Tony1 loves to thump the Bible, well here thump through this:

KalvinB

I'm not going to call you a pathetic "intellectual" turd since I'm yet to see some intellect but, your a f@#cking idiot, there's just no way around it.

Just playing by your rules KalvinB.........


My apologies to everyone else, Kalvin threw that same line at me not so long ago, and after reading that last post I couldn't resist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can play by whatever rules you like. If you want to insult me go ahead. I suppose I deserve it.

What was the point of your post?

You thought my last post was unintelligent, why is that? The last two posts I've seen directed at me from you were just quick insults with no real explaination. That's hardly my style or my rules.

Ben

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks Tiassa, Rambler and anyone else for making this an interesting thred.

Warning this post is long!!.

Thanks Tiassa, for your support in this debates, I like to point out to Calvin I’ve no grudge against you, nor do I disrespect you for your believes, I’m the only atheist in my family, and I still love my mother, brothers, & sister. Even my girlfriend is a Catholic, and I truly love this woman.
However when I posted, for what you called on me that the post was too long. Hey!! I honestly tell you man I’ve been learning how to use this thing computers, I’ve learned from my girlfriends daughter how to do cut & paste. LOL. So when I went to the cite I actually made a mistake of copying too much of the debate on Original Sin. However I did proceed when I found more cites with inconsistencies in the bible to cut and paste those too. And why not? the whole point is that the Christian faith is based in this book, and it is said is the word of god, so how can there be contradictions? You of course refute against this, even though they are shown clearly. How many times has this book been rewritten throughout history? How many versions are they? For one I own the Gideons bible and I do read it occasionally but not as you do, only as a historical literature of the Hebrew people and for references when debating.

Anyhow to the point at hand, “Faith” is an attack upon reason; Reason Vs Faith
George H. Smith wrote in his book, “Atheism The Case Against God” exactly what we are debating on, I won’t bore you with it, however I do like to point out, that it is true. Faith is unreasonable, you the believer does not understand, nor has any comprehension of what you are faced with, it is not the task of the unbeliever to demonstrate to you that there is not a god, it is the job of the theist, to prove with empirical evidence that such an entity exists, not evidence based on feelings, nor the unexplainable universe. Because god would not be able to stand upon a metaphysical premise. Of course the theist claims that god is above metaphysics which is an insult to reason and logic.

I know that to convince you to see it any other way is irrefutable, however take a look around you, and ask yourself why such atrocities that have recently has happened to N.Y. & Washington was allowed by this god of yours? Why do the believers of Islam, their god to whom they pray to have victory over your god? Can’t you see that in light of what has happened lately in this country is based on religious beliefs? Religions have cause war all along history, study that and begin to realize that all we are fighting is ideas. Who’s right? who’s wrong? One world religion, which one? which is the true religion?. Yes it is right it has been 3000 years of fighting within humanity for a supreme ideal, a supreme religious belief, and in light of what has happened, it will be the end to us all.

Unless we grow, I’ve a friend atheist of mine explained it to me like this: Religion is the table, humanity is the baby that needs it to stand upon it, atheism is the child, that is learning to walk.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who are you to decide when and if someone is out of control? From what I see Godless started this thread. He should have the right to conduct it as he sees fit. No one forced you to respond. I see now the reason you chose to respond though, it was on the basis of trying to control something that was out of your control. You could not resist that urge.

 

At least we're clearing up a couple of issues

That's an important acknowledgement, and one of these days I'll take you up on the sidebar of Christianity apparently being the only reason to be nice or civil. But, in the meantime, as long as you recognize that you're forsaking your Christianity for your pride, I'm happy. Of course, Christians aren't perfect, says the bumper-sticker, but they are forgiven. So it seems there no reason for you to be nice or civil, either, since Jesus will forgive you.

A) It matters not whether you ever picked the issue; it's your own citation that you're offering to justify your demands that Godless restate the issue according to our fancy.

B) You quite obviously do not go with whatever someone wants to go with. I will not actually call you an intellectual turd, because that's uncivil, unnecessary, and probably inaccurate in most facets of your intellect. However, you have just given me license to note that you're a liar.

