Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Jesus Reborn

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality is either:
« on: August 03, 2007, 04:15:56 PM »
To say civilizations fell because of homosexuality is THE MOST ignorant thing I have ever heard in my entire life. ... Civilizations don't fall due to acts of love...
Whether my argument is valid or not, in no way validates or invalidates yours.





... a province called Alberta. It's stacked with ignorant hillbillies like yourself. Full of hate... and loaded with weapons.
... my current residency of Alberta.





You are the hater, the homosexuals aren't. Realize that.
Narcberry... head out of your ass... you're a-sexual... fuckheads like you ... act "righteous", and turn against them (homosexuals).
You won't have a valid argument on this issue because it is clouded by hate... you are just an act [probably], that you are no different from them.





Anyhow, you've added some really good points to the argument that I'm sure have gotten a lot of people really thinking. So feel good about yourself and just hold on until I have the time to post that stuff other people are waiting on.

If you posted those quotes thinking they are contradicting, they aren't. Read them... don't cloud them over.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality is either:
« on: August 03, 2007, 12:40:59 PM »
Rome, Greece, and others fell.

Reasons:
Narcberry thinks it is because they became morally comfortable with immorality leading to a disintigration of social values.

Jesus Reborn thinks it is because of the hate crimes against homosexuals.


I don't see how you can think that is valid. Do you realize in Greece, when a man was married it was custom to put a mask of a man on his bride to ease his way into such a relationship? And you think they fell from hatecrimes? From whom? 2 people commiting hate crimes against the 98? Or are you just angry that I have a valid argument against your holy homosexual communion?

Show me how homosexuality was the cause of the falls of these civilizations. You can't, and never will.
You don't have a valid argument... and will never.
Deny the evidence before it is presented before you. Sounds like intentional ignorance. What do you hope to accomplish by being ignorant?

You're being ignorant
...clearly.  ::)

...when you imply that homosexuality was the norm. Just because it was accepted in society, didn't mean there weren't those who, behind closed doors, lashed out against homosexuality. (do you understand that? Or shall I rephrase it?)
I understand that it would've been the few lashing out at the many. You might as well argue that the U.S. will fall from the activities of the KKK or the offshoot mormons with their many wives. It is a weak argument. One without anything but your speculation. I thought you were trying to show that I didn't have "a valid argument."

Here in Canada, we accept homosexuals in our society... but we also have a province called Alberta. It's stacked with ignorant hillbillies like yourself. Full of hate... and loaded with weapons.
I don't think you know what a hillbilly is. I did nothing to show that I hate anyone. I am, however, against homosexual activity. And I've had weapons all my life, but I'm sorry to disappoint you; I have yet to kill any homosexuals with them... ::)


Why don't you just step aside and let the big boys talk.

You won't have a valid argument on this issue because it is clouded by hate... simple as that.
Facts; that are altered to fit one's view aren't facts. There is no need to discuss the validity of your argument, anymore.

I have never said it WAS the haters that causes these civilizations to fall, but YOU said homosexuals had a direct cause on the falls. If you need me to spell out the difference... I probably won't, because I couldn't care less.



Whether my argument is valid or not, in no way validates or invalidates yours.



I know full well what a hillbilly/redneck/whatever you want to call em, are. I have lived near them all my life.... from small town Ontario, to my current residency of Alberta. They are everywhere (unfortunately more prevalent in my current city of residence)... and it is clear as day, unless of course you are just an act [probably], that you are no different from them.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality is either:
« on: August 03, 2007, 12:29:43 PM »
Even if they fell from hate crimes against the homosexuals, the homosexuality still led to the downfall.  If the homosexuality hadn't come in, the hate crimes wouldn't have been committed.

Woot for the "Sue the gun manufacturer because the gun they made was used to kill someone"!

No.. it was still the ignoramuses that made the homosexuals hide in the first place.

But if there was no homosexuality, the ignoramuses wouldn't have any homosexuals to make hide.

