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

[Blake]

Oh ok. So you quoted me and provided a response that had nothing to do with my quote.


Got it. Keep up the good work.

I posted a direct response to your remark about hate and anger not being that natural.

but I get that what entertains you most is to read what other people say and then go American Idol judge on them.......so I get why you didn't catch what I was getting at.

Keep up the work.

[jag]

Yup. Im a fat Jew named Andrew. I made it rhyme to sound more catchy and draw attention away from the utter humiliation FkLA unleashed on me.

I'm studying for the last final I'll ever have as an undergraduate tbh, howeva it's the 400 level maf class I need for my minor so there's no way I can cheese my way through it like most business classes

That's ok, bro. There's nothing wrong with obeisity; it is a disease after all. There's a lot of confusion right now within the medical community surrounding the causes of obesity, so I don't blame you. Doctors still aren't sure what caused Mookie to inflate to such frightening proportions.

Yeah, some of the students who about their business finals have no idea what real exams are like. Congrats on graduation. You're inching ever closer to your Jew destiny with that accounting degree.

[Blake]

non believers still typing with conviction and dedication about a God they don't believe in???

When given the opportunity, I enjoy getting a kick out of busting Gods balls for executing gays, condoning slavery, and drowning the heathen.

to each his own

[mindcrime]

That's ok, bro. There's nothing wrong with obeisity; it is a disease after all. There's a lot of confusion right now within the medical community surrounding the causes of obesity, so I don't blame you. Doctors still aren't sure what caused Mookie to inflate to such frightening proportions.

Yeah, some of the students who about their business finals have no idea what real exams are like. Congrats on graduation. You're inching ever closer to your Jew destiny with that accounting degree.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

non believers still typing with conviction and dedication about a God they don't believe in???

quite the opposite. The verses I quoted are a large part of why I am not a christian.

[Woo Bum-kon]

The problem is that I didn't. I just said "see above", which really is the answer.

No, you didn't answer my questions about killing non-believers, sexuals and unruly children.

I don't get it. I thought your issue was with Christianity in general, not with my thoughts. Why would you care about my thoughts? And you never asked me about unruly children in the past, I don't believe. Your questions have been predominantly about slavery, with rape and murder questions afterwards.

If you think I haven't asked you about unruly children, you haven't been reading all of my posts. And I want to know what you think because you are the one I am conversing with about the matter.

No, you are changing the goal post. I first said slavery in the biblical terms is different from those of modern slavery, of which you rejected and claimed I have little knowledge about my own beliefs.

No, you claimed that the Bible prohibits the beating of slaves. I provided proof from the Bible that it did not. You can't read too well.

Now you are saying that slavery, no matter in what form, is wrong. I am not here to argue with you what your moral standards are.

Are you serious? My moral standards? Why the aren't those your moral standards, too?

If you feel a prisoner or war or someone in debt is better off being killed, which was the case prior to the biblical laws, rather than termed a slave with a whole lot of rights, then you are free to feel that way. I am not here to argue with you on that point.

False dichotomy. I am for neither killing nor enslaving the prisoners of war. Your God should be against both as well, but he's not. That's reprehensible.

My boss can freely term me a slave, but give me all the legal rights. It's demeaning because of what the term slavery entails in modern times, but it would not be the same as modern slavery.

Your boss can't beat you to death and get away with it so long as you don't die right away. You also get to choose whom you work for. There's also the matter of sex slaves, too.

Except in biblical days, it did. Your response further illustrates your inability to have a grasp of reality of society norms during biblical times, and tried to apply modern day norms at rights in a different era.

I am perfectly able to grasp the norms of society in Biblical days. That's why I am here now arguing about how ty and outdated God's teachings are. People had terrible values in biblical days, and those poor values are reflected in the Bible. Of course, I'm going to apply modern norms. I'm not going to let your God get away with being a ty being because "those were different times."

Just as capital punishment is a form of murder by the strictest sense.

One, I am not defending capital punishment at all, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. Two, capital punishment is usually reserved for people who commit murder themselves, or, in some cases, treason. It's not for killing non-Christians, those who commit sexual acts, unruly children, etc., so you equating the two things is absolutely moronic.

How did you know? How did my response show I didn't know what hypocrisy means? You have already been shown that your ability to understand what I understand about my beliefs to be sketchy at best, and I would welcome how you would show me how I don't know what hypocrisy means.

You don't know what hypocrisy means because you used it in a situation that completely doesn't apply. I'm a hypocrite because I choose to argue about religion on a basketball forum? That doesn't make any sense.

