Strand [2821241]

Interesting that you won't respond to my post about taking the words of scripture in their historical context. Makes it seem like you're pursuing an agenda rather than here for a debate that could end up teaching you something.

If you read more of Exodus and Leviticus beyond just the laws you've cherry-picked, you'll find mention of offerings and sacrifices one could make in order to be reconciled and avoid further punishment. Perhaps the looming threat of harsh penalties was designed to ensure that people would be motivated to make amends for their sins rather than go on living in their unclean state. I'm willing to bet that most people would rather buy and sacrifice a bull than be stoned.

Anyway, your point is moot because of the New Testament, which fulfills the Old. Jesus' sacrifice negated the need for any further offering of purification, for no sacrifice could surpass his own. Through his teachings and his sacrifice he also nullified the need for anyone to die for their sins. So don't pretend there's some Biblical mandate on Christians to stone anyone.

ElHeffe [2564022]

Liar.

Just be honest instead of digging your hole deeper. There's no historical content. Either it's the Word of God or it's not. There's no footnotes that say "oh, this is just a metaphor".

"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." Matthew 5:18

Not one jot of law has changed. Not one tittle of the law has changed.

“A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” Exodus 22:19.

That's not a suggestion, it's not an idea. It IS a mandate. That's the morality of the Bible. Oh yeah - feed and clothe the poor by all means. But also stone mediums to death.

The fact is that the Bible is just a buffet to people. They pick the bits they like and they ignore the bits they don't. People make up their own moral mode and then they look for justification for it.
Same with the point I made earlier about people inheriting their parents religion. There's no one in the world who believes in God because of the cosmological argument. You believed because you're softheaded and then went looking for a bunch of logical hoops to jump though to justify the thing you already believed.

We ALL make up our own moral codes.

Violence [2603171]

This threads been resurrected again??



Why bother? You have your beliefs, you want to bang on about how super wonderful they are and how much of the book you can use in lieu of actual debating skills.

Splendid. Let me save the casuals the time with a surmised version of the last 8 pages.


OP : I love me some jesus, he the main man .


Everyone else. Bully for you, it's not for me tho and the church actually causes a great deal of misery but you do you.


OP well in corinthians job lot banana it says "thine misery is inflicted upon you as part of his great plan to bring you closer to the divine light" Ergo I'm right and you're wrong but I'll dress this up in a wall of text so big no sane person will bother to read it properly.

I'm off to polish my halo. (BTW you're all wrong but jusus will save you after you die because that's an argument I find ultimately conclusive because I'm so squishy for the lord)


Everyone else. Mmmm hmmm. So explain again why the clergy like wearing children's sphincters as cock rings?

OP. That's not MY church......




BORING.

El_Profesor [2346077]

Do you also believe Jesus is a Palestine?

broleaf [3140943]

I fail to see the extreme distortion; I think you are just in denial. Feel free to poke a hole in the theorem I posted however.

Show post

ElHeffe [2564022]

Simple. Atheists are more moral than Christians.

Looking to a book of obvious fiction and claiming "this is where I derive my morals from is a horrible thing to do. It abandons any personal responsibility for critical thinking or governing behaviour.

A Christian can go to the Bible and simply say "I am beating my slave, but not to death. I am a good person following the teaching of the Bible". Or they might say "I know someone who has a different religion than me. I am going to stone them to death in according with the teachings of God. I am a good person". Or they might be caught committing a sexual assault on a woman so they would pay the woman's father off and then marry her thinking "I am doing the right thing".

Whereas an atheist would usually (I can't speak for all atheists) come to the conclusion that enslaving people, stoning them to death, etc are bad things because they can critically appraise those actions and realise they are bad. Not good, like you think.

Latinobull14 [2881384]

So how is the bible fiction? What proof do you have that it is total fiction? Almost all scholars and non-religious historians agree that there was a man named Jesus who did exist in the 1st century.

Also, how does the bible not allow critical thinking? If anything it greatly encourages this. Jesus in many scenarios spoke in parables. He spoke in these ways to help us think and understand the issue at hand and to analyze it and get an answer from that analysis.... which is critical thinking.

Also, the bible doesn't answer everything in life. The Bible speaks about clothing the poor and feeding the hungry. That is what the bible says. But who do I help? Do I help those struggling in Mexico, India, Canada, the Philippines, the USA, or the Remote Islands? The Bible doesn't say which one gets priority. So I have to use my judgment and my analysis of the situation to see where I should help. This is just one example of how the teachings of the bible still require analysis and judgment.

ElHeffe [2564022]

I am impressed, are you a professional contortionist by any chance?

