Though shalt not kill. Would you do so for your God?

[Tuffdisc]

What can I say to one with no morals.
Deuteronomy 24:16
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Name the sin of the first born.

Regards
DL

I really doubt if you can read your own posts

 

[Tuffdisc]

So you think that a policy of do as I say and not as I do is a good policy for a law maker do you?
Seems like you have ignored this question before. Hmm.

Regards
DL

If you have read the bible, then you would realise that people were put to death for their sins. Clearly proving you are not reading anything, just waffling a load of nonsense

 

[BornReady]

Quite the contrary, there are people who really do study the Bible, without bias towards atheism or religion, who actually believe there is actual truth in the Bible

I've been told there is some good in the bible and I don't doubt it. However, I don't consider theologians to be unbiased.

 

[Tuffdisc]

I've been told there is some good in the bible and I don't doubt it. However, I don't consider theologians to be unbiased.

Really? How is that they're not unbiased? I'm sure to study the bible without be biased and say that Jesus did exist, yet they doubt if Moses ever existed is like saying that they are biased

 

[Johnfromokc]

Quite the contrary, there are people who really do study the Bible, without bias towards atheism or religion, who actually believe there is actual truth in the Bible

I was a believer when I read the bible through TWICE and studied it thoroughly. That reading and thorough study as a believer made my eventual transistion to Agnosticism much easier.

Believers should read it through and linger on the absurd as well as the benign scripture. If they did, there would be less silly attempts at justification of the violence, slavery and other human rights abuses condoned in this work of fiction. The fact is MOST believers have never read the bible through even once.

 

[BornReady]

Really? How is that they're not unbiased?

Their livelihood is studying the bible. If they arrived at the conclusion the bible isn't worth studying then they would be out of work. Saying a theologian isn't biased regarding the bible would be like saying a psychic isn't biased regarding the paranormal.

I'm sure to study the bible without be biased and say that Jesus did exist, yet they doubt if Moses ever existed is like saying that they are biased

I think it's more likely Jesus existed than Moses existed. Of course, which Jesus existed is a mystery even theologians can't solve.

 

[doombug]

Seriously, I didn't need anyone to tell me. Believe it or not, it's not a hard concept for most of us. And wolves aren't as bad as you think either. They're actually pretty social. It's unusual for a wolf to kill a member of their pack.

Of course you didn't need anyone to tell you when you are raised in a society that reflects this. You are claiming you came up with the idea that murder is wrong all by yourself without any outside influence. This is false.

Wolves are pretty social but not much with humans. I don't think people and wolves interacting on a daily basis in a common event because wolves may hesitate to kill one of their own but they will attack a human if needed.

 

[doombug]

Now is the time to bring back the facepalm pics

Yes, because you have failed.

Wine, sex, assault, murder and war are mentioned in the bible too. Most fiction novels parallel reality to some extent.

But you made the claim there are NO facts in the Bible. You clearly made a false statement.

Do you have any clue why the Romans are mentioned in the bible? You don't know much about the early church do you? You really should study religious history before you start attempting to prove something that is unprovable.

So you are saying it isn't possible to prove the Roman Empire existed?

There is no archeoligical or historical evidence that proves Yaweh or Jesus exist.

Is the bible meant to be historically correct? Maybe thinking that the bible is meant only to serve as a historical reference book is why you have such a problem with it.

I think the teachings of Jesus are far more important than the question of whether or not he actually existed even though it hasn't been proven he didn't exist.

The only honest statement you can make at this point is that you choose to believe on "faith" in spite of the lack of fact, logic, reason or evidence. Because nobody can argue with faith - so if you choose to believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny, have at it.

Oh yeah. There it is. The mentioning of Santa and the Easter Bunny. I like non-believers because if everyone believed the same thing would anyone question the validity of the belief in God? This is an important conversation to have. But some non-believers are incapable of having such an exchange of ideas. When their method of reasoning is challenged they immediately look to distract, such as posting pics to express frustration. You used an example of Abraham and Isaac as human sacrifice in the bible when there was no actual human sacrifice. Then you made the false claim there are no facts in the bible and was proven wrong again. You post pics and try to laugh it off instead of even considering for one second you could be wrong. Instead you want to cover up the possibility.

