NBA: Westboro Baptist Church planning on protesting game 5 in OKC

[Aztecfan03]

You type way too much.

First of all, you claimed that the Bible prohibited the beating of slaves. You were extremely wrong. Not only could slaves be beaten, they could be beaten to death, because they are their owner's property. And you're trying to rationalize that.

The translation you are using makes it sound different, but that passage doesn't say you could beat slaves to death.

[capek]

LOL Christians

eta: Westboro used to disgust and anger me until I watched the do entary on them made by Louis Theroux. But after seeing the way those wackos indoctrinate their kids into their way of thinking, the whole thing just makes me really sad and sick to my stomach. Louie, as always, does a great job of letting the subjects speak for themselves; you look in these kids' eyes and literally see how their brain is being ed up by being raised in that environment. ing disturbing.

[capek]

Im thinking these people cant be this crazy. They are looking to provoke an altercation so they can sue you hiding behind the first amendment.

No, they are definitely this crazy. If you're interested enough, check out the Theroux do entary I mentioned above, called The Most Hated Family in America. Prolly on netflix of something. Worth a watch to better understand just how differently some other people than yourself think.

[Blake]

Again saying something doesn't make it true.

uh, ok.

[SanAntonioSpurs23]

Isnt eating s fish an "abomination" according to the bible?

all religions tbh....

[Blake]

As far as the WBC is concerned, it's a right to protest whether you agree with it or not. I can protest a piece of dog sh*t in my front yard but ain't nobody got time for that.

I am a Christian and was always told to love thy neighbor. I leave any judging up to God.
For the scientists, explain consciousness. Cannot be done to this day.
For the atheists, explain your reason for walking around this planet freely with air in your lungs. God is love. If you have ever loved or felt love, that is God. You might want to jump on board. (Just in case)

I don't know. probably dumb luck, like hitting the mega ball lottery.

Why did your loving Christian God create an eternal for us non believers?

[ElNono]

Depends on the system you're operating in, can either minimalize losses and maintain larger profits or can protect against non-existent losses at the cost of larger profits.

Well, if you're operating on a system where you can't lose, is it really a 'bet'?

[Blake]

Christians don't disavow the Old Testament, we acknowledge it's our history. We just don't practice it's teachings because it was instructed by Jesus Christ; his teachings being the basis of Christianity. (It's in the name)


.

why didn't God just skip on ahead to the New Testament from day 1?

Why did he need to kill himself?

Why couldn't he simply change the rules on sacrifice?

etc.

[Blake]

Explain the feeling of loving your kids or relatives? The answers are saved for when we get to heaven. For now, being thankful for the health we have, the peope we love and the world we live in is good enough rationale for me.

What's the rationale for eternal torment?

I would never eternally torment my kids, especially for something as silly as not believing in me.

[Blake]

Al Gore is a ing nut and .

How Christian of you.

[mindcrime]

I don't know. probably dumb luck, like hitting the mega ball lottery.

Why did your loving Christian God create an eternal for us non believers?

I think you answered your own question.

[mindcrime]

Speaking of eternal , wonder what Jerry Buss is up to now?

[Woo Bum-kon]

And I thought the passage you quoted explicitly said that if a slave was beaten to death, the owner would be punished (dealt with in the ways of a murderer.

The owner would be punished if the slave dies within a day after the beating.

And again, since you keep dodging this:

You are talking about slavery as those practiced in the 15th century of abuses, but the Bible talks about slavery as a form of servitude. Yes, people were owned for a specific number of years, but they were also guaranteed their basic human rights. Some of them were to be set free after a number of years, be provided with wages and basics of living. Almost like a contract that you are bound to. It does not allow slaves to be beaten, neglected and abused.

You were wrong. Not only were slaves allowed to be beaten, they could be beaten to death so long as they don't die right away, because they are their master's property.

It does not mean that the owner will face no consequence.

I think "he shall not be punished" means that the master won't face consequences.

But the larger point is being missed: this is not how to treat a human being. Period. God is disgusting for allowing this type of behavior.

A theist's position is inherently illogical because of why? You seemed to be entrenched in the idea that you are somehow more logical than a huge number of people who have accepted Christianity or other religions as their beliefs, and that any views other than atheism is illogical, when atheism itself has scores of unanswered questions.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it. Your belief in the invisible sky daddy is illogical because it has no support whatsoever--just like every other civilizations' invisible sky daddies. Lack of belief is the only logical conclusion, because there is no evidence for the existence of a god.