Let me simplify my point.

The Bible quite clearly teaches that people of other religions should be stoned to death.

Now there are two issues that can be derived.

1. You think that this is the moral way to behave (Christians are instructed in morality by the Bible). So if you are not actively doing that, you're going against the teachings if God. You're a sinner and will burn in hell.

2. You don't think this is a moral way to behave. In which case you haven't derived morality from the Bible. That means it's quite possible for other people (such as atheists) to derive a moral code outside the Bible. Soz being no better than an atheist, it's the Big Fire for you.

So... should people of other religions be stoned to death?

broleaf [3140943]

1. You think that this is the moral way to behave (Christians are instructed in morality by the Bible). So if you are not actively doing that, you're going against the teachings if God. You're a sinner and will burn in hell.

Not a single man or woman alive is untouched or uncorrupted in one way or another by sin. Hence, the importance of rebirth and communion. You bring up a valid point, although however I'd respond with 'render unto Caesar' and such, dismissing your entire argument.

2. You don't think this is a moral way to behave. In which case you haven't derived morality from the Bible. That means it's quite possible for other people (such as atheists) to derive a moral code outside the Bible. Soz being no better than an atheist, it's the Big Fire for you.

Don't forget, our Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness.

So... should people of other religions be stoned to death?

Muh Render unto Caesar.

Man, did I just speak like a politician?

Lastly, my previous statements about atheists lacking moral grounding still stand.

ElHeffe [2564022]

Ah, so you are simply a moral coward, hitting the eject button when you've been demonstrated as a fool.

This has nothing to do with Caesar. This is to do with the Bible and morality. If you claim the Bible is the source of morality, then it's clear the teachings of the Bible are the moral thing to do.

I understand you might be prevented from carrying these actions out. But if you hear that someone else has stoned:

A blasphemer
An adulterer
An occultist
People who have sex before they are married

Then are you pleased that a moral action has been carried out? Either way you lose. Either you're a lunatic who thinks people should be stoned to death. Or you know people should be stoned to death because the Bible makes many, many deeply immoral pronoucements.

So you can f**k off with the "you should talk to a priest". Because it's YOU who are making these pronouncements.
And you can f**k off with your "atheists have no morals" bullshit. Because buddy, don't pretend your shit don't stink.

Violence [2603171]

.

I'll keep to my atheism thank you very much.

No luck
No gods
No heaven
No hell
No karma
No kismet
No superstitions
No prayers
No pergatory
No guilt
No sin
No torment
No judgement

Violence [2603171]

.

I'll keep to my atheism thank you very much.

No luck
No gods
No heaven
No hell
No karma
No kismet
No superstitions
No prayers
No pergatory
No guilt
No sin
No torment
No judgement

broleaf [3140943]

Staff Edit - Harassment

Violence [2603171]

.

I'll keep to my atheism thank you very much.

No luck
No gods
No heaven
No hell
No karma
No kismet
No superstitions
No prayers
No pergatory
No guilt
No sin
No torment
No judgement

broleaf [3140943]

Staff Edit - Harassment

Violence [2603171]

Broleaf...... You'll be banned soon enough so I'm not going to waste too much effort on replying to you barely literate drivel.


I will repeat one line from my original post.


If my son chooses a religion I have no issue with his choice.

Violence [2603171]

.

I'll keep to my atheism thank you very much.

No luck
No gods
No heaven
No hell
No karma
No kismet
No superstitions
No prayers
No pergatory
No guilt
No sin
No torment
No judgement

broleaf [3140943]

Staff Edit - Harassment

Violence [2603171]

.

I'll keep to my atheism thank you very much.

No luck
No gods
No heaven
No hell
No karma
No kismet
No superstitions
No prayers
No pergatory
No guilt
No sin
No torment
No judgement

Violence [2603171]

.

I'll keep to my atheism thank you very much.

No luck
No gods
No heaven
No hell
No karma
No kismet
No superstitions
No prayers
No pergatory
No guilt
No sin
No torment
No judgement

broleaf [3140943]

Staff Edit - Harassment

EverleighRaven [2949890]

I do not think it is necessarily a bad thing for a minor to be attracted to another minor (obviously depending on age and maturity and other factors as well.) What do you think is an approximate appropriate age range for minors and children to date each other?

Edit: ok so before it said child attracted minor so I was confused.

Violence [2603171]

.

I'll keep to my atheism thank you very much.

No luck
No gods
No heaven
No hell
No karma
No kismet
No superstitions
No prayers
No pergatory
No guilt
No sin
No torment
No judgement

Latinobull14 [2881384]

Again you are wrong. My point to your view of me are not a rewording or a politer version of your saying. It’s contradictory of what you are saying.


