Reply With Quote
No, you didn't read my point about literalists being idiots.
Did you or did you not ask me about my point?
I read your request for a Bible passage.
Did you or did you not request such a passage?
No, you didn't read my point about literalists being idiots.
Did you or did you not ask me about my point?
Actually, if you're gonna quibble over minutia and ignore the larger point, then I have nothing to say to you Blake.
I did, which made me find your request odd.
If you think the Bible shouldn't be take literally, there would be no reason to give credence to that passage either.
Since you concurred with that sentiment, I find it to be a worthless request. Just my 2 cents, take it for what it's worth.
Which passage?
k, so we're clear, confirm again what your larger point is.
it would be the passage you've requested.
this conversation is incredible.
I could very well be wrong. Such a passage would confirm me being wrong. That's why I asked for it.
That happens when you take the blue pill or the red pill? I can't never remember...
BTW, the book was much better than the movie, IMO...
i'm the only one that thinks rascal is a riot?
It doesn't matter if it's religion or law. In role playing games, it's called "Lawful evil." It's an excuse to be evil.
Unelaborated, I kind of agree with this.
The Harry Dean Stanton impression of St. Paul in Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" springs readily to mind. Weird uncle-ish, arrogant, obsessive, obviously nutty and fiercely angry.
(For example, St. Paul was so anti-sex he denounced marriage. "A cradle of sin and little more than legalized fornication." )
Of course, I have no idea why you think St. Paul was the best troll job ever. Would you mind telling?
I keep trying converse with you, but it's clear by now I'm only interfering with the conversation you're having with with yourself.
Enjoy!
I thought I had retired from this, but alas I must return.
I got through about 10 or 12 pages of this thing and decided making a statement was appropriate. So, here's the thing:
In response to the OP's questions, it's pretty simple. You live in a country where Christianity is the primary religion, and you spend all of your time bashing Christianity. Do we really need to wonder why you're "hated" (although I disagree that anyone hates you)? What is it, like 75% or 80% of people claiming to be some sort of Christian. So, when you aggressively attack the belief system of 3/4 of the population, you might get some backlash...maybe. As far as hatred goes, it is possible (and this is just a theory), that both atheists and Christians are capable of acting like world-class s.
Another reason could be the absolute arrogance with which atheists seem to carry themselves. For people who have no god, they sure do behave "holier-than-thou" in most situations. Posting Excel spot charts circa 1990 attempting to explain how the smart people don't believe in god, as though atheists have somehow cornered the market on intelligence and education. Everyone loves that.
Then we somehow digressed into a abortion quasi-debate, which is really just a bunch of semantics being tossed about. The argument is simple...are we dealing with a human being or not? If it's un-human, do whatever the you want with it. If it is human, it deserves rights and protection like everyone else. What has science proven? Absolutely nothing about when life begins. It's up for debate...so until science proves something, let's just keep killing away, right?
Oh...and gay marriage too, right...let's see. Gays have the exact same rights today as I do. They don't want equal rights, they want special rights. Should they have them? Who knows...but they don't have any less rights than I do today.
Literal translations and readings of the Bible...some books are literal, some are not. Anyone with half a brain and a honest desire to learn can do their homework and know which ones are which.
I kind of missed this...
It would confirm you being wrong about what?
It was more of a Spurstalk related joke than a real indictment of Paul on my part, but yeah I think he pulled a nice troll job on humanity.
There are a good deal of scholars that have made convincing arguments that Paul is full of . Even Thomas Jefferson called him the first corrupter of Jesus' teachings. I tend to agree.
Your effort to try to converse was poor, imo.
I think it's clear you would rather whine about how mean I am to the board Christians than to stay on topic.
Post more.
If science hasn't proven anything, why would you imply that anyone is killing anything?
Is masturbation murder?
Why is the fact that they have equal rights as you do even an issue?Oh...and gay marriage too, right...let's see. Gays have the exact same rights today as I do. They don't want equal rights, they want special rights. Should they have them? Who knows...but they don't have any less rights than I do today.
If even one story of magic in the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, why should any of it?Literal translations and readings of the Bible...some books are literal, some are not. Anyone with half a brain and a honest desire to learn can do their homework and know which ones are which.
Why do you care so much about what other people believe? What do you hope to gain? You obviously feel intellectually superior to any naive believer, can't you just be comfortable with your superiority and not attempt to belittle their feeble-minded selves?
There are people who believe in ghosts. I do not.
There are people who believe extra terrestrials visit this planet. I do not.
I do not seek out those people, ridicule their beliefs, and attempt to convince them of the error of their ways. As D Reign pointed out, there are myriad Christians who do believe it their mission to "spread the good news" (Christ told us to, after all). Those pushy Christians are almost universally ridiculed, bemoaned and despised not only among the posters on this board, but everywhere else, as well.
You are behaving very much like THOSE Christians.
Nah. You're just an asshole.
I mentioned it in passing and moved on. You're the whiner who can't let go.
whining about how mean and unfair is to people who don't believe in it, and about me being off topic when you're all over the place
The implication comes from the fact that when humans reproduce, they reproduce nothing other than human beings. They don't reproduce trees, they don't reproduce cats, they don't reproduce spaghetti monsters. They reproduce human beings. When you end the life of whatever humans reproduce, you end the life of a human being. That's just my position. You can talk about zygotes and all your other distractionary rhetoric, but in it's most simple explanation - humans begat humans. If you want to argue that somewhere along the line a human being's offspring is unhuman, knock yourself out.
The argument is "is it a human being or not". The sperm you send down the drain in your jack shack is not a human being. I don't care what you do with it. When that sperm fertilizes an egg...then we have a conversation.
It isn't. I'm confused a little bit as to why you're even asking that.
Why? The Bible, as a whole, is a collection of books. Each book serves a different function, has a different author, and, as a result, a different literary style. Just because one is a book of poetry doesn't automatically discredit the book of history.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
