to it at all. Force of habit is the only thing that brings me here. What could I do to get banned?
-
That includes, and may well be because of, you!
P S - I know, I know - I can fuck off! (saves you having to type it - you might misspell it)
Or you. You are one of the thread derailers.
-
Swearing is my frustration at this forum. I have gone into this before. There are hundreds of threads with different titles here but ultimately only one topic because they all get diverted by the usual suspects. It really is just a load of old pony. There's no point to it at all. Force of habit is the only thing that brings me here. What could I do to get banned?
Fuck the Virgin Mary?
-
Swearing is my frustration at this forum. I have gone into this before. There are hundreds of threads with different titles here but ultimately only one topic because they all get diverted by the usual suspects. It really is just a load of old pony. There's no point to it at all. Force of habit is the only thing that brings me here. What could I do to get banned?
So.
Why.
Are.
You.
Still.
Here?
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see you go, you represent a worthy foe, but if you hate it so much, why hang around?
-
This is all so exciting! Wish I could join in the BS but the geranium seedling need potting up and there is a bit of lint in my belly button that needs to be picked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO8gAvl59Kw
-
What it is is atheists and pagans destroying every thread on this board. There hasn't been a decent thread on this board for years.
There are plenty of good threads and if you are not interested in one you don't have to respond, none of us do. You can find one that's up your street, start one of your own or have a break. Any of those alternatives is surely better than having a slanging match with people you don't really know. You wouldn't be telling your colleagues or neighbours where to go.
-
So.
Why.
Are.
You.
Still.
Here?
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see you go, you represent a worthy foe, but if you hate it so much, why hang around?
Force of habit and a hope (a fool's hope, no doubt) that this forum might actually change.
-
There are plenty of good threads and if you are not interested in one you don't have to respond, none of us do. You can find one that's up your street, start one of your own or have a break. Any of those alternatives is surely better than having a slanging match with people you don't really know. You wouldn't be telling your colleagues or neighbours where to go.
I've tried starting threads of my own but they always end up getting derailed by the usual suspects as well.
-
I've tried starting threads of my own but they always end up getting derailed by the usual suspects as well.
According to your profile you are only 40, so don't you have a job?
-
According to your profile you are only 40, so don't you have a job?
Aye, I do. Some of us have to work for a living.
-
A straw-man argument is all about deliberately mis-representing someone's position in order to make them look weak.
I'm trying to find out believers positions.
What I'm getting from them are metaphorical somersaults and backflips. Anything but answer the question.
And all you have done, Khat, is select specific actions that from a 21st century Western outlook seem questionable but which in the context of the historical era the material records would have been normal, wherever they had occurred. A priceless piece of misrepresentation on your behalf - hence Humph's reference to a straw man.
-
Aye, I do. Some of us have to work for a living.
So unless you are self employed how come you can spend so much time on this forum?
-
So unless you are self employed how come you can spend so much time on this forum?
Because most of my work involves sitting in front of a computer. And yes, my boss knows. Using the internet is a privilege we have on the condition we do our work properly.
-
Because most of my work involves sitting in front of a computer. And yes, my boss knows. Using the internet is a privilege we have on the condition we do our work properly.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!
-
Perhaps he has a job where his superiors don't check up on his computer actiivity floo. Or he could do shift work and cannot sleep during the day. Edit: I see ad-o has replied to you while I was typing this so now we know.
ad-o, try and work out why the threads you started were derailed - do you lay down the law, are you inflexible, self-righteous, condemnatory? Plenty of posters disagree with eachother's pov but remain civil, cordial even.
-
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!
I know your views on this and I'm glad you're not anyone's boss. Most bosses, however, aren't slave drivers.
-
Perhaps he has a job where his superiors don't check up on his computer actiivity floo. Or he could do shift work and cannot sleep during the day. Edit: I see ad-o has replied to you while I was typing this so now we know.
ad-o, try and work out why the threads you started were derailed - do you lay down the law, are you inflexible, self-righteous, condemnatory? Plenty of posters disagree with eachother's pov but remain civil, cordial even.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11076.0
-
It's a simple enough question but it seems to cause you problems.
What is it with believers and their reluctance to answer questions?
Unlike the believers, I think most unbelievers will always try to answer a question posed by another person, regardless of the question, or indeed, who is posing it.
Will we always answer it to complete satisfaction?
