Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums: Heated Discussions and Debates » Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality

Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality

Show: Today's Messages :: Polls :: Message Navigator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424601 is a reply to message #422616]

Sat, 03 April 2010 21:41

Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

a negative meaning, not a negative connotation. dictatorship sucks by definition. and yet i don't know of any human dictatorship that managed to become as all-encompassing, unchallengeable and inescapable as the depiction in christianity.

Why does it suck by definition? And under what circumstances?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

because until you've gotten past that square one, most of your assertions are at best a waste of time.

Then yours are too, because you haven't proved he doesn't exist. And I see no reason why anyone's assertions are valid until one or the other is proven... based on what you said anyway.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

so in a nutshell, the only reason you're not acting in the bloodthirsty, merciless way islam commands its followers to act is because you don't think it really came from God... there's no moral compunction holding you back, and there wouldn't be if it turned out you were wrong?

One of the main reasons I don't think it came from God is the morals themselves.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

Quote:

Is that any worse than your statement that you'd challenge an almighty God, if you knew for fact he existed, because you don't like his authority?

yes, it is. i'm objecting to christianity because -a- i don't believe any of it and -b- i don't want a dictatorship and -c- i think his rules are absolutely shit.

-a- OK
-b- That's been plainly obvious for awhile... even if there's a higher power, you want to be in control.
-c- I've only heard you challenge OT rules so far.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

your only objection to following islam's rules is you don't believe it. well, it's good you've laid out for us what at least two people reading this thread had already guessed... i.e. that you have no morals.

No, that you THINK I have no morals, which is helped along by you twisting my words so often.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

my word. i hear it all the time. saying that god gave them the world, saying they have god-given rights (such a stupid thing to say, but nvm for now), saying grace before a meal...

I see no problem with saying grace, but the others I don't agree with.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

"wanting something god can't give you" sounds like a pretty good reason to turn away from religion; if it can't give you basic human rights, democracy, and intellectual freedom, for example.

"basic human rights"
Which ones do you think he denies?
"democracy"
Mmm-hmm.
"intellectual freedom"
And what would that be?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

wanting something god won't give you doesn't put the person at fault instead of the god.
nor does wanting to do something god considers a sin.

It is if you shouldn't want it at all, if it is wrong.
Of course, you probably don't think they're wrong... ah, morals.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

having a different religious opinion is not even a crime at all

You still haven't answered my question regarding that...

Why should anyone go free of a law, ANY law, just because they don't agree with it?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

odd to use the word "defense" to explain the supposed behaviour of the israelites...

Why? Do you think the other groups wanted to live in peaceful tolerance with them?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

why are you sure? i didn't find god saying the guy shouldn't have done it. you'd think a book perpetually trumpeted as an ultimate moral authority might have something to say against someone who throws a defenceless girl to a mob of rapists to save himself.

Right, the Bible really has space to say things about every sinner in history.
Besides... man throws girl to save self, girl dies... how is that NOT murder?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

well, firstly punishments differ. the punishment for homosexual sex is death. the punishment for a man who rapes a woman is that he must marry her and pay her father off. so if one sin has a more severe punishment than another, doesn't that imply that one sin is more grievous than the other?

In Old Testament, yes. Sins we do today won't have a ranking system in judgement.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

secondly, you don't think there's anything wrong with that rape rule? the man has to marry the woman and pay off her father. doesn't seem like a terribly severe punishment for the man. more to the point, it makes the woman's predicament even worse. she's just been raped, and then she's told she must marry the bastard who attacked and violated her. is it safe to assume you don't know any women who have been raped? who, in a modern civilised country, would seriously hold a moral position as shitty as this if they didn't get it from religion?

Who today holds that moral position?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

thirdly, you basically said that an adult man who enters into a consenting sexual relationship with another man is just as bad as a man who rapes a woman. i guess you don't know any gay people either.

No, I did not say that. I said that God won't rate either act a worse sin than the other in judgement. I didn't say I thought neither act was worse in itself than the other.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

i think i'm beginning to follow it, it's worded terribly... it seems like because the people of jerusalem didn't carry out the punishment, god punished the people of jerusalem.
"God himself, by the army of the Chaldeans, put it in execution upon Jerusalem"
fair assessment? or if you prefer we can just leave this passage out, cos it really is incoherent

Incoherent it is... yeah, let's just leave it out.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

"Though idolaters may escape punishment from men (nor is this law in the letter of it binding now, under the gospel), yet the Lord our God will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgements."