And if there were no ignoramuses the homos wouldn't have to hide.  ;D

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality is either:
« on: August 03, 2007, 12:26:01 PM »
Even if they fell from hate crimes against the homosexuals, the homosexuality still led to the downfall.  If the homosexuality hadn't come in, the hate crimes wouldn't have been committed.

Woot for the "Sue the gun manufacturer because the gun they made was used to kill someone"!

No.. it was still the ignoramuses that made the homosexuals hide in the first place.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality is either:
« on: August 03, 2007, 12:22:42 PM »
Rome, Greece, and others fell.

Reasons:
Narcberry thinks it is because they became morally comfortable with immorality leading to a disintigration of social values.

Jesus Reborn thinks it is because of the hate crimes against homosexuals.


I don't see how you can think that is valid. Do you realize in Greece, when a man was married it was custom to put a mask of a man on his bride to ease his way into such a relationship? And you think they fell from hatecrimes? From whom? 2 people commiting hate crimes against the 98? Or are you just angry that I have a valid argument against your holy homosexual communion?

Show me how homosexuality was the cause of the falls of these civilizations. You can't, and never will.
You don't have a valid argument... and will never.
You're being ignorant, again, when you imply that homosexuality was the norm. Just because it was accepted in society, didn't mean there weren't those who, behind closed doors, lashed out against homosexuality. (do you understand that? Or shall I rephrase it?)
Here in Canada, we accept homosexuals in our society... but we also have a province called Alberta. It's stacked with ignorant hillbillies like yourself. Full of hate... and loaded with weapons.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality is either:
« on: August 03, 2007, 11:37:01 AM »
Narcberry... it's pretty apparent you haven't taken your head out of your ass... so either you don't find that homo... or you're a-sexual. Either way, not the norm. Now, remove it.

To say civilizations fell because of homosexuality is THE MOST ignorant thing I have ever heard in my entire life. If facts show there was homosexuality acceptance near the end of these civilizations you're talking about; the most OBVIOUS reason why the civilization fell was because of fuckheads like you who wanted to act "righteous", and turn against them (homosexuals). Civilizations don't fall due to acts of love... they fall due to acts of hate. You are the hater, the homosexuals aren't. Realize that.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality is either:
« on: August 02, 2007, 10:30:32 PM »
Good idea on the post deletion.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality is either:
« on: August 02, 2007, 08:46:21 PM »

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality is either:
« on: August 02, 2007, 08:28:49 PM »


Gross and Wicked... two different adjectives... but both remain relative to the speaker.
They are not truths. Good, Bad, Right and Wrong cannot be Truth or False. Therefore, you can examine all you want by "rational examination" (which, in itself is relative, since "rationality" is a mere groupthink of a group of speakers), and, still, they all will remain relative.

Not at all.
I took gross in this case to mean 'distasteful'. Whether Narcberry finds the idea of two members of the same gender holding hands in public visually unappealing is a subjective experience in the same way, say, enjoying an apple is.
Wicked, on the other hand, is defined as "morally bad in principle or practice". And moral questions are, in the words of Sam Harris, questions about happiness and suffering. We can discuss whether or not a thing or action causes or reduces suffering in a purely objective and rational way.

And by the way, since when in hell did rationality become a form of "groupthink"?

Rationality is agreement of reason. People, once again, have different reasons for doing something.... hence relativity. Rationality is, in a sense, the groupthink of society (edit: and/or groups within society: people [or groups of] look at things with their own rationality).
The morality/ethical/whatever of society is portrayed as being rational.
Ethics, morality, and anything else concerned with the way people live their lives are all relative.
They pass on their relativity to words like "wicked", "evil", "bad". They are not facts or non-facts... true or false. Statements regarding them can be true or false, but the statements themselves are not. Opinions are not facts. Thinking and knowledge are two different things. Someone may "think" gay people are wicked, but that will never be a fact (truth). It will only be an opinion relative to them.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality is either:
« on: August 02, 2007, 07:52:02 PM »

Also, if you're implying "mutants" are "wrong"... well so be it. That's only your relativity on the issue. Right and Wrong are relative, just like Good and Bad.