The god of the Bible carries out The god of the Bible carries out acts of genocide and approves of killing homosexuals,
people who have sex outside of marriage as well as people who practice freedom of
religion
Do you condemn the Bible god's actions?
Do you approve of the Bible god's actions?
I have a question for you and other unbelievers....
Who carried the acts of genocide and approves of killing homosexuals,
people who have sex outside of marriage as well as people who practice freedom of
religion?
My problem is that the bible tells us why God acts. But if as atheists you believe there is no god then who really carried out these actions? More importantly why did human beings carry these things out.
You see in Sodom and Gomorrah those committing acts of homosexuality were literally running their town in fear.
19 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
Would you risk such things happening again?
Lot was a religious man and he tried to protect those men who were angels.
How come the atheists the godless did not want to protect them?
It would appear the homosexuals here were evil men and wanted to rape strangers.
Did Lot do right or should he have left them to the hands of those who would harm them.
And you, you and other men like you, would you have wanted what was meant for those men/angels to happen to you?
How many innocent people had already died?
God rescues the innocent the family of Abraham and allows those who did and allowed these things to happen to Perish.
If you were trained in the art of killing and you were about to be ganged raped would you kill or be raped?
When it comes to genocide...
The Jews between 1939 and 1945 were slaughtered.
In Egypt King James Bible
And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.
Genocide is a fact of history for many reasons. Man committing his own evil.
The trouble with a poll by an atheist/pagan or even a different religion cannot ever blame God for something man has done naturally by his own nature since time and memorial.
You see Gods actions are based on saving all in the long run.
But if men are responsible without God then you have to count yourself in those words.
The Human beings of the Bible and world carries out acts of genocide and approves of killing homosexuals,
people who have sex outside of marriage as well as people who practice freedom of
religion
You want to blame anyone then your lack of religion means you can only blame your own kind.
Really silly to have your soul cast into hell for complaining about your own evil.. Laughable even for using it as reason not to believe and condemn God. Jesus Christ shows that God want people to live, without suffering and without evil.
You lose!
-
Sass all that is a fairy tale, it isn't credible! ::)
-
Great post Ad O. Soon this thread will be a shining example.
An example of his shining wit. Excuse the Spoonerism.
-
Sass all that is a fairy tale, it isn't credible! ::)
Some of what she says is common sense, we would try to protect ourselves in any way we could if we were in a violent situation, it's natural. Lot was protecting strangers - or if you don't believe Lot actually existed, the story of Lot is about protecting strangers from hostile people. The potential violence that was the point, could have manifested itself in any way Rape is particularly violent.
I'm not sure about Khatru condemning himself to Hell, that's a bit strong for me. There's always hope and on a forum like this, everything has to be challenged. We should welcome it, it makes us think. Sassy will probably disagree with me on that one but that's OK, we don't have to agree on everything.
I very much liked Sassy's post on the Part 2 thread.
-
We really don't need to be told about the prevailing social economics/culture/morality of the day.
You clearly need to be, since you seem to be ignoring the fact that nomadic and settled life place very different pressures on society and require different types of punishment to be meted out to those who fail to follow the prevailing social codes.
The fact is that you refuse to condemn the murderous acts carried out by the Bible god which is why you appear to favour the following:
Slavery
Genocide
Incest
Killing homosexuals
Killing people who have sex outside of marriage
Killing people who opt for freedom of religion
Killing brides who aren't virgins on their wedding night (and the men who caused the situation the women find themselves in)
Killing your children if they curse or strike you
Killing people who blaspheme against your god
Killing people who work on a Saturday
Of course, you only favour the items in the above list when you believe them to be divinely endorsed. Otherwise you'd be the first to condemn. Right?
The problem with this suggestion is that it is flawed in at least 3 ways: firstly, you are extremely selective in your choice of what you accuse me and others of 'appearing to be in favour of'; the God you are referring to outlines a whole host of actions that the Jewish people had to follow/adhere to - which include the actions I've listed in my parallel thread and which you seem not to approve of. I appreciate that you can't afford to refer to such things as they contradict your chosen position (the term hypocricy comes to mind): secondly, you over-generalise things that you want to dislike - for instance, there is no instruction to "Kill people who blaspheme against your god" - if, instead of 'people' you'd used 'Jew' you'd have been closer to reality (after all, the Old Testament is the 'law-book' for the Jewish people - not for the Babylonians or the Canaanites): thirdly, you have concentrated on the Old Testament laws. As a Christian living in Britain, I'm no more answerable to the Jewish legal system, than I'm answerable to the Russian system.