Yeah, it's no longer a law to put idolaters to the sword.
But it's still a sin, and they'll be judged by it.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

perhaps you could quote the verse(s) in Genesis, the first book in the bible, that explain just who this Satan is and make it clear that the snake who tempted eve is indeed this character Satan.

Genesis 3 explains it pretty well, especially the prophecy made in verse 15.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

oh, if it's a test of whether you will do whatever your boss tells you no matter how evil it is, then sure, abraham passes and i emphatically won't. but like i said, some of us actually have morals.

Yet you think that morals came from basically nowhere in particular... and that that isn't ridiculous.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

compassion can compel us to do something wrong, like refrain from murdering a close friend or family member who tells us their religious views.
three cheers for compassion, i say.

Kinda conflicts with your above quote...
So much for morals.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

Quote:

Example - your friend has finally broken his alcohol addiction, but he is miserable as a result, and keeps desiring just 'one more drink'. You might feel pity and wish to fulfill his wish just to make him happy again. After all, it's just one more drink right? And it'd make him feel better!

uh no, because moral considerations are based on a little more than just immediate happiness.

Once again, you read too far into the example to avoid acknowledging it.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

remember the first religious debate between you and i? you kept saying that if you won't believe anything without proof, you're a "hopeless case".

I was wrong to say that.
Also, I said it once, not "kept saying".

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

you said that anyone who finds your religion unconvincing is "desperately trying to find an excuse because they want an easier path".

Quote me, since I have no idea what you're referring to.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

in the case of christianity we have an absurd story

Opinion.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

that isn't even internally consistent

I have yet to see evidence it isn't...

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

and whose authorship is dubious

I'll give you that, but it's safe to say any ancient writing has dubious authorship.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

and we have monumentally large implications.

What?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

we don't even have ordinary proof. however, earlier you said there was... that didn't go very well, did it?

No, it didn't. Because you didn't even read the entire thing. You skipped all the -ology secions.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

so muslims have greater faith than you, basically?

Implying that less proof = more faith?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13

Here's what needs to happen before anything in the Bible can be seriously considered a 'law'.
1. Prove this god exists.
2. Prove this book is an accurate depiction of his views; i.e. prove he actually said what the bible says he said.
3. Successfully make the case that god is of such extraordinary moral brilliance that a dictatorship under him would be better than a democracy
4. Win the vote to discard our current democratic systems

Heh, if 3 was proven then 4 would be unneccessary.

so you basically think yourself above democratic laws?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

my question was: if the majority of us don't want to live under a religious dictatorship, can we change it? you answer: if the majority is part of the lawmaking process, then yes.

That wasn't what you asked, unless I misread you.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

it's what the boss wants that counts.

And you've basically said you want to be that boss, or at least one of them.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

Quote:

You were quoting scripture. That wasn't an opinion of yours, that was a point of yours you tried to back up. That's why i responded.

i have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here.

You quoting scripture and pointing at it is NOT an opinion, it's a point you were trying to make.
So I replied in kind.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

1. Hear the message (Romans 10:17)
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
what exactly is the message?

Basically, the plan.
And the Bible as a whole.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

2. Believe it (Mark 16:16)
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
carrot and stick! shame we're talking about thoughtcrime here. see my earlier objections.

I have, believe me.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

3. Repent of your past sins (Acts 2: 38)
And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

i'm reminded again of our earlier religious debate. you said that you'd done things which you would deserve to go to hell for if you hadn't "repented". well, that's quite a daring admission, telling us that you'd done something so evil that it would justify the most horrific punishment of all. (unless you're arguing that god and his punishments are unjust, and you've never seemed to think that)

"so evil"? It doesn't have to be "So evil" to trigger that.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

well, i couldn't help but ask what those things were. what were these horrific crimes you committed? you wouldn't say.

Well, if someone asked you to list the morally unjust things you've done that have violated your moral code, would you list them all?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

i also asked how you define "repented". you said that it basically means asking for forgiveness in private prayer or in church. interesting, that. if i thought i had done something so appalling evil, so damaging to the world around me that it would justify me receiving the very worst punishment imaginable, i can't imagine how just saying sorry in a church could possibly make up for it.

"appallingly evil"? "So damaging to the world"?
Your whole sentence hangs on those two vague and unexplained phrases.
Care to interpret?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

finally... "and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit". what's that then?