Are you the whole of Christianity? Didn't think so. I'll note here that for there being only one way to the father, there's over a billion ways prescribed by individual Christians. Since there's one way, I wonder when Christians are going to agree on what that is other than vague terms. I live in Seattle: how do I get to Florida?
"Go southeast, it's the one way." Okay. Well, if I go improperly southeast, I'll land in Louisiana, Georgia, or a host of places that aren't Disneyworld. Now, indeed, I can pick discrepancies between two different Christians' responses to an issue; we see such disagreements even here with our Christian posters. However, as you had offered a web site to speak on your behalf, I feel justified in noting the problem with Christian rhetoric in general, and that's the contradiction in question there. Since you have chosen to not actually answer the issues, I cannot cite any contradictions between your answers.

A) Who said you said that? What part of Thou shall not kill is difficult? I'd ask the Amelekites for their opinion, but God told His people to take care of them. I suppose I could ask a prophet; if he is alive, he must still be right since Thou shall kill him if he's wrong. (And since you're so concerned about justifying your own self, let me note that the Thou in this paragraph is a general and rhetorical one, and not meant to imply you specifically.)

And here we see you restating and manipulating the issue. It isn't about why God can kill and we can't. Such a restatement of the issue is pathetic, typical, and expected of the faith; the simple fact is that after ordering Thou shall not kill, God has apparently rescinded that order on occasion, and also in general. Apparently, that commandment was a mistake.

Hey, as a former Satanist, I can understand how special it can make you feel to decide who "deserves" your respect. I must admit that I find it strange that I've outgrown that sentiment, and you seem to revel in a Satanic creed while defending Christianity ... excuse me, while being self-righteous instead of actually dealing with issues related to your faith.

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Why can God say "thou shalt not kill" and then kill or order one to kill?

Why can the government throw people in jail for killing but then go to war and kill people? Or shoot people in "self defense?" Why does the government have the right to kill someone but we the casual citizen don't unless enlisted in the defences and ordered by the government?

One kills outside of the law (wrong) one kills inside of the law (just).

The law states that if a prophet lies then the punishment is death.

The law states that if you break the law "thou shalt not kill" the punishment is death.

crime and punishment. There is a difference. God issues a just retribution to those who commit certain crimes. The end may be the same by the motive is far different.

"Thou shalt not steal"

It's okay for the government to take the possesions of a criminal but not okay for the criminal to take the possessions of a store?

The end in both situtions is "theft" (the taking of something that is not yours) except one is done inside the law and the other outside.

There are plenty of moral delemas when you only define a sin by the action. Motive plays a huge role in defining what is good and what is bad.

Ben

 

It's an interesting angle

So essentially you're justifying God by asserting the laws of mankind?

In the United States, the answer to that question is because we, the People, authorize our government to do so.

I take it then that God can behave this way because human beings give him permission?

I thought I was the one who asserted that humans invented God ... your justifications seem to reflect that assertion. To be honest, it's a fairly unique perspective you've offered; I must admit that I generally don't expect Christians to admit this.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's a circular argument.

God instituted the ideas I presented in the OT. Government was based off of those ideas. Since God sees it as okay then it's okay for the government to do it. Since the government acts this way then it makes sense in the Bible too.

But no, the government does not make laws that God must abide by. Or define morals that God must abide by. It's a one way thing.

It's really a question of morals which I think it really boils down to motive. Then we get into what makes a motive good.

People who kill abortion doctors feel justified because their motive is stopping them from killing babies. The fault in that logic is that, as my parents would often tell me, "you're not in charge."

God's in charge, the government is in charge. That's why they can take lives and steal and whatnot and it's not a moral dillema. We can bomb Afganistan without having to answer to some moral judge. We can confiscate their property (occupy it). We can kidnap their people (prisoners). We just trust that they don't abuse that authority and that they act justly. When they do, we have to make a decision. Suck it up, move, or overthrow the authority.

We the people cannot steal and kill as we please because we're not responsible enough to use that kind of power wisely. The government (not always) and God are.

Any examples where you feel God is acting unjustly?

Ben

 

Re: Here are the contradictions Tony1

*Originally posted by Godless
What are the contradictions, well looks here!!. This is one is on original sin!.

One of the most important concepts in Christianity is original sin, or the belief that all mankind has inherited a sinful nature brought about by the acts of Adam and Eve.
...*

Great cut and paste from BE.
The only problem is that "original sin" is a Catholic doctrine.
As such, it is a concept I disagree with, so thanks for pointing it out.
It isn't a contradiction in the Bible; it is a contradiction in Catholic doctrine.

*contradictions....