-
Sass all that is a fairy tale, it isn't credible! ::)
Sorry, Floo; if as Sass points out, there is no god - as you like to suggest is the case - it has to be humanity who is responsible for the actions that Khat wants us to consider.
-
...or if you don't believe Lot actually existed, the story of Lot is about protecting strangers from hostile people.
It should probably be noted that modern biblical scholarship regards the Sodom and Gomorrah incident as one of breaking the traditional belief that hospitality shoud be extended to strangers. I'm sure that most here would agree that seeking to abuse strangers sexually isn't all that hospitable.
-
I agree, I thought I said that in a roundabout way actually, maybe I wasn't clear. The would-be rapists were breaking the tradition which Lot was trying to uphold.
-
I would love to counter the dreadful summary in the OP of this thread by recalling just how and why Christianity began.
Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed, “the smallest of all the seeds on the earth. But once it is sown, it springs up and becomes the largest of plants…so that the birds of the sky can dwell in its shade” (Matthew 13:31).
The first Christians understood Jesus to be speaking of his Church, the mystical body that began in the smallest way, but has come in time to be home to the nations of the world. The mustard seed of the Church began with a thirty-year-old man, dying on an instrument of torture, his disciples having fled, and his enemies mocking him. But it grew into the Body of Christ composed of billions of people in every country on the planet, and many more in heaven.
So the ultimate question from the message of the bible should be:
Do you believe Jesus died for you?
-
Simple! Ignore him, and he would get bored and leave us to it.
So if he was shown to exist you would ignore him.
I think that anybody with a bit of scientific curiosity couldn't.....oh I was forgetting that at your recent recantation of free will in front of Nearly Sane and Hillside (The inquisition) you said you didn't really do science.
-
Simple! Ignore him, and he would get bored and leave us to it.
Oh so he isn't the tyrant you said he was a couple of days ago.................................that's really consistent of you Ha Ha.
-
I have a question for you and other unbelievers....
Who carried the acts of genocide and approves of killing homosexuals,
people who have sex outside of marriage as well as people who practice freedom of
religion?
My problem is that the bible tells us why God acts. But if as atheists you believe there is no god then who really carried out these actions? More importantly why did human beings carry these things out.
You see in Sodom and Gomorrah those committing acts of homosexuality were literally running their town in fear.
Would you risk such things happening again?
Lot was a religious man and he tried to protect those men who were angels.
How come the atheists the godless did not want to protect them?
It would appear the homosexuals here were evil men and wanted to rape strangers.
Did Lot do right or should he have left them to the hands of those who would harm them.
And you, you and other men like you, would you have wanted what was meant for those men/angels to happen to you?
How many innocent people had already died?
God rescues the innocent the family of Abraham and allows those who did and allowed these things to happen to Perish.
If you were trained in the art of killing and you were about to be ganged raped would you kill or be raped?
When it comes to genocide...
The Jews between 1939 and 1945 were slaughtered.
In Egypt King James BibleGenocide is a fact of history for many reasons. Man committing his own evil.
The trouble with a poll by an atheist/pagan or even a different religion cannot ever blame God for something man has done naturally by his own nature since time and memorial.
You see Gods actions are based on saving all in the long run.
But if men are responsible without God then you have to count yourself in those words.
You want to blame anyone then your lack of religion means you can only blame your own kind.
Really silly to have your soul cast into hell for complaining about your own evil.. Laughable even for using it as reason not to believe and condemn God. Jesus Christ shows that God want people to live, without suffering and without evil.
You lose!
All the acts you seem to be referring to were and are carried out by human beings, I would have thought that was obvious. Usually such acts were carried out because of strong intolerances towards people who were considered 'different' or didn't conform in some way, according to the prevalent ideologies of those who were either in control or who had the necessary clout to impose their views upon others.
I would not want to be any part of any such intolerant and rigid ideology. Unfortunately belief in such ideolologies has at times equally included those of a religious nature as well as those who are not.
Your last paragraph really has little meaning for me, because my non belief in any god is not founded upon any such ideas, but upon what I see as the total lack of evidence that any god exists. Hence the idea that I condemn some actual God is ridiculous, because I have no reason to believe that He exists. What would be the point of condemning something that means nothing to me?