Heaven?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

4. State that you believe christ is the son of God (Romans 10:10)
For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
well, i don't believe that. i do have a question, though.

what would you prefer?
person A doesn't believe this, and says so honestly.
person B says he believes this, and you don't have any way of really knowing whether he's telling the truth or just wants you to shut the fuck up.

What I'd prefer?
Person A, myself.
Because with Person B, I don't even have a chance to save them.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

5. Be baptized (Acts 2: 38)
uh, same as step 3?

Same verse, yeah, but not same step.
There are other verses though.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

[b]6. Live faithfully until Death (Revelations 2: 10)
is this only addressed to people who are about to be thrown into prison, or about to encounter the devil? or can we ignore the first two sentences and it's the third that applies to everyone at all times?

He was speaking to the imminent prisoners at the time, but the message is not addressed to just specifically them, but to everyone.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

well, "be faithful". define that for me, please. you'd also better explain what "the crown of life" is.

"be faithful"
Follow the commandments in the Bible, like weekly worship, Lord's Supper, behaviour and conduct, avoidance of sins...

"crown of life"
Same as "gift of the Holy Spirit".

snpr1101 wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

Now I'm not really sure as to how Altzan came to the conclusion that one is worse than the other (maybe there's some sort of point system in the bible that i missed aka 10 points for rape, yay I win!), but I think in his view, they are both sins.

Yeah, Spoony didn't give me much of a chance to justify my statement, did he? Jumped all over it and spread it around beofre I could tell him he was wrong.

As I said earlier, "I said that God won't rate either act a worse sin than the other in judgement. I didn't say I thought neither act was worse in itself than the other."

I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424602 is a reply to message #424591]

Sat, 03 April 2010 22:08

Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006

Karma: 0

General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator

snpr1101 wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 20:35

edit: Yea I can comment on that, it might be wrong but here it is anyway. The disagreement in this case lies within Altzans' belief in God and the Bible; and your apparent lack of belief (I think?).

no. if it turned out that god was real and the bible was accurate, i'd still think the bible is an absolutely shitty source of morals. if anything i would be horrified to find out that it was true; it's very comforting to me that nobody has given any good reason to think there is any truth to christianity.

Quote:

I'd presume it's common knowledge that the bible speaks out against homosexuality, to put it lightly; and obviously against rape too.

actually, rape is positively recommended quite a few times (as is genocide, slavery, and the slaughter of innocent children). really, the only prohibition of rape is the verse i mentioned earlier. and its rule on rape is absolutely appalling. the man simply has to pay off the woman's father and then marry the woman. not really a terrible punishment for the man. more importantly, it makes things so very much worse for the woman. she's just been raped by this bastard, and what happens to her next? she's forced to marry the mean lady. never mind her desires in all of this; she, an innocent victim of a sickening crime, is punished by being forced to live the rest of her life as the wife of the bastard who raped her.

let's not mince words: this is despicable. it would be despicable even if god was real and the bible was true. how fortunate there's no reason to think it is.

Quote:

well, the punishment for homosexuality is death; worse than the punishment for rape.

Quote:

But on the other hand, your apparent lack of belief in the Bible negates the homosexuality part. Therefore, you see rape as wrong (which it is), and two homosexual men who "love" eachother (prove that exists while your at it) as normal (debatable - disprove God and the Bible and you'll win it)

So in conclusion, you can't debate or tell someone that they're wrong about something like that without looking at the root of it. He believes in God, you don't. He believes in the Bible, you don't. The reason Altzans' opinion differs against yours isn't due to just his own sole reasons; they have a strong link to the Bible and to God. Therefore, disprove the Bible and God, and you will win the argument.

it's plain ridiculous to say i need to disprove the existence of god or the accuracy of the bible to take part in a moral debate like this.

what are your religious views, may i ask?

Quote:

I realise I made alot of assumptions in there and I apologise if I mis-represented anyone's views or offended anyone. Without reading the whole thing, that is the gist of what i've got out of it.

....so read the whole thing.

Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424603 is a reply to message #424601]

Sat, 03 April 2010 22:47

Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006

Karma: 0

General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator

Altzan wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 22:41

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

Why does it suck by definition? And under what circumstances?

why does dictatorship suck? because you exist at the whim of an unchallengeable authority. because you have no way of determining your conditions. because you only have the rights the boss chooses to give you.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

because until you've gotten past that square one, most of your assertions are at best a waste of time.