It does. Your response is illogical and horribly illustrated.

Your accusations of hypocrisy are illogical and wholly unsupported.

It is logical to expect to get reasonable answers about religion on a basketball forum? This is about as illogical as it gets.

Again, you're not making any sense. The fact that this is a basketball forum doesn't mean that reasonable answers about religion can't be given here. Using your moronic reasoning, nobody should discuss anything but basketball on here.

Please show.

Sure: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6530685

Except I had been talking about slavery all along. I am unsure now that the slavery definitions have been clarified, and you acknowledging that biblical slavery is different from modern slavery, you are changing the goal post to your own moral definitions, and now to "kill unruly children".

No, you have not, lying idiot. When I brought up other problems with the Bible, you cried about context. You went into more detail with slavery, but you didn't exclusively address slavery.

And you don't know what "moving the goalpost" means, moron. Slavery is still slavery. I not once claimed that slavery in the Bible was exactly like modern times. I claimed that the Bible endorses slavery, and you never disproved that claim.

And I am not just now bringing up killing unruly children:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...06#post6528306
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...75#post6525875
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...40#post6525640

I could probably find even more posts where I mention killing unruly children in this thread, but I think I made by point. Stop lying, idiot.

Explain how. You seem to have some difficulty in grasping that you are not the moral standards of the world, and that neither I, or an entire religion, as to subscribe to your answers. Especially when you have shown that you have questionable at ude, motives, and logical thinking skills.

So everything is relative now? That's your excuse for the Bible's horrific teachings. Those are just MY moral standards? You are a real sicko.

Sand people? What is that supposed to mean? While it is obvious you were trolling all along, this is just getting too obvious.

Says the guy who defends slavery.

He did. People just didn't listen.

Then he should answer them again. And again. And again. It's not like he's too busy saving anybody; he's got nothing better do.

God has nothing to lose and everything to gain by convincing everybody that he exists. A book from 2000+ years ago doesn't cut it. Even if God fails to convince 99.999% of non believers, that .001% that are convinced would be worth it.

Except that this is exactly the case, the issue lies in semantics.

Except no it isn't the case. A man who CHOOSES to play for a basketball teams is not the same as a prisoner of war who is forced to work for a master.

So are you acknowledging that biblical slavery is not the same as modern slavery?

I never claimed that it wasn't. Biblical slavery is still slavery, though.

Prisoners of war and people in debt should be killed off like in ancient times before biblical laws. Is that what you are implying?

False dichotomy again, moron.

[Woo Bum-kon]

got
Rockets fan
Possibly a
Tough guy on the internet, got pussy atheist in person

Well, I'm an atheist, so you got one thing right.

Why such hatred towards God? Are you upset he allowed your dad to ass- you when you were young, tbh?

You just keep failing.

comparing arguing on the internet to picketing funerals

[Woo Bum-kon]

non believers still typing with conviction and dedication about a God they don't believe in???

If nobody believed in God, there wouldn't be a problem. But people do believe in God. And people do try to force their ty, illogical beliefs down non-believer's throats.

[mindcrime]

Well, I'm an atheist, so you got one thing right.

I'm pretty certain I got a few of those right, tbh.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Oh, well now that I know that you're certain, I guess I'll become an Asian, sexual Rockets fan. I wouldn't want to doubt your certainty.

[ambchang]

You're putting to great a value on the ability to philosophize.



Agreed.

the fact that God condones man owning another man is enough to legitimately call the Bible bull .

but what's awesome is that the bull doesn't stop there.

Why is that? The issue with one man owning another man is not the ownership itself, but that of the abuse that modern slavery is associated with.

Without the sophisticated financial setting of modern banking, when a person owes a debt to another and is unable to pay, s/he is either put in prison, or has to work off the debt. There are strict financial guidelines in how a person can charge interest towards another, so the issue of forever in debt was addressed.

Another example is a prisoner of war, in which a captured person is either killed, or has to work for the victor. It is only until recently, and in most 1st world nations, where there are enough resources to be shared by a large number of people, and people are free to do whatever they want. However, in biblical times, people are faced with issues of constrained resources, and adding another person into a society often times put a heavy burden on the society as a whole. The fact that prisoners of war were allowed to stay in the society without being immediately killed off in some cir stances, but to take a lower social status, but with rights afforded by reasonable people in biblical times, is a luxury to have.

For a person who likes to talk about reality, you sure don't have much of a grasp of it.

[ambchang]

No, you didn't answer my questions about killing non-believers, sexuals and unruly children.