You said I’m here for pride,(polishing my halo) and how much I can use the book, but it’s the exact opposite which I explained.


You used the example of how I would avoid speaking about bad “Christian example” and I gave you my answer on those touchy subjects and how I don’t avoid touchy subjects.


How are they the same?

Now if you are really true to your atheism, that means you believe in subjective morality. Your idea of good is different from my idea of good, which is different to Hitlers idea of good. Since there is no objective morality, no sin, then we can not judge other people version of good. So if your son wants to join a cult, if that’s his idea of good then you can’t judge him for that.


If you can agree with that statement then you are true to your atheism.
If you can’t agree with that, then you have to verify if you really believe what you are claiming.

Violence [2603171]

.

I'll keep to my atheism thank you very much.

No luck
No gods
No heaven
No hell
No karma
No kismet
No superstitions
No prayers
No pergatory
No guilt
No sin
No torment
No judgement

Latinobull14 [2881384]

Again you are wrong. My point to your view of me are not a rewording or a politer version of your saying. It’s contradictory of what you are saying.


You said I’m here for pride,(polishing my halo) and how much I can use the book, but it’s the exact opposite which I explained.


You used the example of how I would avoid speaking about bad “Christian example” and I gave you my answer on those touchy subjects and how I don’t avoid touchy subjects.


How are they the same?

Now if you are really true to your atheism, that means you believe in subjective morality. Your idea of good is different from my idea of good, which is different to Hitlers idea of good. Since there is no objective morality, no sin, then we can not judge other people version of good. So if your son wants to join a cult, if that’s his idea of good then you can’t judge him for that.


If you can agree with that statement then you are true to your atheism.
If you can’t agree with that, then you have to verify if you really believe what you are claiming.

Violence [2603171]

.

I'll keep to my atheism thank you very much.

No luck
No gods
No heaven
No hell
No karma
No kismet
No superstitions
No prayers
No pergatory
No guilt
No sin
No torment
No judgement

Latinobull14 [2881384]

Again you are wrong. My point to your view of me are not a rewording or a politer version of your saying. It’s contradictory of what you are saying.


You said I’m here for pride,(polishing my halo) and how much I can use the book, but it’s the exact opposite which I explained.


You used the example of how I would avoid speaking about bad “Christian example” and I gave you my answer on those touchy subjects and how I don’t avoid touchy subjects.


How are they the same?

Now if you are really true to your atheism, that means you believe in subjective morality. Your idea of good is different from my idea of good, which is different to Hitlers idea of good. Since there is no objective morality, no sin, then we can not judge other people version of good. So if your son wants to join a cult, if that’s his idea of good then you can’t judge him for that.


If you can agree with that statement then you are true to your atheism.
If you can’t agree with that, then you have to verify if you really believe what you are claiming.

broleaf [3140943]

They don't like what is pure because they know they're ugly; it triggers their insecurity. That's why they spit such hostility.

Violence [2603171]

.

I'll keep to my atheism thank you very much.

No luck
No gods
No heaven
No hell
No karma
No kismet
No superstitions
No prayers
No pergatory
No guilt
No sin
No torment
No judgement

Latinobull14 [2881384]

Again you are wrong. My point to your view of me are not a rewording or a politer version of your saying. It’s contradictory of what you are saying.


You said I’m here for pride,(polishing my halo) and how much I can use the book, but it’s the exact opposite which I explained.


You used the example of how I would avoid speaking about bad “Christian example” and I gave you my answer on those touchy subjects and how I don’t avoid touchy subjects.


How are they the same?

Now if you are really true to your atheism, that means you believe in subjective morality. Your idea of good is different from my idea of good, which is different to Hitlers idea of good. Since there is no objective morality, no sin, then we can not judge other people version of good. So if your son wants to join a cult, if that’s his idea of good then you can’t judge him for that.


If you can agree with that statement then you are true to your atheism.
If you can’t agree with that, then you have to verify if you really believe what you are claiming.

broleaf [3140943]

They don't like what is pure because they know they're ugly; it triggers their insecurity. That's why they spit such hostility.

EverleighRaven [2949890]

What do you mean by this? I don't understand. Can you explain to me what is pure and what is ugly, and what their insecurities are?

Callaghan [1316121]

This thread is embarrassing to read. I'm just going to drop in to remind Christians that those who assume the position of "teacher" will be judged to higher standards when the time comes, and remind atheists that "sky daddy" is an unoriginal insult.