Then yours are too, because you haven't proved he doesn't exist. And I see no reason why anyone's assertions are valid until one or the other is proven... based on what you said anyway.

um, what? none of my moral assertions have required the non-existence of a god, nor would they be disproven if this god of yours turned out to be real after all.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

One of the main reasons I don't think it came from God is the morals themselves.

go on, if you like.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

Quote:

Is that any worse than your statement that you'd challenge an almighty God, if you knew for fact he existed, because you don't like his authority?

yes, it is. i'm objecting to christianity because -a- i don't believe any of it and -b- i don't want a dictatorship and -c- i think his rules are absolutely shit.

-a- OK
-b- That's been plainly obvious for awhile... even if there's a higher power, you want to be in control.
-c- I've only heard you challenge OT rules so far.

-b- uh, no. i argued against dictatorship from the very beginning, and argued in favour of democracy. i'd love to know how "i want to have a vote" translates into "i want to be in control" in your mind?
-c- then you haven't read many of the things i've said to you. goodness knows i've tried to get you to understand that it's evil to threaten someone, especially a child, with the most horrific punishment imaginable just because they don't agree with your religion. and that comes from the new.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

No, that you THINK I have no morals, which is helped along by you twisting my words so often.

and in what instance did i "twist your words"? you said you would murder your innocent child if god instructed you to. you justified the slaughter of innocent children if someone else in the city had a different religious opinion. you said homosexuality is as bad as rape. i don't need to twist anything here.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

my word. i hear it all the time. saying that god gave them the world, saying they have god-given rights (such a stupid thing to say, but nvm for now), saying grace before a meal...

I see no problem with saying grace, but the others I don't agree with.

did god give you anything? life, health, prosperity etc?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

"wanting something god can't give you" sounds like a pretty good reason to turn away from religion; if it can't give you basic human rights, democracy, and intellectual freedom, for example.

"basic human rights"
Which ones do you think he denies?
"democracy"
Mmm-hmm.
"intellectual freedom"
And what would that be?

for starters, the right to freely think and inquire and speak. christianity doesn't even permit freedom of thought, let alone speech.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

wanting something god won't give you doesn't put the person at fault instead of the god.
nor does wanting to do something god considers a sin.

It is if you shouldn't want it at all, if it is wrong.
Of course, you probably don't think they're wrong... ah, morals.

i really feel sorry for you... i really, really do. you've been completely corrupted by religion.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

having a different religious opinion is not even a crime at all

You still haven't answered my question regarding that...

Why should anyone go free of a law, ANY law, just because they don't agree with it?

i did answer that, actually.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

odd to use the word "defense" to explain the supposed behaviour of the israelites...

Why? Do you think the other groups wanted to live in peaceful tolerance with them?

i don't think peaceful tolerance with a group as debauched as the israelites, ruled as they were by an entity as downright evil as yahweh, would be even possible let alone desirable.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

Right, the Bible really has space to say things about every sinner in history.

so you're saying the only reason the bible does not condemn this man is thanks to lack of space? well, firstly the bible rambles on and on and on and on. secondly the story basically happens twice (this one, and lot/sodom and gomorrah), and the man who decided to throw defenceless girls at the mob of rapists got off without so much as a slap on the wrist both times.

Quote:

Besides... man throws girl to save self, girl dies... how is that NOT murder?

you're admitting the guy was morally wrong, so why doesn't the bible condemn it?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

Who today holds that moral position?

answer the question at the beginning of the paragraph. do you think that is a good rule for cases of rape? do you think god did a good job making that rule? do you still think god is the ultimate supreme source of good morals?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

No, I did not say that. I said that God won't rate either act a worse sin than the other in judgement. I didn't say I thought neither act was worse in itself than the other.

don't try to wriggle out of this one, champ.

here's what i asked.
"what, in your view and in the view of your church, is the worse act of these two:
- a man rapes a woman
- two men, consenting adults, choose to have a sexual relationship"
you answered:
"No sin is worse than another."
and that's all you said on the subject. you said neither was worse than the other. it's right there.

and if your god won't say that one of them IS worse than the other, then that's another thing i have against your god. if he judges two gay guys to be the same as a rapist, then he's morally bankrupt. but then, i've been saying that all along.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

perhaps you could quote the verse(s) in Genesis, the first book in the bible, that explain just who this Satan is and make it clear that the snake who tempted eve is indeed this character Satan.

