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

[Blake]

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.

God created harsh Bible times.

If slavery is ever morally wrong, then it's always morally wrong.

You can't logically have it both ways.

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?

Did you read your link? The author all but said he's biased against atheists.

We as a society have determined slavery is morally wrong for what should be incredibly obvious reasons.

God doesn't see these obvious reasons, apparently.

[ambchang]

God created harsh Bible times.

Created and allowed are two different things. Man, through sins, created harsh times. Again, you are now pinning everything that goes wrong on God, and will not take the consequences of sins with mankind.

If slavery is ever morally wrong, then it's always morally wrong.

You can't logically have it both ways.

Untrue. Human morals change with times. Emitting vast amounts of GHG for economic growth wasn't wrong a mere 50 years ago. It is slowly changing.

Did you read your link? The author all but said he's biased against atheists.

We as a society have determined slavery is morally wrong for what should be incredibly obvious reasons.

God doesn't see these obvious reasons, apparently.

I did read the link, and of course theists have viewpoints that contradicts those against atheists. You have continuously shown that you have a bias, or even hatred, against theist through this entire thread, am I to simply dismiss your arguments based on that single point?

We as a society determined that slavery is wrong due to the horrible abuses that have existed through human history, not because of ownership itself.

Again, God allowed ownership of humans due to practical historical reasons, he never commanded it.

[Blake]

We as a society determined that slavery is wrong due to the horrible abuses that have existed through human history, not because of ownership itself.

Again, God allowed ownership of humans due to practical historical reasons, he never commanded it.

Rofl. I can't believe I'm seeing someone try to justify slavery.

You can absolutely dismiss my arguments for whatever reason you like. Me, when I see a paragraph start with "atheists like to....".....I tend to dismiss such lazy straw man fallacies and most of the content that follows it.

[Stabula]

@ referring to Jason Collins as a "filthy perverted beast"

[Monster1776]

me how is this thread still going on?

[Blake]

you you just bumped it up again

[ambchang]

Rofl. I can't believe I'm seeing someone try to justify slavery.

You can absolutely dismiss my arguments for whatever reason you like. Me, when I see a paragraph start with "atheists like to....".....I tend to dismiss such lazy straw man fallacies and most of the content that follows it.

If you want to see my arguments as justifying slavery , then so be it. We have been through this multiple times, and you are continuously trying to take things out of context and misrepresent what is being said.

And as for "atheists like to ...", I suppose continuous insult to theist's intelligence is fair game, while generalization of atheists are out of bounds.

[Blake]

If you want to see my arguments as justifying slavery , then so be it. We have been through this multiple times, and you are continuously trying to take things out of context and misrepresent what is being said.

And as for "atheists like to ...", I suppose continuous insult to theist's intelligence is fair game, while generalization of atheists are out of bounds.

Misrepresentation, putting words in my mouth and trying to put a motive/agenda behind my posts is exactly what you're doing here.

I have no agenda here. Honestly, what we're discussing here is just scratching the surface of why christianity is bull .

Believing in Bible God is just as ridiculous as believing in Zeus. It just is.

If you find that insulting, you can either A) Get over your butthurt or B) prove that God exists

[ambchang]

Misrepresentation, putting words in my mouth and trying to put a motive/agenda behind my posts is exactly what you're doing here.

I have no agenda here. Honestly, what we're discussing here is just scratching the surface of why christianity is bull .

Believing in Bible God is just as ridiculous as believing in Zeus. It just is.

If you find that insulting, you can either A) Get over your butthurt or B) prove that God exists

Hilarious that you are pulling the misrepresentation card right here. You have consistently misrepresented what the Bible said throughout this entire thread, and I am not sure if you have even read the entire book, or spent any significant amount of time to research your issues with the religion to draw such decisive conclusions.

If you are have no agenda, then what is the purpose of these arguments?

And already coming to the conclusion that believing in Bible God is a ridiculous concept and having no room for argument is contradictory to your actions of arguing. You have already established this as a fact, and there is no room for argument, so why are you even arguing?

I do not find it insulting, as I had the same questions before. The difference is that I left room for argument, and I research with the lens of assuming existence than assuming non-existence.

