At this point, again, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You have no fucking clue as to what you're talking about. You don't know what is or is not accepted by secularity from Christian doctrine. You don't know how to interpret Biblical verses. Apparently you don't know anything about genetic mutations. You don't know anything about the time-frame difference between the Bible and the proposed Pre-Cambrian era, as alluded to by secularist/evolutionist scientist. You furthermore outright lie about what I say

How exactly can this be a real argument if I have to explain your misconceptions and straw mans at every corner? The novel idea would be to read up on rudimentary logic and Biblical history...Not to mention the laws of heredity.

OR you're doing it on purpose. All things considered, that seems very likely.

Quote:

r3x29yz4a said:
Then why do you bother trying so hard to defend him and prove he exists? If I see a ninja being attacked I know he can take care of himself and stay out of it.
Yes, that ninja situation has come up before.



That all depends on whether or not he's winning or losing the fight.

Quote:

does it ever say specifically not to? Because if it shows an act that some may find immoral like, I don't know, slavery. And it doesn't condemn that act then it is condoning the act in a roundabout way.



At that time, there was an abundance of indentured servants. Most of the slaves mentioned in the Bible were indentured. Meaning they could be treated in whatever way their masters wanted for a full decade for the sake of shelter and getting paid at the end.

As far as true owning of a person goes (which involves indentured servants as well: You’re taking things out of context. Much of the scripture in the Bible involving slavery pertains to a world where slavery is on par with our current expectations of work force. You’re stuck in the 17-1800s where slaves were treated unequally based more on race than class.

Quote:

but you can't do that. You can't reject logic on one hand because it contradicts something in the bible (age of earth) then use logic to support some unspoken biblical rule, especially one as farfetched as that.
Give me one ancient text that mentions genetic.



Far-fetched?

Maybe you missed the part where I explained to you that it wasn't until around circa 2000 BC that children born of incest were not negatively effected by the union. Obviously this wouldn't be the case today. God specifically forbid it at that time when cross-dominant genetics was at its breaking point in the human biologial structure. It doesn't need to be said in the Bible for us to recognize why those types of unions were forbidden.

And you seemed to have missed every point I made regarding the age of earth. Please review if you feel like actually making a suitable point instead of making a sweeping gesture like a half-wit.

Quote:

How does sodomy actually effect society? Or you in general? The people of Soddom and Gamorah weren't a community of gay men that were wiped out, they were a community of sexual perverts. The main sin mentioned by the Angels is the fact that the citizens commit rape.



It walked hand in hand. There wasn't just rape going on but mass amounts of consensual anal sex, and that was forbidden. To say that fact didn't play a role is gross ignorance. Both are abominations.

Quote:

how did the world survive even 10,000 of your christian years, or 9,000 years of your Jewish years before we were saved by the mighty Yaweh?



Noe was saved and his family was able to start . Duh.

Quote:

Ancient Greece is. You remember them? Pesky little pre-judeo christians who created democracy?



Rome created democracy....

Quote:

And what about wacky Socrates? Or zany Plato? Those pre-judeo christian guys who were the first philosophers to discuss values and ethics?



Why the hell do you think they were wacky?

Anyway, the funny part about that statement is that you left out that they were the first philosophers to conclude that there is a God. Singular.

Plato's Republic was indeed very successful, having principles in kind with the Old Testament, however, their ethics stopped to a point (that slavery you were talking about to name one thing). Moreover they didn't play as active a role as establishing morals to the majority of society, which was my point in the case of the Christianity/Judaism. "Morals" aren't exactly the same as being "ethical". They're both ground in logic, however one's particular to being fair whilst the other is focused on doing things for a greater good.

Quote:

They don't count do they? Why? Because it was Zues instead of Jesus?



You are one of the most ignorant dipshit's I've ever encountered. Plato and Socrates were not poly-theists.

Quote:

the religion of Zeus (see above point)



Your opinion (see above to realize stupidity).

Quote:

again, I point out the greeks.



Again, I point out there’s a difference between ethics and morals. One’s practiced solely for the sake of the society, one’s practiced for the sake of the people in particular, whether they be individual or amassed. True morals wouldn’t play favorites.

Quote:

meaning you don't find slavery to be an immoral act that shames a society?



I’m sure you’d like to think that so you can further your abject blind hatred of Christians and Christianity.

Quote:

yes.



You can’t do that. Simply because most of the society was Christian doesn’t indicate Christianity as amoral when it was a secular law. Using that reasoning, I could say it was Christianity who ended slavery since Abe Lincoln Christian…..Actually, that’s technically true since he was of Christian principles.

Quote:

Slavery from ancient times was about using criminals and prisoners of war. Treatment of slaves was also governed by standards, and a good deal of slavery wasn't a lifelong obligation.



This isn’t true at all, and moreover, it doesn’t make slavery any better in their case if it's forced.

Quote:

It was only in christian countries where slavery became about imprisoning an entire race for life based on them not being "god's people."



Uh, yeah, you got a link proving that all slavery has been race and/or Christian-based?

Quote:

unprovable stories about supernatural deeds.



