Quote:

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



either you misunderstood the ninja analogy or you think god would lose a fight with me and need you to defend him.

Quote:


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.


okay, then did the Pope condemn slavery outright in the 1700's when it was perverted from the initial practice?

Quote:


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.


so you're making up stuff to fill in gaps in the bible, thus admitting that there are huge gaps there which means the bible isn't perfect?

Quote:


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.


again, how does it hurt you that two gay guys are fucking, Mr. Transvestite porn.

Quote:


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

First of all, Jerusalem is not considered by anyone to be the cradle of civilization.


which invalidates your point about judeo-christians being the foundation of morality.
the cradle of civilization, laws, the first human philosophy of ethics and values came from the Greeks.
A non-christian society that was tolerant of gays.

Quote:


Rome created democracy....


....no, it was the Greeks.
And the Romans adapted it later and used it successfully long before they were Christian.

Quote:


Why the hell do you think they were wacky?



I was being sarcastic. Because they weren't christian therefore their crazy religion was "wacky."

Quote:

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.


A. It wasn't your God, it was Zeus. Your argument has been based on Judeo-Christian being the foundation of morals.
B. That doesn't prove there is a god, just that they believed in one.

Quote:

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.



Hasn't your whole point been about morals, not ethics. Morals are eternal concepts that go to the core of every person based upon compassion and empathy (not based on god, but based on a common understanding).
Ethics shift from culture to culture.

Quote:


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


everything I've read since I was a child would indicate that all of Greece (in fact the whole world up till Abrahamic religions) was polytheist.
Just because he had creation views, doesn't mean it was your god doing the creating in his stories.

The point I was making was that he discussed morals and values and WAS NOT Judeo-Christian.
You had argued that morality came from the foundation set down by Judeo-christian religions.

Quote:


Your opinion (see above to realize stupidity).


how so?
because it disagrees with you?

Quote:


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.


you're getting into semantics.
I think because you know your argument is running out of steam.
You see I have facts to support me, not one little old book and a pocket full of faith.

Quote:


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


I don't hate christians. please stop saying that, its annoying.
what I hate is organized religion and the members of said religions who think they are literally holier than thou (or thee or hell, me).

I dislike all religions where people give up time and money as a gamble on some heavenly reward.
Christians rank at the bottom for me because of their need to convert others.

Quote:


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 was Christian…..Actually, that’s technically


you do realize that you quoted me saying "yes" and then typed this. I've forgotten the original thing you said that I was saying yes to.

Quote:


This isn’t true at all, and moreover, it doesn’t make slavery any better in their.


were you going to say "opinion?"
did I cut you off?
sorry.

Slavery was a somewhat humane and governed practice until we (yes WE, Americans) needed more slaves to cultivate all the new American tobacco crops than indentured servitude could provide.
Landowners needed cheap, lifelong labor that they didn't have to set free or pay off at the end of the contract.

Once they started shipping slaves from Africa everything changed. Laws were passed to strip away basic humanity from slaves and turn them into property.


Quote:


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


have you ever taken a history class?
did you read what I typed before?
I didn't say all slavery, I said slavery in the 1700's and beyond was vastly more cruel than any before it.

Quote:

Wall of Jericho = Proven


You can prove a city was there. You can prove it fell. Show me the proof that a horn caused it to fall.

Quote:

Deluge specifically described within Bible = Proven


You can prove evidence of a massive flood.
Show me the evidence of one man building a massive ark to contain every species on earth (even ones not indigenious to his homeland) and enough of his family to repopulate the earth.

Quote:

Sodom and Gommorah = Proven


I've never heard any proof of it existing, but lets say you can prove the city existed.
And lets say you can prove it was destroyed suddenly.
Show me proof that two angels caused brumstone to rain down and destroy it.

Quote:

Resurrection = Proven


is your proof the bible?
because I was raised christian and I remember there being no witnesses to the actual ressurrection.

Quote:


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.


it seems like your whole argument is based on this anger because I don't believe the same thing you do. you've accepted the bible as truth, as the word of god. I haven't.
why get so bent out of shape?
if you look at what I'm saying and what your saying, my words are peppered with light hearted banter and you seem to be losing your mind here.

just calm the fuck down and look at it this way:
if i'm right then who knows what happens after death. if you're right, then i go to hell.

in the end this debate won't change the course of religion. and if you believe so strongly in your faith nothing i say should shake your belief. however your anger does come off as a bit too defensive.

Quote:


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.


but you said its accepted by most of the people of the world. there are about 2 billion christians out there, leaving 4 billion non-christians. that means 2/3 of the world don't believe fully in christianity.
just because you think their reasons for not believing in the bible are wrong doesn't change the fact that they don't believe in it.

Quote:


If it was raining gregariously all over the world, water would be building up way to fast for anyone to build anything.


then how did Noah build?

Quote:

Furthermore, even if they did have a decent amount of time, it’s already been pointed out that these people weren’t boat makers.


but this was a world wide flood, right? were there no fishing villages anywhere? no places where someone knew how to build a boat to save even just their family?

Quote:

Even if they were able to make one properly, it wouldn’t have lasted in the water.


no one in the whole "world wide" flood could make a decent boat, but simple Noah gets a crash course in boat building and suddenly builds a boat capable of holding millions of creatures.