I have shown two that are misinterpreted because it was taken out of context. There are scores others that fall under this category. And to think that, a religion that has been around for 2000 years, including one that has been studied extensively by scholars for the last 5 or 6 hundred years, have contradictions that has not been noticed and debated to death is quite a bold position for you to take.

No, you didn't show that was taken out of context. You claimed that God doesn't allow the beating of slaves, and I proved you wrong.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...adictions.html

Here's a ton of contradictions.

Thank you for telling me what I know and what I don't know. I know you have been doing that quite well throughout this thread.

What logical fallacy did I commit, genius?

How so? You have clearly misinterpreted that passage.

To a delusional apologist, maybe. To a rational human being, being allowed to beat a slave to death so long as he or she doesn't die right away doesn't magically mean that God prohibited violence against slaves.

And I was raised an atheist, so? And somehow assuming that you are more objective than people you have never met is neither objective nor logical.

It is objective and logical. I have come to the logical conclusion that I am more objective because every claim I made about the Bible is well-supported. You were wrong about what the Bible says. DPG was wrong about what the Bible says. Multiple other theists here are wrong about what the Bible says.

If you are referring to Leviticus 18:22, read the entire passage.

I did. Your point, please.

No it's not. Please, you have taken quite a strong position in quotes that are out of context. When I say out of context, I am not saying that under certain cir stances, some actions are allowed. I am saying that the phrase is taken out of context of what the entire passage actually means.

Bull .

I know I am not going to convince you one way or another because you have said so explicitly, so I will not try.

You haven't done to convince me. You are about as lazy as spursncowboys. Both of you shout, "It's the context!" and refuse to elaborate when pressed.

Stop with the bull .

In what context is killing an unruly child okay? Answer the question.

[Woo Bum-kon]

When you say religious extremists, are you including atheism as well?

Atheism is the rejection of the claim, "God exists." It's not a religion. As long as one lacks belief in a god, they can believe whatever they want and act however they want and still be an atheist.

[Blake]

I think you answered your own question.

It's a paradox. He can't be loving and forgiving if he eternally torments the non-believer.

[td4mvp2k]

RIP Russell Westbrook

tru dat

[BobaFett1]

YEAH!! That's what 'm talkin' bout, how it should be! 'Murica, freedom ain't free, hefty fee, not a dry eye, Jason Witten no helmet, catching a pass with :10 sec left against the hated Redskins in the SuperBowl, 70 yards to go, looking bleak, 3 guys piling on, looking like he's down, musters up enough courage to keep going while pulling the american flag out of his pocket, dragging 3 'skeens into the 'zone, clock expiring as he stretches the pigskin/american flag over the goalline where his son and wife are waiting for him, Boys win, Witten rushed by all the veterans in the stadium, hoisting the 'bardi trophy in one hand, son in the other, carried off the field to 'bama's private jet etc
_____________________________

[TampaDude]

YEAH!! That's what 'm talkin' bout, how it should be! 'Murica, freedom ain't free, hefty fee, not a dry eye, Jason Witten no helmet, catching a pass with :10 sec left against the hated Redskins in the SuperBowl, 70 yards to go, looking bleak, 3 guys piling on, looking like he's down, musters up enough courage to keep going while pulling the american flag out of his pocket, dragging 3 'skeens into the 'zone, clock expiring as he stretches the pigskin/american flag over the goalline where his son and wife are waiting for him, Boys win, Witten rushed by all the veterans in the stadium, hoisting the 'bardi trophy in one hand, son in the other, carried off the field to 'bama's private jet etc
_____________________________

Both the Redskins and the Cowboys are in the NFC, so they cannot meet in the Super Bowl.

[xellos88330]

Procreation was probably also a huge deal back in the bible days. Nowadays there are just so many people running around, having people not having kids could be a good thing. Back then, a lot of your societal status depended on the amount of children you bore/fathered. It was survival necessity.

[ambchang]

Here's a recent quote from tea party congressman, Joe Barton:

“I would point out that if you’re a believer in in the Bible, one would have to say the Great Flood is an example of climate change and that certainly wasn’t because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy.”