I did talk about the sexuals, which has been the topic of this thread. The answer to that one question pretty much applies to all the others.

If you think I haven't asked you about unruly children, you haven't been reading all of my posts. And I want to know what you think because you are the one I am conversing with about the matter.

When you talk about unruly children, I am assuming you are talking about Deuteronomy 18. The context of following the teachings of the parents doesn't mean that you do whatever your parents tells you to do, it means that you do whatever you parents tell you to do that is within the biblical teachings. In other words, unruly children are those who do not following the teachings of God, and yes, in biblical times, people (not only children) are killed for not following the word of God, which, like I said earlier, is comparable to the act of treason in modern societies, as the Jews did not have a king like other tribes until Saul, and relied on the guidance of the prophets and judges (directly from the word of God).

No, you claimed that the Bible prohibits the beating of slaves. I provided proof from the Bible that it did not. You can't read too well.

What proof? It clearly showed that punished means to be treated as a murderer. The bible clearly states, only verses later, that a person has to be set free if they were beaten and hurt.

Are you serious? My moral standards? Why the aren't those your moral standards, too?

Why should they be? If you are talking strictly semantics, there could be hosts of other ways you can define slavery.

False dichotomy. I am for neither killing nor enslaving the prisoners of war. Your God should be against both as well, but he's not. That's reprehensible.

Your country is (assuming you are from the States), including torturing, of which you are a part of, and a government you have elected.

Your boss can't beat you to death and get away with it so long as you don't die right away. You also get to choose whom you work for. There's also the matter of sex slaves, too.

Untrue, I have said it multiple times, and I am not going to repeat it.

I am perfectly able to grasp the norms of society in Biblical days. That's why I am here now arguing about how ty and outdated God's teachings are. People had terrible values in biblical days, and those poor values are reflected in the Bible. Of course, I'm going to apply modern norms. I'm not going to let your God get away with being a ty being because "those were different times."

But those were different times. The Biblical teachings directly talked about the errors of following the laws without understanding the reasons for enforcing those laws.

One, I am not defending capital punishment at all, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. Two, capital punishment is usually reserved for people who commit murder themselves, or, in some cases, treason. It's not for killing non-Christians, those who commit sexual acts, unruly children, etc., so you equating the two things is absolutely moronic.

So why is it OK to kill one group by not the other?

You don't know what hypocrisy means because you used it in a situation that completely doesn't apply. I'm a hypocrite because I choose to argue about religion on a basketball forum? That doesn't make any sense.

You are hypocritical for claiming you value logic, and yet do things that are utterly and complete illogical.

Your accusations of hypocrisy are illogical and wholly unsupported.

Of course they are.

Again, you're not making any sense. The fact that this is a basketball forum doesn't mean that reasonable answers about religion can't be given here. Using your moronic reasoning, nobody should discuss anything but basketball on here.

It could be given, but seeking religious answers in a basketball forum itself is an illogical act, and to come here and demand logical answers to it is contradicting.


[QUOTE=Woo Bum-kon;6531586]Sure: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6530685

I apologize for not putting quote marks on your quotes. Never realized that it is of such monumental importance to you. And yet I can't help but notice that you said I did everything else right. I thank you for that.

No, you have not, lying idiot. When I brought up other problems with the Bible, you cried about context. You went into more detail with slavery, but you didn't exclusively address slavery.

And you don't know what "moving the goalpost" means, moron. Slavery is still slavery. I not once claimed that slavery in the Bible was exactly like modern times. I claimed that the Bible endorses slavery, and you never disproved that claim.

And yet this is your direct response to what I said when I talked about how slavery in biblical times is different than those in modern times. That response is not to talk about slavery is wrong in its own right, it's saying slavery is the same between the eras, because it was a direct response to the contrary.

Do any of you Christians read the content of your holy book?

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

So, add ambchang to the long list of Christians who have no idea what they are talking about.

And I am not just now bringing up killing unruly children:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...06#post6528306
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...75#post6525875
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...40#post6525640

I could probably find even more posts where I mention killing unruly children in this thread, but I think I made by point. Stop lying, idiot.

And yet I had not responded to it, and kept talking about the context of the argument. I have made it quite clear that I am not going to talk about the specifics of one or two examples. The Bible is a thick book, and taking one or two verses out to argue will take forever to do. The original premise of the argument for me is that you are taking verses out of context and twisting words to your benefit.

So everything is relative now? That's your excuse for the Bible's horrific teachings. Those are just MY moral standards? You are a real sicko.