I do, however, reserve the right to challenge and condemn those who show bigotry and intolerance especially when it leads to harm towards others, and that also might well include those of a religious persuasion. Why even your New Testament at times doesn't seem averse to intolerance:
E.G. 2 Thessalonians Ch 1 V6-9.
:)
-
Oh so he isn't the tyrant you said he was a couple of days ago.................................that's really consistent of you Ha Ha.
He doesn't exist, but if he did he would be an evil tyrant if the Bible stories about him were true.
It's all a load of bullshit, and fools only the gullible.
-
He doesn't exist, but if he did he would be an evil tyrant if the Bible stories about him were true.
It's all a load of bullshit, and fools only the gullible.
But you say that if you ignored him he would go away, How can he be a tyrant and something you can ignore?
-
But you say that if you ignored him he would go away, How can he be a tyrant and something you can ignore?
I was speaking to the gullible people who believe he DOES exist ... like you!
-
I was speaking to the gullible people who believe he DOES exist ... like you!
Interesting, so are you saying that if he did exist he would necessarily be a tyrant.....and the reason you ignore him is that he doesn't exist?
Couldn't he exist and let you ignore him?
At the moment you seem to be saying that he doesn't exist because you are ignoring him.
-
I have a question for you and other unbelievers....
Who carried the acts of genocide and approves of killing homosexuals,
people who have sex outside of marriage as well as people who practice freedom of
religion?
My problem is that the bible tells us why God acts. But if as atheists you believe there is no god then who really carried out these actions? More importantly why did human beings carry these things out.
You see in Sodom and Gomorrah those committing acts of homosexuality were literally running their town in fear.
Would you risk such things happening again?
Lot was a religious man and he tried to protect those men who were angels.
How come the atheists the godless did not want to protect them?
It would appear the homosexuals here were evil men and wanted to rape strangers.
Did Lot do right or should he have left them to the hands of those who would harm them.
And you, you and other men like you, would you have wanted what was meant for those men/angels to happen to you?
How many innocent people had already died?
God rescues the innocent the family of Abraham and allows those who did and allowed these things to happen to Perish.
If you were trained in the art of killing and you were about to be ganged raped would you kill or be raped?
When it comes to genocide...
The Jews between 1939 and 1945 were slaughtered.
In Egypt King James BibleGenocide is a fact of history for many reasons. Man committing his own evil.
The trouble with a poll by an atheist/pagan or even a different religion cannot ever blame God for something man has done naturally by his own nature since time and memorial.
You see Gods actions are based on saving all in the long run.
But if men are responsible without God then you have to count yourself in those words.
You want to blame anyone then your lack of religion means you can only blame your own kind.
Really silly to have your soul cast into hell for complaining about your own evil.. Laughable even for using it as reason not to believe and condemn God. Jesus Christ shows that God want people to live, without suffering and without evil.
You lose!
You're missing the point. How can I blame something which I don't believe exists?
What I said is that your belief system has you defending genocide (amongst other things). I was right.
Of course I blame my own kind for the acts of genocide that have taken place throughout history. Who else is there to blame? An invisible sky pixie? Wait a minute.... :)
Your post is a shining example of the divisive nature of Christianity. How does your mantra go? "You're either with us or you're damned"? Something like that.
Your god's actions are based on "saving all in the long run"?
Saving all from what?
From poverty? From tyranny?
You also mention the Jews and their slaughter at the hands of a Christian nation.
Remember Anne Frank? I'm sure you do - she was Jewish and she wrote a famous diary.
The innocence and hope in her diary is an inspiration and despite all that she went through. She wrote lines like:
"In spite of everything I still believe that people are truly good at heart"
"Everyone has inside of him a piece of good news. The good news is that you don't know how great you can be! How much you can love! What you can accomplish! And what your potential is!"
"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before beginning to improve the world."
She died at the age of fifteen in a death camp ran by a nation that was populated by an overwhelming Christian majority.
What was her crime? Like millions of believers the world over, she was born into and adopted the faith of her parents and culture and for that she had to die and that's that.
Well, actually, no, that's not that.
Why?
Because according to your belief system, Anne Frank is now in hell alongside Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. Anne never accepted Jesus and for that she must be tortured for all eternity.
And you say I'm evil
-
You're missing the point. How can I blame something which I don't believe exists?
What I said is that your belief system has you defending genocide (amongst other things). I was right.
Of course I blame my own kind for the acts of genocide that have taken place throughout history. Who else is there to blame? An invisible sky pixie? Wait a minute.... :)
Your post is a shining example of the divisive nature of Christianity. How does your mantra go? "You're either with us or you're damned"? Something like that.