Non-believers who pull these kinds of stunts remind me of the older kids that have figured out there is no Santa so now they want to tease and torment the children who still believe. These kinds of non-believers refuse to believe in anything greater than themselves because there is a chance they may not be loved by it. They would rather use the knowledge of Santa not existing, in the sense that children believe, to torment instead of acknowledging the spirit of giving as a good thing.

 

[Codrus]

i would, have and will kill again for Cod.....








i aint afraid of no fire ants

 

[Johnfromokc]

i would, have and will kill again for Cod.....








i aint afraid of no fire ants

The Flying Spaghetti Monster frowns upon such fire ant sacrilege! :hey

Repent now and beg that He touch you with His Noodley Appengage!

And pray he doesn't shrink your cod like he did the fire ant murderer in the picture!

 

[Codrus]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster frowns upon such fire ant sacrilege! :hey

Repent now and beg that He touch you with His Noodley Appengage!

And pray he doesn't shrink your cod like he did the fire ant murderer in the picture!

now thats funny :thumbup

 

[doombug]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster frowns upon such fire ant sacrilege! :hey

Repent now and beg that He touch you with His Noodley Appengage!

And pray he doesn't shrink your cod like he did the fire ant murderer in the picture!

You can't back up a darn thing you say but that thar' is funny! Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Johnfromokc]

You can't back up a darn thing you say but that thar' is funny! Thanks for the laugh.

Hey doom, I'm open minded - we Agnosticts and Secular Humanists tend to be willing to adjust our working hypothesis based upon new verifiable evidence.

Show me some real Jesus artifacts, or even some real first person Jesus documentation written by scribes who lived when Jesus allegedly lived and I'll give you credit.

Until then, the bible is fiction. I'd suggest enrolling in a college level religious studies course and learning a little more about the religion you choose to practice. This company has some great products at reasonable prices:

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/CoursesByCategory.aspx?ps=909

 

[doombug]

Hey doom, I'm open minded.

Here is what "open-minded" means: Receptive to new and different ideas or the opinions of others. So I have to say no, you are not open minded. At least when it comes to the possibility that the bible may be real and God may exist. Calling the bible "fiction" is saying there are no facts in it only serve to prove your mind is made up. Therefore you are not open to the possibility the bible could be "non-fiction" and there is a God.

we Agnosticts and Secular Humanists tend to be willing to adjust our working hypothesis based upon new verifiable evidence.

That's the problem. Some non-believers shift the burden of proof to those that do believe. No one really has hard evidence of what they believe. But yet ask an Atheist to show proof that God doesn't exist and they cry foul. It is a valid question for both believers and non-believers.

Show me some real Jesus artifacts, or even some real first person Jesus documentation written by scribes who lived when Jesus allegedly lived and I'll give you credit.

I doubt you would give any credit to any proof. You are too set in your belief the bible has no facts. I proved you wrong on that one and where's the credit?

Until then, the bible is fiction. I'd suggest enrolling in a college level religious studies course and learning a little more about the religion you choose to practice. This company has some great products at reasonable prices:

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/CoursesByCategory.aspx?ps=909

You may need those courses more than I do. You thought Abraham sacrificed his son Isaac when he clearly didn't. I'm no expert but you admittedly read the bible only twice before you gave up on it. I would think something that has been around as long as the bible may deserve more than a couple of peeks especially to someone who claims it is complete fiction.

Face facts here John. If you are going to debate religion and the existence of God you need to be able to at least get stories like Abraham and Isaac straight. Like I said I'm no expert and I busted you on that one. I would hate to see you go up against a bible scholar because you would get ripped to shreds. On that note I will leave you with a commandment I thought up just for you and your lack of bible knowledge:

Thou shalt not debate bible scholars for they shall surely rip thee a new bunghole.

 

[Panacea]

Most atheists don't cry foul when asked to prove god doesn't exist, they just refer to the basic rules of logic when neutral versus positive arguments are involved.

 

[doombug]

Most atheists don't cry foul when asked to prove god doesn't exist, they just refer to the basic rules of logic when neutral versus positive arguments are involved.

True but that is only when the Atheist takes a neutral position on whether God exists or not. Some Atheist claim there is no God simply because they don't see any proof of God's existence. Those who make this claim then have the burden of proof to the non-existence of God, which they can't prove.

 

[Panacea]

True but that is only when the Atheist takes a neutral position on whether God exists or not. Some Atheist claim there is no God simply because they don't see any proof of God's existence. Those who make this claim then have the burden of proof to the non-existence of God, which they can't prove.