Rom.3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."
...
Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil. ...*

Notice how it says in Job 1:5 that Job offered burnt offerings continually.

And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.
(Job 1:5, KJV).

He knew he'd sinned, and that the offerings (not himself) would make him perfect in God's eyes.
This should be obvious, since that is why God instituted the offerings.

No contradiction.

*Another clear contradiction concerns whether or not God repents.

Num. 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."

Versus
Jonah 3:10 "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."
...
*

It seems obvious that you are unclear on the meaning of the word "should."
God does not have to repent; he simply does if he wants to.

No contradiction.


*It concerns the question of whether or not God's face has been seen.

John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time;..."
...

Versus
Gen. 32:30 "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."

Exod. 33:11 "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."

Num. 14:14 "...that thou LORD art seen face to face,..."

Job 42:5 "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee."

Deut. 34:10 "And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,..."

Deut. 5:4 "The LORD talked with you face to face...." (also Psalm 63:2 Isa.6:1 & 6:5, Amos 7:7-8, Ezek. 20:35, Ex. 24:9-10 *

Admittedly the Lord has been seen, but we only have Jacob's word for seeing God.
That, in itself does not create a contradiction since we don't know who he saw.
The Bible says he wrestled with a man, and you yourself quoted a verse which says God is not a man.

Thus, it isn't a contradiction.

*I doubt that you will read it!. *

Why would you doubt that?
I have all the issues of BE.

*Originally posted by Hermann
What do you mean by a "small box" and why is your "box" so large? *

The box that contains your life is very small.
Mine is big enough to include Christianity; yours isn't.

*Originally posted by Teg
Tony1, I can see that you have simply given up on your lists.*

What lists?

*I have not had an answer to this and currently none of the issues have been attacked.*

Patience, patience.
I'm not sitting at my computer 24-7 waiting for your posts to show up.

*"... the earth abideth for ever." -- Ecclesiastes 1:4

"... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Peter 3:10

Wow!!! That is pretty bad. If that is not a contradiction than I cannot think of something capable of satiating your need for direct evidence. *

Cute.
Forever can start now and go forever into the future.
Your argument appears to be that forever can only be forever past AND forever future.

*Judges 1:19*

Another cute one.
The only contradiction there is being a literate illiterate.

It doesn't say anything about the Lord not being able to drive out chariots.
It simply says that the Lord was with Judah.
If you read verses before and after, Judah is doing all the doing and in the case of the chariots, the failing.

*Originally posted by Godless
Let me see, so you base your beliefs, of a supreme being by feelings? which you call faith?*

It would have to be an alien saying that.
Faith has nothing to do with feelings.
It is what you have when you believe something true.

*Originally posted by tiassa
I wonder if Tony1 is paying attention; he likes to give me crap about having been a Satanist, and generally feels I still am one.*

Have you ever renounced Satanism?

*Originally posted by Godless
Why do the believers of Islam, their god to whom they pray to have victory over your god?*

I'm thinking more Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. than Christians were killed in the WTC disaster.

 

Well thanks for letting me know that small detail

But aren't they after the same thing? all religions I mean. Religion is a business; get the most suckers, "I mean believers"collect massive amounts of money, clergy lives off the people. Wow!!!! they all have that in common don't they?

 

*Originally posted by Godless
But aren't they after the same thing? all religions I mean. Religion is a business; get the most suckers, "I mean believers"collect massive amounts of money, clergy lives off the people. Wow!!!! they all have that in common don't they? *

If they do, then religions other than Judaism and Christianity are really missing the point.

Besides, aren't atheists usually employed because they need their paychecks?

Doesn't General Motors exist to make money?
Is there any organization in the world that can function without money?

Admittedly, Christians have the best promises of wealth from God, but who in their right mind would want to be poor?
God isn't poor, so why should his children be?

 

Ah, but you can't take it with you. Isn't that more along the line of greed. "The love of money is the root of all evil" I thought you would receive your riches in the kingdom of heaven. Doesn't the meek inherit the earth? What else am I missing?

 

*Originally posted by DEVILDOG
Ah, but you can't take it with you.*

You can send it ahead.

*I thought you would receive your riches in the kingdom of heaven. Doesn't the meek inherit the earth? What else am I missing?*

The point?
You thought wrong.

And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; AND in the world to come eternal life.
(Mark 10:29,30, KJV).

We get it all.
It stands to reason, though.
There won't be anyone else left standing.