Nonsense. Questions about good, bad, right, and wrong are objective inquiries and can be examined rationally. Any factual statement can be determined to be either right or wrong, there ain't no subjectivity to it. Either being gay is good, bad, or neutral, it can't be all three at once.

Had Narcberry said something like "I think gay people are gross", we would be unable to rationally examine his statement. But he didn't. He said "I think gay people are wicked", which is a different matter entirely.

Gross and Wicked... two different adjectives... but both remain relative to the speaker.
They are not truths. Good, Bad, Right and Wrong cannot be True or False. Therefore, you can examine all you want by "rational examination" (which, in itself is relative, since "rationality" is a mere groupthink of a group of speakers), and, still, they all will remain relative.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality is either:
« on: August 02, 2007, 05:01:28 PM »
Homosexuality is either a choice, or forced on someone by their genetic encoding.

If it is a choice, than that person chooses to behave in a sexual manner that is not the norm. This is sexual deviance.

If it is not a choice, than that person's genes have mutated to create such a physical attraction. This is a mutant.

Or more simply: perverts or x-men.

If you want to call homosexuals mutants (if it is genetic) then you must call a larger portion of the world's population as mutants. From the negative mutations to the positive. And then we are left with the "norm", which in reality is (don't quote me or anything) probably the minority. The fact of the matter is, the human genome mutants generation to generation. It's called evolution... and if you don't believe in it, then how the fuck can you even talk about biology?

Also, if you're implying "mutants" are "wrong"... well so be it. That's only your relativity on the issue. Right and Wrong are relative, just like Good and Bad. So, the point is, stop being such a fucking moron, Narcberry. And pull your head out of your ass, while you're at it... since, that's pretty homo of you.


So you are basically saying you are a mutant.
Well we are saying that homosexuals are mutants.
If A = B and B = C ...

Personally... I don't know if I have a genetic mutation.
I might, or I might not.
You might, or might not.
Have you compared your genetic make-up to the "norm"?
I know I haven't... and honestly, I couldn't give a shit about it.
Normality is, once again, relative.
Ever heard of the phrase "Everything is relative?"

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality is either:
« on: August 02, 2007, 04:05:39 PM »
Homosexuality is either a choice, or forced on someone by their genetic encoding.

If it is a choice, than that person chooses to behave in a sexual manner that is not the norm. This is sexual deviance.

If it is not a choice, than that person's genes have mutated to create such a physical attraction. This is a mutant.

Or more simply: perverts or x-men.

If you want to call homosexuals mutants (if it is genetic) then you must call a larger portion of the world's population as mutants. From the negative mutations to the positive. And then we are left with the "norm", which in reality is (don't quote me or anything) probably the minority. The fact of the matter is, the human genome mutants generation to generation. It's called evolution... and if you don't believe in it, then how the fuck can you even talk about biology?

Also, if you're implying "mutants" are "wrong"... well so be it. That's only your relativity on the issue. Right and Wrong are relative, just like Good and Bad. So, the point is, stop being such a fucking moron, Narcberry. And pull your head out of your ass, while you're at it... since, that's pretty homo of you.

14
Not to mention the fact that all we have here are a few eyewitness testimonies. Which are pretty much worthless. They're kind of like those heart-wrenching testimonials quack doctors like Chiropractors force on you to show how well their craft works. So until somebody shows me some real evidence that doesn't rely on the word and lens of some random Joe Schmoe on the internet, you can color me highly skeptical.

Hahahahaha... that makes me laugh so hard!
Idiot.


Um... the benefits of chiropractic treatment are actually well-documented in the medical literature. Chiropractors are most certainly not quacks.

No doubt.
I don't need any medical literature to tell me that, though.
I've experienced, first-hand, how awesome they can be.
From playing years of the style of hockey that I do... I would not have been able to continue without the help of one.