Finally, the proof of God exists is as convincing as the proof of God not existing. I will never understand the burden of proof on the existence of God rather than the other way around. Do you actually see that as some profound argument that with no proof of the existence equates to proving non-existence?

[Woo Bum-kon]

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.

I asked if YOU thought it was okay to kill sexuals, and you never answered my question. Same thing for all the other questions.

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).

An entire paragraph of justifying murder. Do YOU think it's okay to kill unruly children?

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.

The Bible clearly says that the one doing the beating will not be punished.

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

Oh, never mind, then. If you're okay with people being considered as property, what else is there to say?

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

I didn't elect anybody or vote, so you have no point there. Again, you saying, "The government does it, too!" is meaningless to me, because I haven't condoned their actions.

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

True, and I'll repeat it as much as I want.

But those were different times.

I don't give a .

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

I don't care. Your God passed down those laws. Your God has ty morals. Period.

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

I don't know. Why don't you ask somebody who is making that argument instead of building strawmen.

And equating murder to unruly behavior.

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

Like what?

It could be given, but seeking religious answers in a basketball forum itself is an illogical act

No, it isn't, idiot. I want to hear what the people on here have to say. I'm not looking for some absolute answers, because I know that they won't be found here.

and to come here and demand logical answers to it is contradicting.

No, it isn't. You can keep repeating this bull , but it won't be true. I am asking believers questions. Believer should be able to logically defend their beliefs, no matter what forum they're on.

I apologize for not putting quote marks on your quotes. Never realized that it is of such monumental importance to you.

It's not. The only reason we're still talking about this I because you asked me to provide proof that you ed up quotes.

And yet I can't help but notice that you said I did everything else right. I thank you for that.

No, I didn't. You can't read too well.

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.

No, it wasn't, lying moron. It was a direct response to your claim that the Bible prohibited the beating of slaves. Stop lying.

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.

I am not taking things out of context. This is a fundamental disagreement in values.

While you think that there is a certain context in which enslaving human beings is okay, I don't.
While you think that there is a certain context in which killing unruly children is okay, I don't.
While you think that there is a certain context in which killing those who practice sexuality is okay, I don't.

There is no misreading here. You are justifying murder and slavery. I am not.

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?

That's what human beings have been doing since the dawn of civilization, sicko.

Another example of taking texts out of context.

Nope. Stop defending slavery and I'll stop saying that you defend slavery.

Where did you get the idea that God got nothing else to do?

Because he doesn't do anything.

Is God supposed to follow what you think He should do now?

It's what's logical, not what I think.

And what tells you not only 0.001% of non-believers haven't converted?

You can't read too well. I am saying that God should try to convert present non-believers.

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

So? Doesn't justify slavery. And your LeBron example fails completely.

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

Nowhere in that post do I make the claim that slavery then is exactly the same as slavery now. Keep lying.

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

Treat them like we do now. Treat them like we treated the Germans after WWII. The Jews had GOD on their side, so being a product of their times is no excuse.

[Blake]

Hilarious that you are pulling the misrepresentation card right here. You have consistently misrepresented what the Bible said throughout this entire thread, and I am not sure if you have even read the entire book, or spent any significant amount of time to research your issues with the religion to draw such decisive conclusions.

No I haven't. The Bible says "gays shall be put to death".

There's no way that doesn't mean not to execute them.

But I'd like to see you try to spin it.

If you are have no agenda, then what is the purpose of these arguments?

And already coming to the conclusion that believing in Bible God is a ridiculous concept and having no room for argument is contradictory to your actions of arguing. You have already established this as a fact, and there is no room for argument, so why are you even arguing?

If you think I'm here to change you or anyone else's mind, you're mistaken. There's nothing in it for me to do that and frankly, I don't care about you as an individual. No offense.

I'm just playing along for a few s and giggles. Sort of like playing Frisbee with a dog.

do not find it insulting, as I had the same questions before. The difference is that I left room for argument, and I research with the lens of assuming existence than assuming non-existence.

Finally, the proof of God exists is as convincing as the proof of God not existing. I will never understand the burden of proof on the existence of God rather than the other way around. Do you actually see that as some profound argument that with no proof of the existence equates to proving non-existence?

I don't have a problem with agnosticism. I'm probably a bit agnostic myself.