Never said it, you are twisting my words again. I am saying that you are defining what is morally correct and what is not. If you cannot accept the moral teachings of a religion, then you are free to explore other options (which you have), and yet you are now defining moral standards for me to follow, and saying those who do not choose to do so are idiots/morons/sickos. How so?

Says the guy who defends slavery.

Another example of taking texts out of context.

Then he should answer them again. And again. And again. It's not like he's too busy saving anybody; he's got nothing better do.

God has nothing to lose and everything to gain by convincing everybody that he exists. A book from 2000+ years ago doesn't cut it. Even if God fails to convince 99.999% of non believers, that .001% that are convinced would be worth it.

Where did you get the idea that God got nothing else to do? Is God supposed to follow what you think He should do now? And what tells you not only 0.001% of non-believers haven't converted?

Except no it isn't the case. A man who CHOOSES to play for a basketball teams is not the same as a prisoner of war who is forced to work for a master.

A person can choose not to borrow debt in the first place either.

I never claimed that it wasn't. Biblical slavery is still slavery, though.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6525640

False dichotomy again, moron.

So what would be a good way of treating prisoners of war in ancient times?

[Blake]

Why is that? The issue with one man owning another man is not the ownership itself, but that of the abuse that modern slavery is associated with.

you just made that bull excuse up right now, didn't you.

The issue is absolutely about being a free man, no matter how well they're treated.

The Bible allows for fathers to pass slaves down to their sons. I know you're desperately clinging to hope that God isn't evil, but sorry.....he's a sick evil bas .

Without the sophisticated financial setting of modern banking, when a person owes a debt to another and is unable to pay, s/he is either put in prison, or has to work off the debt. There are strict financial guidelines in how a person can charge interest towards another, so the issue of forever in debt was addressed.

Another example is a prisoner of war, in which a captured person is either killed, or has to work for the victor. It is only until recently, and in most 1st world nations, where there are enough resources to be shared by a large number of people, and people are free to do whatever they want. However, in biblical times, people are faced with issues of constrained resources, and adding another person into a society often times put a heavy burden on the society as a whole. The fact that prisoners of war were allowed to stay in the society without being immediately killed off in some cir stances, but to take a lower social status, but with rights afforded by reasonable people in biblical times, is a luxury to have.

For a person who likes to talk about reality, you sure don't have much of a grasp of it.

Bible God is incredibly illogical, hypocritical and paradoxical. All powerful, all loving God should be able to find another way to save Israel besides declaring war.

That's the reality.

[I. Hustle]

So Blake and Woo, what do you hope to get out of all this? Honestly, is this how you wish you could talk to actual people and use Spurstalk as a way to vent? I really am asking and not picking a fight.
I just don't get the level of rage and anger when nobody is forcing you to believe in any sort of religion. You guys act like if you say the same the things over and over again that someone is going to say "Yeah, you are right! Let me start to think like you!"
Why do you care how Joe Smith thinks when Joe doesn't affect your daily life in any way?
You remind me of those annoying kids in school that always thought they were the smartest kid in the class and didn't hesitate to let everyone know. Or was the moron that was too smart for school because they aren't teaching anything that you either don't already know or will be beneficial to you later in life and just dropped out.

When do you reach the point where you just get over it? When you realize that everyone is wired differently and as a result will never think exactly the same.

[Blake]

Why do you care why I'm in this thread when I don't affect your daily life in any way?

When do you reach the point where you just get over me? When you realize that everyone I'm wired differently than you and as a result will never think exactly the same?

[mindcrime]

Oh, well now that I know that you're certain, I guess I'll become an Asian, sexual Rockets fan. I wouldn't want to doubt your certainty.

Damn right, got.

[ambchang]

you just made that bull excuse up right now, didn't you.

The issue is absolutely about being a free man, no matter how well they're treated.

The Bible allows for fathers to pass slaves down to their sons. I know you're desperately clinging to hope that God isn't evil, but sorry.....he's a sick evil bas .

Bible God is incredibly illogical, hypocritical and paradoxical. All powerful, all loving God should be able to find another way to save Israel besides declaring war.

That's the reality.

So you are out there to define what is logical way of approaching an entire history. And no, God's plan isn't to save Israel, but of mankind and reconcile the broken relationship between man and God.

If you have an issue with the freedom of man, then how is freedom defined? I would like to hear your definition.

[Blake]

So you are out there to define what is logical way of approaching an entire history. And no, God's plan isn't to save Israel, but of mankind and reconcile the broken relationship between man and God.

If you have an issue with the freedom of man, then how is freedom defined? I would like to hear your definition.