Genesis 3 explains it pretty well, especially the prophecy made in verse 15.

quote it all, hmm? everything in genesis explaining who satan is and explaining that the snake was satan.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

Yet you think that morals came from basically nowhere in particular... and that that isn't ridiculous.

nowhere? the human species has existed for hundreds of thousands of years. we learn more all the time. for example, our moral standards are a lot better than they were two thousand years ago. just look at how crappy the morals were of the men who wrote the bible, look at what shitty ideas they had.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

compassion can compel us to do something wrong, like refrain from murdering a close friend or family member who tells us their religious views.
three cheers for compassion, i say.

Kinda conflicts with your above quote...
So much for morals.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

Quote:

uh no, because moral considerations are based on a little more than just immediate happiness.

Once again, you read too far into the example to avoid acknowledging it.

uh no, i responded to what you said.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

remember the first religious debate between you and i? you kept saying that if you won't believe anything without proof, you're a "hopeless case".

I was wrong to say that.
Also, I said it once, not "kept saying".

you kept trying to justify it. dover and i repeatedly tried to get you to open your eyes. it's good that you admit you were wrong in that case; you didn't in the thread and it went on for quite a while.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

you said that anyone who finds your religion unconvincing is "desperately trying to find an excuse because they want an easier path".

Quote me, since I have no idea what you're referring to.

this was the same post or nearby as the "hopeless case" remark

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

that isn't even internally consistent

I have yet to see evidence it isn't...

the gospels can't agree on almost anything.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

and whose authorship is dubious

I'll give you that, but it's safe to say any ancient writing has dubious authorship.

yes, but most ancient books don't claim to be infallible. and yet the bible's history of collation is entirely political.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

and we have monumentally large implications.

What?

heaven and hell?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

we don't even have ordinary proof. however, earlier you said there was... that didn't go very well, did it?

No, it didn't. Because you didn't even read the entire thing. You skipped all the -ology secions.

lol? i replied to everything i saw, and all of it horribly feeble.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

so muslims have greater faith than you, basically?

Implying that less proof = more faith?

well, yeah. their religion is even more incomprehensible and absurd than yours, so they must have more faith if they believe in it, right?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

it's what the boss wants that counts.

And you've basically said you want to be that boss, or at least one of them.

again, i'd love to know how you got from "i want democracy instead of dictatorship" to "i want to be the boss or at least one of them"

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

Quote:

You were quoting scripture. That wasn't an opinion of yours, that was a point of yours you tried to back up. That's why i responded.

i have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here.

You quoting scripture and pointing at it is NOT an opinion, it's a point you were trying to make.
So I replied in kind.

i'm still confused as to your point

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

1. Hear the message (Romans 10:17)
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
what exactly is the message?

Basically, the plan.
And the Bible as a whole.

*shrug*

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

I have, believe me.

well, then your five-step plan falls at point 2 in my case, because i don't believe it, and because i don't believe it i am going to be "condemned". what a shitty moral system.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

i'm reminded again of our earlier religious debate. you said that you'd done things which you would deserve to go to hell for if you hadn't "repented". well, that's quite a daring admission, telling us that you'd done something so evil that it would justify the most horrific punishment of all. (unless you're arguing that god and his punishments are unjust, and you've never seemed to think that)

"so evil"? It doesn't have to be "So evil" to trigger that.

and doesn't that suck?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

well, i couldn't help but ask what those things were. what were these horrific crimes you committed? you wouldn't say.

Well, if someone asked you to list the morally unjust things you've done that have violated your moral code, would you list them all?

whoah there. i didn't say i'd done anything so bad that it would justify me receiving the very worst punishment imaginable. even if i had committed murder, the penalty would be less harsh than hell.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

"appallingly evil"? "So damaging to the world"?
Your whole sentence hangs on those two vague and unexplained phrases.
Care to interpret?

sorry, i guess i'm just trying to be generous and make the assumption that your god is just, in spite of the bible making it clear that he isn't.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

finally... "and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit". what's that then?

Heaven?

k, well, obviously i'm not gonna get that but may as well ask

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

What I'd prefer?
Person A, myself.
Because with Person B, I don't even have a chance to save them.

save them from what?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

He was speaking to the imminent prisoners at the time, but the message is not addressed to just specifically them, but to everyone.

how do you know? remember, you said earlier that a particular verse is only applicable to the israelites.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

well, "be faithful". define that for me, please. you'd also better explain what "the crown of life" is.