Which, in itself, is hilarious...so much grief over something only afforded the argument "no one can prove it doesn't exist". Society certainly would never expect people to carry the burden of proving other non-evident things don't exist...that's solely reserved for those challenging rightfully insecure theists.

I take a neutral stance, but I'm a fan of Occam's razor, and therefore incredibly skeptical of "god" as humans know it.

 

[doombug]

Which, in itself, is hilarious...so much grief over something only afforded the argument "no one can prove it doesn't exist". Society certainly would never expect people to carry the burden of proving other non-evident things don't exist...that's solely reserved for those challenging rightfully insecure theists.

I take a neutral stance, but I'm a fan of Occam's razor, and therefore incredibly skeptical of "god" as humans know it.

Non-evident things? I thought we were discussing things that could be proven to be true. In that case there is another thread on this forum titled "What makes you think" in which I have posted. So as not to hijack this thread further I would be glad to continue in that thread.

BTW, society believes in many things that have no actual proof of existence.

 

[Tuffdisc]

Their livelihood is studying the bible. If they arrived at the conclusion the bible isn't worth studying then they would be out of work. Saying a theologian isn't biased regarding the bible would be like saying a psychic isn't biased regarding the paranormal.



I think it's more likely Jesus existed than Moses existed. Of course, which Jesus existed is a mystery even theologians can't solve.

I have no doubt which Jesus existed, there was only one. There may be four (maybe more) different authors of the letters (now known as the Gospel) giving different variants of his life, but what do you expect? If you have different authors writing the same plot in the book, you are likely to end up with different stories though they may come to the same conclusion, but each in their own perspective

So I have no doubt that Jesus existed as one person.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Here is what "open-minded" means: Receptive to new and different ideas or the opinions of others. So I have to say no, you are not open minded. At least when it comes to the possibility that the bible may be real and God may exist. Calling the bible "fiction" is saying there are no facts in it only serve to prove your mind is made up. Therefore you are not open to the possibility the bible could be "non-fiction" and there is a God.

Doom, open mindedness does not mean accepting every hare-brained idea that comes down the pike.

The bible is fiction. Simply mentioning some middleeastern geography and a couple of caesars does not make it a non- fiction literary work. The best fiction writers weave some historical accuracy into their imaginary work. Think Michael Chriton, Tom Clancey and John Grisham.

That's the problem. Some non-believers shift the burden of proof to those that do believe. No one really has hard evidence of what they believe. But yet ask an Atheist to show proof that God doesn't exist and they cry foul. It is a valid question for both believers and non-believers.

Not true. Ask any reasonable individual to prove a negative and you will then need to overcome your own evidence of absence. The burden of proof of anyone claiming the existence of anything is always on the claimer to produce that which is claimed to exist.

I'm Agnostic in my religious thought process. When Jesus comes to my house and explains why he and his daddy fucked up this planet with all these idiotic humans whose goal it seems is to screw over their fellow humans for personal gain, then I'll believe.

I doubt you would give any credit to any proof. You are too set in your belief the bible has no facts. I proved you wrong on that one and where's the credit?

You have not proved me wrong or proved anything else as yet.

You may need those courses more than I do. You thought Abraham sacrificed his son Isaac when he clearly didn't. I'm no expert but you admittedly read the bible only twice before you gave up on it. I would think something that has been around as long as the bible may deserve more than a couple of peeks especially to someone who claims it is complete fiction.

Sorry doom - but I never claimed Abraham sacrificed Issac - I said the Abraham was WILLING to sacrifice his own son, as the fictional account was told in the bible.

Face facts here John. If you are going to debate religion and the existence of God you need to be able to at least get stories like Abraham and Isaac straight. Like I said I'm no expert and I busted you on that one. I would hate to see you go up against a bible scholar because you would get ripped to shreds. On that note I will leave you with a commandment I thought up just for you and your lack of bible knowledge:

This is why I put up the facepalm pics doom. You've convinced yourself, and only yourself of an imagined victory here.

Thou shalt not debate bible scholars for they shall surely rip thee a new bunghole.

Ahhhh...you are a bible scholar are you? So I take it you have actually read the bible completely through several times, right?

Don't lie now - your god will punish you for lying, just like the FSM did to Adam.