What I've closed the door on is Christianity. Like I said before, God killing the gay is just scratching the surface of problems with the Bible and christianity.

If you want to go further and talk historical crap such as zoroastrianism, the council of Trent, the apocrypha or go even deeper and talk impossible paradoxes such as , free will and how ridiculously unintelligent Satan is, I'll throw you a bone and start a thread over in the political forum.

Even though the chance is incredibly low, there still might be something that you or someone else throws out that I've never seen before. I'm open minded like that.

[Woo Bum-kon]

The default position is assuming non-existence, so ambchang screwed up already by assuming the opposite.

[Blake]

The default position is assuming non-existence, so ambchang screwed up already by assuming the opposite.

what's wrong with assuming the existence of a loving, all powerful spaghetti monster?

[ambchang]

I asked if YOU thought it was okay to kill sexuals, and you never answered my question. Same thing for all the other questions.



An entire paragraph of justifying murder. Do YOU think it's okay to kill unruly children?



The Bible clearly says that the one doing the beating will not be punished.



Oh, never mind, then. If you're okay with people being considered as property, what else is there to say?



I didn't elect anybody or vote, so you have no point there. Again, you saying, "The government does it, too!" is meaningless to me, because I haven't condoned their actions.



True, and I'll repeat it as much as I want.



I don't give a .



I don't care. Your God passed down those laws. Your God has ty morals. Period.



I don't know. Why don't you ask somebody who is making that argument instead of building strawmen.

And equating murder to unruly behavior.



Like what?



No, it isn't, idiot. I want to hear what the people on here have to say. I'm not looking for some absolute answers, because I know that they won't be found here.



No, it isn't. You can keep repeating this bull , but it won't be true. I am asking believers questions. Believer should be able to logically defend their beliefs, no matter what forum they're on.



It's not. The only reason we're still talking about this I because you asked me to provide proof that you ed up quotes.



No, I didn't. You can't read too well.



No, it wasn't, lying moron. It was a direct response to your claim that the Bible prohibited the beating of slaves. Stop lying.



I am not taking things out of context. This is a fundamental disagreement in values.

While you think that there is a certain context in which enslaving human beings is okay, I don't.
While you think that there is a certain context in which killing unruly children is okay, I don't.
While you think that there is a certain context in which killing those who practice sexuality is okay, I don't.

There is no misreading here. You are justifying murder and slavery. I am not.



That's what human beings have been doing since the dawn of civilization, sicko.



Nope. Stop defending slavery and I'll stop saying that you defend slavery.



Because he doesn't do anything.



It's what's logical, not what I think.



You can't read too well. I am saying that God should try to convert present non-believers.



So? Doesn't justify slavery. And your LeBron example fails completely.


Nowhere in that post do I make the claim that slavery then is exactly the same as slavery now. Keep lying.



Treat them like we do now. Treat them like we treated the Germans after WWII. The Jews had GOD on their side, so being a product of their times is no excuse.

Not going to talk about it point by point, because we have basically gone back and forth with the exact same points over and over again.

Most of the questions you asked have been answered multiple times, and you have stated that they do not satisfy your criteria, which is fine by me.

As for treating POW, are you serious? Did you know what actually went on in WWII? It's great that you are saying 1/3 of the human population is drinking the Bible Koolaid, and not see the US Koolaid you've been drinking.

[ambchang]

No I haven't. The Bible says "gays shall be put to death".

There's no way that doesn't mean not to execute them.

But I'd like to see you try to spin it.

Where did the Bible say "gays shall be put to death"? What you are doing is akin to me quoting your post, stripping every thing out and leaving the phrase "gays shall be put to death", and say you said it.

I have said it multiple times about the context of how it worked, and how the penalty has everything to do with following pagan rituals than being sexuals themselves. So there is no point in me repeating for about the 5th time.

If you think I'm here to change you or anyone else's mind, you're mistaken. There's nothing in it for me to do that and frankly, I don't care about you as an individual. No offense.

I'm just playing along for a few s and giggles. Sort of like playing Frisbee with a dog.

So you have little purpose in this argument, and is treating a discussion in the death of sexuals as a game? You really put yourself on a moral high ground on that one.