Dude, come on, you can't quote tea party members. Those guys use the Bible as a way for political gains. I would also say the pope is a more reliable source of interpreting the Bible than a team party member. That said, I don't believe he is 100% right all the time either. Actually, other than Jesus, I don't think anybody was ever 100% correct since the NT.

[ambchang]

It's pretty clear the death is for the actions themselves.

Just like cutting off a woman's hand for striking a man in the semen maker in defense of her husband is clear

Not according to most Biblical scholars. If you read the Bible in its entirety, there are only two rules. Love God, and love your neighbours. Everything else revolves around/and builds up to that point.

Also, we can't put the OT in today's viewing lens. Those rules were meant to provide order to society which were harsh and painful.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Dude, come on, you can't quote tea party members. Those guys use the Bible as a way for political gains. I would also say the pope is a more reliable source of interpreting the Bible than a team party member. That said, I don't believe he is 100% right all the time either. Actually, other than Jesus, I don't think anybody was ever 100% correct since the NT.

He's a US Congressman so his views aren't THAT extreme compared to the American people if he's capable of winning a district. In any secular country like Canada, Germany, Australia, etc., someone who said something like that would get laughed out of office.

[ambchang]

The owner would be punished if the slave dies within a day after the beating.

And again, since you keep dodging this:



You were wrong. Not only were slaves allowed to be beaten, they could be beaten to death so long as they don't die right away, because they are their master's property.



I think "he shall not be punished" means that the master won't face consequences.

But the larger point is being missed: this is not how to treat a human being. Period. God is disgusting for allowing this type of behavior.



Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it. Your belief in the invisible sky daddy is illogical because it has no support whatsoever--just like every other civilizations' invisible sky daddies. Lack of belief is the only logical conclusion, because there is no evidence for the existence of a god.



No, you didn't show that was taken out of context. You claimed that God doesn't allow the beating of slaves, and I proved you wrong.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...adictions.html

Here's a ton of contradictions.



What logical fallacy did I commit, genius?



To a delusional apologist, maybe. To a rational human being, being allowed to beat a slave to death so long as he or she doesn't die right away doesn't magically mean that God prohibited violence against slaves.



It is objective and logical. I have come to the logical conclusion that I am more objective because every claim I made about the Bible is well-supported. You were wrong about what the Bible says. DPG was wrong about what the Bible says. Multiple other theists here are wrong about what the Bible says.



I did. Your point, please.



Bull .



You haven't done to convince me. You are about as lazy as spursncowboys. Both of you shout, "It's the context!" and refuse to elaborate when pressed.

Stop with the bull .

In what context is killing an unruly child okay? Answer the question.

I have explained the meaning of punished already, and you have chosen to ignore it. It's one way a logical and objective person does not act.

Using your own habits of misinterpreting single passages out of context, I will then say that you are an illogical and nonobjective person in every single thing you do.

I have elaborated plenty, and you chose to ignore them. In fact, all you are doing is ignore every thing that does not agree with your view points. I mean, at least Blake and DoK chose to actually read some of the comments written.

I have written out explanations specific to your questions once (the punishment segment), and you chose to ignore. It is therefore reasonable for me to say that whatever else I wrote to you will simply be ignored from this point on, so there is no point in me wasting time.

And finally, I find it hypocritical for you say that me and spursncowboys are lazy (especially when I came up with specific examples and explanations of explaining your questions) when you refused to look up or spend any reasonable time to understand the things you are criticizing against. Streams and streams of content is available online (though not all correct). You just type in the topic of discussion in google, keep and open mind, and read it.

EDIT: BTW, you have serious comprehension issues, and the amazing ability to twist words around to suit your own arguments. Perhaps before reading the Bible, you address that issue first.

[Blake]

Procreation was probably also a huge deal back in the bible days. Nowadays there are just so many people running around, having people not having kids could be a good thing. Back then, a lot of your societal status depended on the amount of children you bore/fathered. It was survival necessity.

"we need to increase our population so let's kill people that break the law "

[ambchang]

He's a US Congressman so his views aren't THAT extreme compared to the American people if he's capable of winning a district. In any secular country like Canada, Germany, Australia, etc., someone who said something like that would get laughed out of office.

That is more an issue with American politics than religion then, isn't it.

I don't know about Germany and Australia, but in Canada, there has been some pretty eyebrow raising comments by our MPs as well.