15
Not to mention the fact that all we have here are a few eyewitness testimonies. Which are pretty much worthless. They're kind of like those heart-wrenching testimonials quack doctors like Chiropractors force on you to show how well their craft works. So until somebody shows me some real evidence that doesn't rely on the word and lens of some random Joe Schmoe on the internet, you can color me highly skeptical.

Hahahahaha... that makes me laugh so hard!
Idiot.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Bible Is Bullshit
« on: July 06, 2007, 08:20:15 PM »
HUH?

And that is the extent of your intelligence.

17
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Creation
« on: July 06, 2007, 10:41:08 AM »
anyway, food for thought.

Food for thought, indeed.

18
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Creation
« on: July 06, 2007, 10:29:30 AM »
I thought it was rather interesting, as well.

But, I just don't get something.... the concept of hyperspace in this story.
Of course, no one REALLY understands it, because we have no clue whether or not it exists, but if it did...
I'd pose the question(s); Doesn't the big bang create all matter and planes of existence? And eventually all matter and time as we know will condense back into an infinite dense point? So, therefore, how could the AC continue to "exist" if all other matter, as we know it, doesn't? How does hyperspace still exist?

I know it's just a story and whatnot, and it has an interesting notion, but this was just something that was itching my brain and I had to scratch.

I guess it really depends on how one would define hyperspace. However, in the context of this story, it would seem as if hyperspace is outside of spacetime and our universe as a whole. It is completelly removed from our universe in any way conceivable, it is not a plane of existance within it, but rather removed from it (Maybe it exists in an "area" between an infinite sea of parallel universes). The AC continues to "exist" because it is neither matter nor energy. What it is and what it isn't is completelly beyond Man's understanding as well (Man of course referring to the collective consciousness of all the beings in the universe at the end of the story). That too is an interesting thought as well. Man is presumably the ultimate consciousness, tanscending all matter, master of every plane of existance within the universe yet it is still ultimatelly limited by the Universe within which it exists, such that even this ultimate cosciousness could no longer truly grasp the AC anymore. LoL anyway.. the whole thing can really make your head spin.

Hahaha, yes it can make your head spin.

Whatever hyperspace is, or meant to be in this story, it still makes ya think. Which is great.
I guess it's just trying to grasp the notion of hyperspace comparable, and in relation, to other planes of existence, which makes it difficult.

19
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Creation
« on: July 06, 2007, 10:09:36 AM »
I thought it was rather interesting, as well.

But, I just don't get something.... the concept of hyperspace in this story.
Of course, no one REALLY understands it, because we have no clue whether or not it exists, but if it did...
I'd pose the question(s); Doesn't the big bang create all matter and planes of existence? And eventually all matter and time as we know will condense back into an infinite dense point? So, therefore, how could the AC continue to "exist" if all other matter, as we know it, doesn't? How does hyperspace still exist?

I know it's just a story and whatnot, and it has an interesting notion, but this was just something that was itching my brain and I had to scratch.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Bible Is Bullshit
« on: July 06, 2007, 09:57:53 AM »
Back on track for a second. You realize its foolish to hate on religion? As Ethan_MVgolfer20 said, it's only philosophy. I know VERY little about religions or the bible but the point is, your local church's pastor doesn't think a guy survived being eaten by a whale. Religion is much more general than people believing that "God" is going to smear them across a lightning bolt if they do wrong. Religion gives people purpose and a specific mindset. Religious text is their guide book. If you think the bible is crap thats because it is, just as the authors intended.