I don't have a problem with agnosticism. I'm probably a bit agnostic myself.

What I've closed the door on is Christianity. Like I said before, God killing the gay is just scratching the surface of problems with the Bible and christianity.

If you want to go further and talk historical crap such as zoroastrianism, the council of Trent, the apocrypha or go even deeper and talk impossible paradoxes such as , free will and how ridiculously unintelligent Satan is, I'll throw you a bone and start a thread over in the political forum.

Even though the chance is incredibly low, there still might be something that you or someone else throws out that I've never seen before. I'm open minded like that.

I never visit the political forum, so there is no point.

Agnosticism essentially is I don't know. Having a strong opinion on something you don't know about is quite a refreshing take.

[ambchang]

The default position is assuming non-existence, so ambchang screwed up already by assuming the opposite.

what's wrong with assuming the existence of a loving, all powerful spaghetti monster?

Why is the the default position non-existence? Care to explain?

[Blake]

Where did the Bible say "gays shall be put to death"? What you are doing is akin to me quoting your post, stripping every thing out and leaving the phrase "gays shall be put to death", and say you said it.

I have said it multiple times about the context of how it worked, and how the penalty has everything to do with following pagan rituals than being sexuals themselves. So there is no point in me repeating for about the 5th time.

It specifically says in Leviticus 20:13 that sexuals shall be put to death.

if you're set on mistranslating this, then I'd agree, there's no point for you to go further.

So you have little purpose in this argument, and is treating a discussion in the death of sexuals as a game? You really put yourself on a moral high ground on that one.

there is no game in this discussion because there is no compe ion.

It's clear at this point your levels of comprehension, logic and biblical history are at base level.

No offense, it just is what it is. I'm just playing along, again, for a few s and giggles.

I never visit the political forum, so there is no point.

Agnosticism essentially is I don't know. Having a strong opinion on something you don't know about is quite a refreshing take.

The political forum is set up for "politics and religious discussions" so it was merely a suggestion.

If you want to stay at your continued level of ignorance, it's no skin off my back.

[Blake]

Why is the the default position non-existence? Care to explain?

Base logic.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Why is the the default position non-existence? Care to explain?

Burden of proof. Your God hasn't met it yet.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Not going to talk about it point by point, because we have basically gone back and forth with the exact same points over and over again.

Most of the questions you asked have been answered multiple times, and you have stated that they do not satisfy your criteria, which is fine by me.

As for treating POW, are you serious? Did you know what actually went on in WWII? It's great that you are saying 1/3 of the human population is drinking the Bible Koolaid, and not see the US Koolaid you've been drinking.

I wasn't talking about POWs. I meant that the defeated groups should be forced to reform.

And you are right that a point by point rebuttal is pointless. You made it very clear that you condone murder for ridiculous "crimes," and I have made it clear that I don't.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Agnosticism essentially is I don't know. Having a strong opinion on something you don't know about is quite a refreshing take.

This is funny, since you seem not to know what agnosticism or atheism is.

Atheism is the rejection of the claim "There is a God."
Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of a god (or gods) is unknown and/or unknowable.

One can be both an agnostic and an atheist. And one can take a strong stance against the claim that God exists because there is no evidence for his existence. To believe without evidence is moronic.

Basically, you were a ty atheist, which is why you converted to Christianity.

[ambchang]

It specifically says in Leviticus 20:13 that sexuals shall be put to death.

if you're set on mistranslating this, then I'd agree, there's no point for you to go further.

there is no game in this discussion because there is no compe ion.

It's clear at this point your levels of comprehension, logic and biblical history are at base level.

No offense, it just is what it is. I'm just playing along, again, for a few s and giggles.

The political forum is set up for "politics and religious discussions" so it was merely a suggestion.

If you want to stay at your continued level of ignorance, it's no skin off my back.

It does take you a little longer than WB-k to go the personal attack route, so I give you credit. But unfortunately, at the end of this, it still resolves to personal attacks. Which, really, isn't surprising.

I also find it amusing how you could have not read the Bible in itself to conclude the entire book makes no sense. That goes for some strong comprehension skills.

[ambchang]

Burden of proof. Your God hasn't met it yet.