Wall of Jericho = Proven

Deluge specifically described within Bible = Proven

Sodom and Gommorah = Proven

Resurrection = Proven

Quote:

no its accepted by christians. no other religion sees the bible as 100% accurate. and all the government officials that do, are judeo christian (so obviously they'd support it as fact).



Wrong. The Bible has indisputably been shown to be accurate. Secularists may not want to accept its accuracy, but that’s irrelevant in the face of its secularly admitted historical value. If it’s brought into a conversation, it must be taken seriously sense it’s officially accepted as a historical document. Insisting that you don’t believe it and giving a rough estimate of others who don’t doesn’t mean it’s not true history. It just means you have your fingers in your ears whilst saying, “Christians suck!” over and over again.

Quote:

again, christians believe it. we happen to have 98% christian politicians (a good example of morality?) and any one who doesn't believe in the bible would avoid the issue to not alienate voters.



Voting has nothing to do with it. I’m talking about scientific discovery.

Quote:

and if you take into account muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists and all the atheist/agnostics then you have about 4 billion people who either; don't believe in the bible, think its been heavily altered, or think its got some truth and some fiction.



All of those points have been disproven and/or presented with no evidence, meaning that’s their personal bias and not a true indicator of Biblical accuracy.

Quote:

okay. pay attention now.
if the water was slow rising, then non-ocean faring people probably still would've realized the need to build a boat, and would've learned to do so.



If it was raining gregariously all over the world, water would be building up way to fast for anyone to build anything. Furthermore, even if they did have a decent amount of time, it’s already been pointed out that these people weren’t boat makers. Even if they were able to make one properly, it wouldn’t have lasted in the water.

Quote:

lies=disagree with pariah?



Nope. You lie about everything. Are you denying that more than half the information you quote to make your cases is either off-base, half-truth, or full on not true? If so, there’s a prolly a dozen posters here who’ll disagree. In most of the arguments you’ve had on these boards, people have had to correct your “knowledge” on whatever subject you were arguing.

Quote:

being loony=proving pariah's argument to be off-base?



Nope. You’re just insane. For arguing with such complacency and thinking that those arguments would actually get by anyone.

Quote:

I don't think you know what an ad hominem is



Your implication was ad hominem, not the phrase itself. Dumbass. You know for a fact Catholicism isn’t “about” slavery, but you just go on trying to push people’s buttons.

Quote:

by insulting me as your reply you pulled an ad hominem.



Indeed I did, but I don’t whore it as much as you do.

Quote:

if that were true then why aren't all muslims terrorists?
I know a few very religious muslims. they can be touchy sometimes, but they're non-violent and believe in a peaceful way of life.



It simply means they deny a part of their doctrine. It doesn’t mean it’s not in their doctrine.

Quote:

jihad has many meanings. it is mainly a struggle to maintain one's faith and purity of being (hence the Isalmic belief in not eating certain animals and never drinking alcohol).
its been misinterpreted to mean soley an act of violence.



Considering a “jihad” has been used for nothing but violence since its conception, and that it’s patently considered as inherently violent by its followers, I find it’s “true meaning”, as described by you, to be irrelevant. More than that, the Muslims are “struggling” to maintain their faith and purity as they think that it’s been tainted by Americans. So there you have it. Also, I don’t think I can trust your definition.

Quote:

muslims do believe in defending themselves from invasions. and we have butt ourselves into their countries and fucked them up in many ways.



So you’re saying that Osama Bin Laden was justified in bombing us? So think the insurgents are right in killing hundreds of innocents in Iraq even after the war is over?

Quote:

and the majority of muslim leaders have denounced terrorism. and the majority of muslims are appalled by the acts of violence.



However, they cannot deny the existence of “Jihad” within their doctrine.

Quote:

if they're trying to shove a flyer in my face, and waking me up with a knock on the door then yes, they are trying to convert me.



Uh, yeah, that’s not forcing. It’s being obnoxious, not a type of attrition.

Quote:

read your above statements. you said their church teaches violence.



That’s doesn’t mean “all Muslims are terrorists”. Duh. It means their religion teaches it.

You said I said something along those lines before. I want to see, from past posts, what you gives you that impression

Quote:

Zion conspiracy?



No.

Quote:

I said specifically i didn't hate christians, simply find them the most obnoxious and offending.



And thus you’ve come to hate them and are now leading your own crusade against them through insulting them at any which point you get the opportunity.

Quote:

that's not even scientists, that's different sects of christianity and religious scholars.



I’m not sure the Protestants actually accused Catholics of actually editing the Bible, so much as embellishing its contents during the middle-ages. After that, all I can say is all arguments as to editing of the Bible have fallen flat. So far, the main conflict is interpretation. Not accuracy.

Quote:

and christians can't prove most of the events in the bible. scientists can show some evidence of evolution.



Link me to this “evidence”.

Quote:

if there are non-believers you do.



The point was to not have have any non-believers. I will say that past governship of Christianity has led to an abundance of these non-believers through corruption, and that gives me ire, but I don’t find that to be a very good excuse on the part of secularists. Actually observing the philosophy rather than condemn it through its past falletical uses, as people so love to point out, would be more logical.