That's it I have read enough!!!!!! The world was created by God in his image just like we were (refer to Genesis 1-3). The Bible isn't "Bullshit" as you say. I ahve read all you people have said in the past hour and I'm not impressed to say the least. Christians actually believe to love your neighbor as yourself. Christians also believe that Jesus Christ Died on a cros after being beaten for a couple day by people throwing rocks at him and getting hit on the back with a Cat-of-Nine-Tails (if you don't know what that is, look it up). To depict on the subject of Gay marrage. Your right we are against it. That because God created us to love the opposite sex name the same sex...as he created Adam and EVE NOT, shall I repeat not Adam and STEVE. We are not believeing blindly cause we have the Bible as our witness. As a Pentecostal, we believe that to enter into the Kngdom of Heaven, you need to believe in God with all your heart and to be biptized. You CANNOT enter into heaven with your heart black with sin. To get rid of that sin all you have to is ask for forgivness. There are two unforgivable sins: 1)Blasphamine the Holy Ghost. 2)Commit suicide (has the Ten Commandments say "Thou shalt not kill", and your killing your self). And in no way is Christianity a philosophy. It is a fath on which you live your life. On the subject of Christianity being a slavery. You don't have to believe in God...you won't get the rewards of a pure souled believer, but you do not have be a believer, as he gave us Free will. One of the rules he gave us is to obey those that have rule over you. Jesus would not hate anybody especially the Jews as Jesus was a Jew and the Jews are God's chosen people as is Israel. We praise him because we choose to. We are not slaves as I have said. We are bought and paid for through the blood of Jesus. And BTW, Lucifer was an angel at one time before God created the world. Lucifer led a group of Angels on a rebellion against God. They were cast into Hell for eternity. Now coming soon is something we call the Rapture or as you would and will call it, Judgment Day (and no not the World Wrestling Entertainment PPV). The Rapture will take the believers in Christ that are alive without sin up into heaven body and all but leaving their clothes. But before the living the Dead in Crista will rise first to meet Jesus in the air. After the Raputre, There will be a period only to be known as Armageddon, it will be seven years long, as the devil in the form of the Anti-Christ will rule the Earth in it's entirety. And, every know person to become a Christian will be sought after and killed (if found). After these seven year, the final victory will be won. As God will wipe out the Anti-Christ and non believers and believr along God and Jesus will rome the Earth for all eternity. The be a Christian you have to embrace all the Bible not just the First four Gospels of the New Testament. If you would like to become a believer all you have to do is to ask Jesus into your heart and ask for forgiveness for all your sins. Praise God, I will live forever in his presence. And Praise God for those believers I have just found. Amen.

I never understood how Lucifer chose to disobey God.
Lucifer was cast out because of his pride. He was proud of his status in Heaven and didn't want it to change.
Am I right?

How did he choose to disobey? I mean, literally, make the choice? Angels were never given the gift of free will, therefore the ability to choose between Good and Evil would never have come up in an Angels mind.
Whenever or not being proud is a choice or not, this fact doesn't account for Lucifer's angelic army.
Even if being proud isn't a choice, there is no possible way the Angels of Hell could have ever CHOSE Lucifer's side over God's. To choose between Good and Evil is free will. Only humans were granted this by God.

21
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homophobes
« on: June 27, 2007, 12:59:09 AM »
rofl@tom

I'm trying to figure out why people continue to take you seriously.

Whoawhoawhoa... hold on a minute here....


People take Tom seriously?

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« on: May 18, 2007, 10:26:16 PM »
Quote
The moon landing was filmed on a Hollywood set: http://i9.tinypic.com/6fkcdmq.jpg

From the FAQ:

Q: "What about NASA? Don't they have photos to prove that the Earth is round?"

A: NASA is part of the conspiracy too. The photos are faked.
Edit: PLEASE NOTE This means that pictures confirming the roundness or flatness of the Earth DO NOT IN THEMSELVES CONSTITUTE VALID PROOF


So, FErs are allowed to use them, but RErs aren't? Makes sense as to why Tom believes in a Flat Earth.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« on: May 18, 2007, 04:59:38 PM »
Astronomy in particular is completely observational.

Oh, the hilarity of irony.  ;D

24
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The truth.
« on: May 16, 2007, 08:46:31 PM »
Jesus Reborn,

I may have misjudged some of the things you've said here, and for that (and calling you an idiot) I am truly sorry.  I think our opinions are more in agreement than I did before, rereading some of these posts.  I myself am an agnostic and think pure atheism is just as ridiculous as religion.

I just don't get why you questioned the motive for questioning everything in the Bible.