Which really does not apply, as the burden of proof and the default positions of logic was created for scientific and mathematical studies. People extend the same set of rules to religious and philosophical studies.

I wasn't talking about POWs. I meant that the defeated groups should be forced to reform.

And you are right that a point by point rebuttal is pointless. You made it very clear that you condone murder for ridiculous "crimes," and I have made it clear that I don't.

We have been talking about POWs in the Bible all along, haven't we?

And in terms of murder for ridiculous crimes, you condone it as much as any American (assuming you are from the States), as you live in a country that has capital punishment as part of a legal code.

This is funny, since you seem not to know what agnosticism or atheism is.

Atheism is the rejection of the claim "There is a God."
Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of a god (or gods) is unknown and/or unknowable.

One can be both an agnostic and an atheist. And one can take a strong stance against the claim that God exists because there is no evidence for his existence. To believe without evidence is moronic.

Basically, you were a ty atheist, which is why you converted to Christianity.

Under the same logic, could you have been a below standard theist, and converted to atheism?

And I fully understand the meaning of Agnosticism, it is a mechanism to cover all bases to satisfy logical rules to make a stance infallible.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Which really does not apply, as the burden of proof and the default positions of logic was created for scientific and mathematical studies. People extend the same set of rules to religious and philosophical studies.

Burden of proof absolutely does apply. There's the claim, "God exists." Either it has enough evidence supporting it or it does not. Period. It doesn't matter what kind of studies we're in. God either exists or not exists, and he either has evidence that supports his existence or he does not. Period. Since God has no evidence supporting his existence, the only justifiable conclusion is that God doesn't exist.

We have been talking about POWs in the Bible all along, haven't we?

Nope, because not just POWs were slaves.

And in terms of murder for ridiculous crimes, you condone it as much as any American (assuming you are from the States), as you live in a country that has capital punishment as part of a legal code.

You are unbelievably re ed.

1.) I am not condoning capital punishment. Just because I live in America does not mean I condone capital punishment. I did not make the legal code or vote for it. Stop being an idiot. Stop reaching.
2.) The death sentence for MURDER fits the crime far more than a death sentence for unruliness or being a non-believer. You equating the two is pathetic.

This argument from you makes no sense at all. You are just piling up the stupid.

Under the same logic, could you have been a below standard theist, and converted to atheism?

All theists are below standard.

And I fully understand the meaning of Agnosticism, it is a mechanism to cover all bases to satisfy logical rules to make a stance infallible.

Infallible how?

[ambchang]

Burden of proof absolutely does apply. There's the claim, "God exists." Either it has enough evidence supporting it or it does not. Period. It doesn't matter what kind of studies we're in. God either exists or not exists, and he either has evidence that supports his existence or he does not. Period. Since God has no evidence supporting his existence, the only justifiable conclusion is that God doesn't exist.

This topic has been studied for ages, and many theories and arguments have been made for and against the existence of God. Whether that proof is sufficient to you is another matter. This argument could be made by any scientific theory as well.

Nope, because not just POWs were slaves.

The argument with regards to slaves through debt has been settled. Those "slaves" were essentially people under contract and could be freed after years of labour to pay off debt, and the treatment of them has been established to be quite well. You have been having a problem with slaves that were beaten, and those were POW, weren't they?

You are unbelievably re ed.

1.) I am not condoning capital punishment. Just because I live in America does not mean I condone capital punishment. I did not make the legal code or vote for it. Stop being an idiot. Stop reaching.
2.) The death sentence for MURDER fits the crime far more than a death sentence for unruliness or being a non-believer. You equating the two is pathetic.

This argument from you makes no sense at all. You are just piling up the stupid.

You used the same argument that all Christians condone slavery, after misinterpreting the code in handling slavery in the OT. I did not make the legal code, nor did I vote for it in the OT, neither did millions and millions of Christians, Jews or Muslims.
As for point 2), I am not in the position to argue who is and is not deserving of capital punishment. If you feel that you have the moral right to determine whether a person lives or not, be my guest.

All theists are below standard.

Proof.

Infallible how?

By stating that an argument that has been argued since the dawn of time cannot be proven one way or another is to take an infallible stance. It has been demonstrated for thousands of years that an answer could not be deduced.