Quote:


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.


A. matters of opinion don't count in terms of being corrected (anti-bush posts)
B. I stand by my posts, Poopy Pants. I grew up on the history channel and PBS and read whenever I get the chance. When I'm online, I'm glued to sites like wikipedia for the constant new information I can gain. You're some fuck who holds the bible in one hand and transvestite porn in the other (that's a sin, right) and then preaches to me like you're some great guru.

Quote:


No offense to Rob. But I don't really think of these boards as anything but casual conversation. This whole thread is just a fun little debate when I'm bored.

Quote:

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.


I never said it was about slavery, just that it turned a blind eye to it.
And I still don't think you know what an ad hominem is. Please, look it up. dictionary.com is a great site.

Quote:


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


I'm a whore now? please explain the logic behind that. or is this one of those times where you don't have logic, just faith in my being a whore?

Quote:

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


wait. clarify that.
you think the terrorists deny their doctrine or that the peaceful muslims deny their doctrine?

Quote:


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.


have you ever known a muslim? they will describe daily life as a "jihad" to maintain purity. A struggle to maintain the strict diet and teetotaler standards, and to maintain their cycle of daily prayers.
In their religion they must pray for a certain length at different times throughout the day.
That is a jihad.

If a foreign army invades their land, they are required to fight them and defend their home and family and religion.

The terrorist Jihad is a perversion on one hand and an interpretation of our actions as an invasion.

Quote:

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.


if you don't trust me, then look it up. That's what I do with your "facts."
go to the library or save time and check out wikipedia.org (a damn good site by the way).

And Muslims in America are living in a land that violates some of their purity standards. But the "jihad" of that is to abstain from beer at a ballgame, to keep their diet free of pork and whatnot at restaurants.
to schedule in their prayer ritual.

Quote:


So you’re saying that Osama Bin Laden was justified in bombing us?


I think he had his reasons, I think we (the CIA) put the gun in his hands.
I'll never agree with the murder of any person for revenge purposes or misguided senses of justice.

I think the money and influence he used for 9/11 would've worked out better by building political and public support for his views. He could've waged a public campaign to discredit Bush and his cronies that would've had him coming out looking better and his enemy looking worse (same with every terrorist act, violence begets violence).

Quote:

So think the insurgents are right in killing hundreds of innocents in Iraq even after the war is over?


I do not believe a civilized country invades another on what if theories.
I do not believe intelligent leaders invade a country they do not intend to conquer without an exit strategy.
I believe people will fight for their homeland when it is threatened or invaded.

Bush and his people are squarely to blame for the current deaths in Iraq. Due to piss poor planning and a focus on oil money over human life.

Quote:


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


see above.
I ask again, do you know anyone of the Islamic faith or are you basing this information on some "analysis of Islam" you read on Anne Coulter's website?

Quote:


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


tomato tomatoe

Quote:


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.


no, I don't hate christians as a whole.
again, this is a debate on religion. so obviously i'm going to debate religion on this thread. show me any other thread where you, sammich, or wbam posted on that had nothing to do with religion where i started critiquing your beliefs.

Quote:


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.


how can something that's 100% accurate be open for interpretation?

Quote:


Link me to this “evidence”.


you never went to a museum as a child?
they're kind of fun, you should try one out.

Quote:

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.


my problem with christian beliefs comes not from the "love thy neighbor" aspect but more the "no way to my father but through me" aspect.
I outright refuse to believe any religion that says you're condemned simply for not believing.
And argue that point all you want but you know as well as I that a person isn't "saved" by being good, they're "saved" by believing in christ.

i also find it ridiculous that the christians don't even use a correct image or pronunciation of their saviors name.
they use an english translation of a greek word, and a white washed middle ages redesign.

Quote:


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.


explain your definition of the word "saved."

Quote:


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.


created from dust and a rib? then why was it so hard to map the human genome?


Quote:

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



Quote:

Poopy Pants huffed and puffed and cried out:
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:


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.


I'll ask again. Outside of the Bible/Torrah where are the records of the Judeo-Christian god in other cultures?
If its the one true god then it should be referenced elsewhere.

Quote:


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



how about all those bones they found in Africa.
or the artifacts in china that predate many western civilizations.

Quote:

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


like a "rap session?"
I can dig that.

Quote:


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.


wouldn't it matter to the people who weren't saved and went to hell?
and why have christ be born then? if god was smart he'd have christ be born today so all the miracles could be televised.

Quote:


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.


but who created the conquistadors?


Quote:


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


did he wear a swastika on his arm as Jews were put in ovens?

Quote:


No. You lie about shit. Lots.


no, I don't.

Quote:


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.


I'm a big believer in cryptozoology.

Quote:

Do me the favor: Stop being a fuckwit.


that's a textbook ad hominem.


Quote:

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:


and we've already proven that it was a very non-judeo christian culture that first had discussions of value systems and morality.
and Hitler's anti-semetic views were picked up by the culture he came from.

Quote:


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


someone above posted Hitler's various pro-Christian remarks.

Quote:

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


yes. yes it does.

Bow ties are coool.