Ultimately I think everybody has to take some side on any issue, and perhaps particularly religion.  Where I have a problem with what you say is your presumption that atheists are weak-minded.  It's presumptuous because you are assuming that atheists don't look at the full picture (that's what I get from what you've said).  In my experience the truth is exactly the opposite and atheists tend to understand more about religion than religious people do.

It's no problem, I think it's this forum that can get people all riled up and judge quickly because of the major difference of opinions around the place. It happens, we aren't perfect. All we can do is learn from our mistakes.

I only questioned the motive, because it seems today's fad is to throw religion out the window, for the sake of throwing it out the window. I am not tied down to any, one, religion, because I see good and bad in all religions, or, any that I am familiar with. It's good Franc, at least, knows the Bible and Christianity, but, the average atheist really doesn't know religions. And instead of learning about them, decide they don't want to spend the time and learn about what they are against. That's ignorance, in it's purest form.

I don't think all atheists are weak-minded, I know plenty of atheists who aren't, but ones that take it to an extreme and say things like "Everything in the Bible is false" or something similar, are, in a sense weak-minded. The same goes for religious fanatics who think their religion and its scripts, or whatnot, are all true. Going to an extreme, in my eyes, is a strong indicator of a weak-minded person. People who have closed-minds, on either end of any spectrum, show weakness.

I think it's people who can find common ground (a grey area) are ones who are stronger willed, and minded, than those who go to extremes.

Edit: bah, bad spelling day.

25
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The truth.
« on: May 16, 2007, 05:58:12 PM »
So you only hold a belief when it is contivient for you in an arguement

Exactly.

And Franc, I'm not Christian, I don't hold any religious beliefs. I have ideas about certain things, and draw out what I can learn from certain individuals/past events. I don't let others think for me, nor will I. But, I do take advice from others, which is a big difference. Heed this advice, don't jump to conclusions.

And roundy, thank you for adding your great 2 cents on this one.
I don't think weak-minded people are only weak-minded because they don't agree with me. I think people are weak-minded because they stake a stance on one side of an argument before looking at the full picture. It's the reason why I have not taken a stance on religion, because, like everyone else in the world, we haven't seen the whole picture. I believe it's as ignorant (couldn't really think of a better word for here) to say there is a God as it is to say there isn't, hence my agnostic view on God and religion.

26
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The truth.
« on: May 15, 2007, 06:17:36 PM »
Once again, educate yourself on the subjects, don't just repeat useless garbage that you have seen others repeat and use for your own purpose.

Excuse me, sir? I read the Bible, you obviously haven't.


Quote
If you realized why he did these things, you'd see he had a very good reason to fly off the handle; like at the money counters. (greed)

So other people's greed, which hurt no one, justifies a so-called holy man flying into a blind rage?


Quote
Explain how he promoted stealing. If you mean, taking back what thieves took from people in the first place, then, sure he promoted stealing. (justice)

RTFB- Read The Fucking Bible
Luke 19:29-36 Jesus steals a horse
Luke 16 Jesus tells a parable showing that helping others to steal is good


Quote
Also, I would like to know where these others things you say happened. Maybe, you just interpret wrong, like, oh, so many others.

No, I know how to comprehend text, I am not illiterate. Don't presume to insult me sir. RTFB.


"Greed doesn't hurt anyone." Hahaha, that is ignorance at its finest.
You're "reading" of the Bible may be true, but reading something with an open-mind instead of a closed-mind will result in different interpretations. Also, face value vs. hidden value.

edit: being literate only means you can read... being able to interpret meanings behind the text are much different. And if you took that as an insult, you are a very uptight person... which, from any post of yours I've seen on this board, is true.

27
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The truth.
« on: May 15, 2007, 04:25:02 PM »
Quote
I, for one, am more of an agnostic, but that in no way means I can't respect Jesus and want to be a strong of a person as he was.