Your god's actions are based on "saving all in the long run"?
Saving all from what?
From poverty? From tyranny?
You also mention the Jews and their slaughter at the hands of a Christian nation.
Remember Anne Frank? I'm sure you do - she was Jewish and she wrote a famous diary.
The innocence and hope in her diary is an inspiration and despite all that she went through. She wrote lines like:
"In spite of everything I still believe that people are truly good at heart"
"Everyone has inside of him a piece of good news. The good news is that you don't know how great you can be! How much you can love! What you can accomplish! And what your potential is!"
"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before beginning to improve the world."
She died at the age of fifteen in a death camp ran by a nation that was populated by an overwhelming Christian majority.
What was her crime? Like millions of believers the world over, she was born into and adopted the faith of her parents and culture and for that she had to die and that's that.
Well, actually, no, that's not that.
Why?
Because according to your belief system, Anne Frank is now in hell alongside Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. Anne never accepted Jesus and for that she must be tortured for all eternity.
And you say I'm evil
I don't......Your probably not completely potty either.......just pottesque.
-
For crying out loud, can you not simply put "Post # whatever" and then your comment instead of copying the entire bloody thing only to tack a few words on the end?
-
You clearly need to be, since you seem to be ignoring the fact that nomadic and settled life place very different pressures on society and require different types of punishment to be meted out to those who fail to follow the prevailing social codes.
The problem with this suggestion is that it is flawed in at least 3 ways: firstly, you are extremely selective in your choice of what you accuse me and others of 'appearing to be in favour of'; the God you are referring to outlines a whole host of actions that the Jewish people had to follow/adhere to - which include the actions I've listed in my parallel thread and which you seem not to approve of. I appreciate that you can't afford to refer to such things as they contradict your chosen position (the term hypocricy comes to mind): secondly, you over-generalise things that you want to dislike - for instance, there is no instruction to "Kill people who blaspheme against your god" - if, instead of 'people' you'd used 'Jew' you'd have been closer to reality (after all, the Old Testament is the 'law-book' for the Jewish people - not for the Babylonians or the Canaanites): thirdly, you have concentrated on the Old Testament laws. As a Christian living in Britain, I'm no more answerable to the Jewish legal system, than I'm answerable to the Russian system.
Nomadic and settled life and associated social/cultures are different? Yes, they certainly are.
In any event, I'd say that ultimately it boils down to race/ethnicity. What with the constant claims that the Jews are the Bible god's chosen people, it's as if the Bible has its own Jim Crow Laws. Does the god of the Bible tell his people to live in peace and harmony with other ethnic groups? Nope, instead he instructs them to show no mercy and kill, smite and utterly destroy. "Thou shalt make no covenant with them nor show mercy unto them. Neither shalt thou make marriages with them." There's nothing that's remotely good about this and it certainly exceeds the worst excesses of anything the KKK ever did.
I fully accept I've been selective with my original post. Then, that's just what Christians do when they cherry-pick pieces of scripture to beat us non-believers about the head with.
Yes, the Bible does tell us that it's death to blasphemers:
"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ... he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him."
Leviticus 24:13-16
I have focused on the OT but then again, so do many Christians when it suits them. Yet if all this divine murder and mayhem is so abhorrent to you, why not tear out those pages from your Bible?
A holy book with instructions to kill people isn't much cop.
-
Dear Shaker,
For crying out loud,
Don't you mean, oh for Gods sake!!
But I think Vlad was right to quote the whole post, it was a good post, filled with good old fashioned atheist angst, I liked the post and I think Vlad enjoyed it to.
Dear Khatru,
Good post.
"Everyone has inside of him a piece of good news. The good news is that you don't know how great you can be! How much you can love! What you can accomplish! And what your potential is!"
Gonnagle.
-
I don't......Your probably not completely potty either.......just pottesque.
It helps!
However, I draw a line at talking snakes and donkeys. ;)
-
It helps!
However, I draw a line at talking snakes and donkeys. ;)
Why stop at berating them too?..............
-
Dear Shaker,
Don't you mean, oh for Gods sake!!
But I think Vlad was right to quote the whole post, it was a good post, filled with good old fashioned atheist angst, I liked the post and I think Vlad enjoyed it to.
Dear Khatru,
Good post.
Gonnagle.
Thanks!