Quote:

an all loving god who's love we have to earn?
does that make sense?



He already loves us, I already said that it’s “rewards” we need to earn.

Quote:

then kill yourself and works out for everyone.



Gotta get rid of that hatred r3x.

Quote:

everyone christian that dies is hellbound?



No. Those people are Christians—The ones you mentioned—But it’s not because they’re Christians that they’re saved. I expressed in the same sentence that they have to be good.

Quote:

the bible says people and a planet just popped into being over a week of hardwork. science and common sense would say it took time for everything to come together and develop.



Science and common sense have already proven past happenings, as construed in the book from which people are taught that the world and Man was created in a week, as being true historical events.

Quote:

the bible's teachings is about as real as the respect you think you have here. (zing)



Ouch. :rolleyes

You’re respect means nothing to me.

Quote:

if everyone came from the same two people, why don't we all look related (unless people evolved to have different races)?



This has gotta be one of the more idiotic things I’ve heard you say. You obviously know nothing about the laws of heredity and exterior genetic mutations based on environment (not to be confused with true evolution).

Quote:

and the question was where are the Judeo-christian teachings in those ancient countries?
if we're all from the same two people and the same godly people then the "word of god" would be in all those countries ancient texts.



The Torah was being steadily built in the millennia BC, so complete Judaism/Christian teachings weren’t around yet. It was shown in the Old Testament that God corrected people when they did things wrong or stopped them before they did something wrong and expressed what it was and why it was wrong. God openly spoke with the first few generations of man and thus they passed on the teachings of the first parts of Genesis and, whatever else God told them, to their children.

Quote:

despite the fact that there is proof of Africans existing first, and the Chinese developing culture long before Europe.



Let’s see the proof. If you’re using MJ’s China example, don’t bother, that one’s long sense been debunked.

Quote:

thousands of years (even by your own count) after mankind started?



….And before Christ, God spoke to the people about what’s right and wrong.

Quote:

show me one shred of proof they went to Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Because you said the apostles, not missionaries.



They went to Asia for sure. I’m not sure about Africa. Anyway, they didn’t go to America. The point was that Europe and the Middle East became the epitomes of Christianity and were used to spread the word. Furthermore, speed isn’t the issue here. It doesn’t matter how long it took before Christianity got to other countries so long as it got there.

Quote:

and if god really wanted them to spread the word to everyone about Christ he would've ensured that first contact with Christ in the Americas would've been something nicer than Conquistadors.



No he wouldn’t. The teachings make it clear that it’s up to us to follow his rules. It’s the fault of those Conquistadors. Not God.

Quote:

at the point of a sword/gun?



Maybe a few countries have had that CHANCE. But no. By reading and studying the Bible.

Quote:

he was a member of Hitler's belief system.



No. He was within their society. That doesn’t mean he retained their beliefs.

Quote:

just because what I say on religion contradicts what you believe to be true doesn't make it a lie.



No. You lie about shit. Lots.

Quote:

and as I've already pointed out it was the Morality of Zeus' chosen people.



Review.

Quote:

what does that prove about dinosaurs starting millions of years before mankind?



It has to do with disproving it. It’s awfully strange that a creature who was purportedly alive only millions of years ago was sighted alive during the time of Noah.


Quote:

r3x29yz4a said:
I never said he was Christian, just that he was raised in a christian community.
Thus negating Pariah's point (once again) that Christianity is the basis of morality.



Do me the favor: Stop being a fuckwit.

I said Christianity/Judaism were first to established morality in culture. Period. I didn't say anything about it's influence succeeding over violence/hatred all the time.

Quote:

r3x29yz4a said:
So you're saying that religion and religious communities have no bearing on the morals of individuals raised in those communities?
interesting.



hey either do or they don't. My brother was raised Christian, but he does things notably un-Christian and without Christian intent. That doesn't mean the overall principles of Christianity had anything to do with his actions.

Hitler's motivations weren't Chrisitian. Nor were they based on Christianity. Period.

Quote:

didn't he seek out the grail and the spear of destiny? because those were technically supporting a belief in dogma.



Just because one practices paganism, that does not mean that-that person doesn't believe the existence of other gods from other religions. Hitler could have simply practiced paganism because he believes in God, but hated him at the same time (prolly cuz' of his favoring of the Jews).

Quote:

i would've thought the jews was his first target. homosexuals and blacks second targets.
but i guess i missed all those christians in death camps.



He wanted to extinguish all religions jackass. Just the Jewish people in general first.

Quote:

except for the killing and doing god's work.



Not even that because nowhere was he trying to do God's work or do God's work at all.

Quote:

he was raised in a catholic community. if you (well, Pariah) want to attribute morality to religious influence then you have take credit for all morality under catholic rule.



Quote:

he sure wasn't raised jewish or muslim, i can say that at least.



Pau Pot was raised secular. I guess that means secularity inspires mass genocide.

Last edited by Pariah; 2005-07-17 6:40 AM.