Yes, Jesus was quite an admirable character. I guess a few magic tricks excuse his little, um, foibles, such as flying into blind rages, cursing his mother, preaching hellfire and withdrawing information so that people may go there, being basically a street bum and living off widows, encouraging people to leave their loved ones to serve him, promoting stealing, encouraging submission to the State, and so on and so forth...

Excuse me, but even Sai Baba is more credible than this cheap bullshitter you respect so much... at least he gives people better miracles and doesn't fly into rages.

Once again, educate yourself on the subjects, don't just repeat useless garbage that you have seen others repeat and use for your own purpose.
If you realized why he did these things, you'd see he had a very good reason to fly off the handle; like at the money counters. (greed)
Explain how he promoted stealing. If you mean, taking back what thieves took from people in the first place, then, sure he promoted stealing. (justice)

Also, I would like to know where these others things you say happened. Maybe, you just interpret wrong, like, oh, so many others.

28
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The truth.
« on: May 15, 2007, 03:04:41 PM »
God is selfish.  He wants everyone to believe in Him even though there's no rational reason to do so.  Therefore, if you accept the basic tenets of Christianity (which inevitably lead to this conclusion) you also have to accept that He is not perfect, by His own definition.  Therefore, His very nature as described in the Bible is contradicted by the reality you accept as a Christian.  That one contradiction is enough reason to question everything in the Bible.

Actually, God is jealous, not selfish.
He states in both Exodus and Deuteronomy (10 Commandments) that he is jealous, and we should not bow down to images or idols (respectively) and/or Gods. But, if we look at God as jealous... who can he be jealous of? I believe, this, in itself, is proof of God's fallibility and his lack of absolute sole power. But, this in no way makes me question everything in the Bible.


Frosty the Snowman is happy, not compassionate.
It is stated in the song of our ancestors, Frosty the Snowman:

Verily, Frosty the Snowman
Was a joyous, nay, happy soul.
With yonder corncob pipe and button nose
And two eyes, of coal manufacture.

It is very clear here, that Frosty the Snowman has a "happy soul." Experts still disagree on what "button nose" means (viz., if it is a real button, or simply describes the shape of his nose). Also, evil secularists argue that eyes made of coal could not actually see. But we believe that coal simply means that his eyes were very dark, and did not have whites. They were manufactured by our Creator to look like coals. That's all.

You must question everything in the Bible, then?
You are just another weak minded person who cannot find a grey area in a subject. You must pick an extreme, simply because your weak mind cannot fathom the thought of finding common ground. Or is it because you are too lazy to seek knowledge on a subject and would rather pick a side for the sake of trying to prove that side? Quit living in a black and white world, the grey world is much nicer.

29
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The truth.
« on: May 15, 2007, 02:57:18 PM »
If God is fallible and isn't the absolute sole power, why follow him?  Do you love God?  Why?

If you're talking to me, I don't believe I have ever once said I follow God.
If you are taking my name as me being a religious zealot, you are very quick to judge.
I, for one, am more of an agnostic, but that in no way means I can't respect Jesus and want to be a strong of a person as he was. I've said before, whether he was the Son of God, or not, his way of life has almost never been matched by another human (I can't really say if it has or not, since I don't know the history of every human who's walked on the Earth).
I don't understand people's notions today of laughing at people when they want to follow Jesus (whether they are religious, or not). It is these type of people who attack who are truly weak. (I'm not saying you did that, but there are a great number of people who do)

30
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Christianity and Evolution
« on: May 15, 2007, 02:49:08 PM »
Quote
You may retaliate with: "If God is perfect, why is his inspiration not?" A simple answer, he tests. If it's one thing you learn as a Christian it's: God loves to test Man... whether it be a test of Man's loyalty, his truthfulness, his compassion, etc...

Are dinosaur bones a test of faith as well?

Like I said, I'm not a Bible thumper, but, I don't think dinosaur bones are mentioned in the Bible. Considering, I was talking about the Bible and taking it literally word for word or not, I see no reason to interject with mention of dinosaurs.
But, if you must: they very well could be a test. For someone, like myself, who believes in evolution, I don't think they are.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8