No, I'm simply pointing out some of obvious paradoxes/logical inconveniences of the Bible. Not much more than that.

In this case, I would define being free as not being owned (especially forcibly owned) property by another human being.

Pretty standard definition of freedom, imo.

[ambchang]

No, I'm simply pointing out some of obvious paradoxes/logical inconveniences of the Bible. Not much more than that.

In this case, I would define being free as not being owned (especially forcibly owned) property by another human being.

Pretty standard definition of freedom, imo.

But what is the issue of being owned by another person? Is it the ownership itself? The bible constantly talks about sons and daughters being prized possessions of the parents.

And with regards to the logical inconveniences of the Bible, the issue I have is that you have already established the definition of what is acceptable or not, and then using that as a lever to judge the Bible. It simply what you have discovered instances where you find unacceptable taking place in the Bible, and not taking into account the realities and hardships of ancient times, while ignoring the central meaning and purpose of those laws.

[Blake]

But what is the issue of being owned by another person? Is it the ownership itself? The bible constantly talks about sons and daughters being prized possessions of the parents.

And with regards to the logical inconveniences of the Bible, the issue I have is that you have already established the definition of what is acceptable or not, and then using that as a lever to judge the Bible. It simply what you have discovered instances where you find unacceptable taking place in the Bible, and not taking into account the realities and hardships of ancient times, while ignoring the central meaning and purpose of those laws.

Parents "owning" their own kids is a far cry from owning other adult human beings..........and being able to pass these human beings down to your son if you die.

Are you really ok with human adults owning other human adults?

We are also talking logical inconsistencies based on what God himself has established.

God says thou shalt not kill, but he's a butthurt mass murderer.
God preaches forgiveness, yet constructed an eternal lake of fire
God is unchanging, yet changed the rules

etc.

[ambchang]

Parents "owning" their own kids is a far cry from owning other adult human beings..........and being able to pass these human beings down to your son if you die.

Are you really ok with human adults owning other human adults?

In biblical times? Sure, it's either being owned by another person, or getting killed/starved. Not in modern times though, as the economic models is now more sophisticated than before.

We are also talking logical inconsistencies based on what God himself has established.

God says thou shalt not kill, but he's a butthurt mass murderer.
God preaches forgiveness, yet constructed an eternal lake of fire
God is unchanging, yet changed the rules

etc.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html

The rules of God has been quite consistent over the years, tbh.

[Blake]

In biblical times? Sure, it's either being owned by another person, or getting killed/starved. Not in modern times though, as the economic models is now more sophisticated than before.

Just because it's accepted practice doesn't make it morally right.

there's a reason why we outlawed it.

smh.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html

The rules of God has been quite consistent over the years, tbh.

God said specifically to stone people for breaking laws.

Jesus stopped it and said go and sin no more.

Inconsistent.

[ambchang]

Just because it's accepted practice doesn't make it morally right.

there's a reason why we outlawed it.

smh.

The other alternative is to let people be killed/starved. The reason modern times outlawed it was because we could.

It certainly is not morally right to do it in modern times.

God said specifically to stone people for breaking laws.

Jesus stopped it and said go and sin no more.

Inconsistent.

Did you even read the linked article? You can say you do not accept it, but it's entirely consistent.

[Blake]

The other alternative is to let people be killed/starved. The reason modern times outlawed it was because we could.

It certainly is not morally right to do it in modern times.

that makes no sense for a timeless, all powerful God to allow for changing moral codes.

Personally, I think slavery was never morally ok at any time during human history. I also think it's funny that a Christian would think it was.

Did you even read the linked article? You can say you do not accept it, but it's entirely consistent.

No. But I did now and it was exactly what I knew it would be.

Biased bull , with no mention of Onan, kids mauled by bear, or the dude that died for simply touching the Ark.

God is a twisted, insecure .

[ambchang]

that makes no sense for a timeless, all powerful God to allow for changing moral codes.

Personally, I think slavery was never morally ok at any time during human history. I also think it's funny that a Christian would think it was.

The code has not changed, it is still the same. The actions coming out of it in a practical manner has changed.

God never said, "thou shall have slaves". He created a code of ethics for people to follow in the harsh reality of biblical times.

No. But I did now and it was exactly what I knew it would be.

Biased bull , with no mention of Onan, kids mauled by bear, or the dude that died for simply touching the Ark.

God is a twisted, insecure .

So anything that is against what you believe/would like to see is biased. Like I said earlier, you have already determined what is right/acceptable and what is not. What is the point of stating your ideals of enforcing current standards across human history?