"be faithful"
Follow the commandments in the Bible, like weekly worship, Lord's Supper, behaviour and conduct, avoidance of sins...

are you sure that's what "faithful" means? usually "faith" seems more to do with believing stuff without evidence.

Quote:

snpr1101 wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

Yeah, Spoony didn't give me much of a chance to justify my statement, did he? Jumped all over it and spread it around beofre I could tell him he was wrong.

i think i can see you're beginning to realise you made a terrible fuckup in your statement about rape vs homosexuality. it's cool if you want to retract it, but do yourself a favour and don't act like i'm at fault for asking the question and then finding your very clear response to be appalling.

Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424645 is a reply to message #424591]

Sun, 04 April 2010 09:55

Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

snpr1101 wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 20:35

yea it might help if I read it all

this is good advice.

snpr1101 wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 20:35

Therefore, you see rape as wrong (which it is), and two homosexual men who "love" eachother (prove that exists while your at it) as normal (debatable - disprove God and the Bible and you'll win it)

Had you talked to homosexual couples in real life? Their love is no different than the love of a heterosexual couple.

As for it being normal, it is as normal as a black man loving and marrying a white woman...which btw was seen as wrong and illegal just a few decades ago.

You are gonna have to get over this and you will get over it just as those who were against interracial marriage got over it.

snpr1101 wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 20:35

Therefore, disprove the Bible and God, and you will win the argument.

I don't think you realise what a asinine request this is. What will be your response if a hindu asked you that same question regarding his gods?

The bible and the christian god are already disproved just as the ancient greek gods, the hindu vedic texts, and allah.

btw, I find it sad you think this is another "argument" to "win"

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/8746/buzzsigfinal.jpg

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424646 is a reply to message #424645]

Sun, 04 April 2010 10:04

Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006

Karma: 0

General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator

my god, the yellow lobster called jeremy, says raping children is a good idea.

snpr1101, you think that sucks? then YOU HAVE TO PROVE THE YELLOW LOBSTER DOESN'T EXIST!

*rollseyes*

even if he did exist, god or not, if that was one of his commandments then he'd be a twat. just as the bible's rules on rape are evil, just as so much else of christianity is evil. we don't need to disprove the existence of a god to make a moral case against a religion.

Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424700 is a reply to message #424645]

Sun, 04 April 2010 21:27

snpr1101
Messages: 425
Registered: June 2007
Location: Australia

Karma: 0

Commander

Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 04 April 2010 11:55

snpr1101 wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 20:35

yea it might help if I read it all

this is good advice.

snpr1101 wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 20:35

Therefore, you see rape as wrong (which it is), and two homosexual men who "love" eachother (prove that exists while your at it) as normal (debatable - disprove God and the Bible and you'll win it)

snpr1101 wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 20:35

Therefore, disprove the Bible and God, and you will win the argument.

I think you're misunderstanding some things here. What exactly do I have to get over? I don't judge homosexual couples, nor do I think it's wrong. I was just pointing what I saw as the difference in thinking between a person who believes in the Bible and God; and a person who does not. Yes I realise there may be some who support homosexual couples whilst having this belief; but I am speaking from a standpoint of those who are religious and are strictly against homosexuality. All you seem to be doing is taking what I said, and stating things that seem contrary to it that I already agree with.

And about disproving God and the Bible etc. Alot of the reasons behind the arguments presented here are based upon, or have a strong link to teachings in the Bible, or a lack of. If you're a person who has an immense belief in the Bible and your God; and somebody starts to argue against certain points of it - how can the believer accept they are wrong without accepting their God does not exist - hence the teachings and everything that fuels their argument is moot? That, I believe, is the only way to prove someone wrong in this case.

The same thing goes for the non-believer. How can they be proven wrong when they simply do not accept that the other persons' God does not exist; and the teachings and arguments in the Bible that fuel their arguments are false or do not pertain to what they perceive as right, or wrong.

And no, I don't think this is "another" argument to "win". I thought you might of observed how I made reference to God, the Bible etc. I didn't make light of this debate. I simply saw a way, in my opinion, whether it be wrong or not, to allow someone to accept another's thinking as truth over their own. Perhaps I should of written it as above to avoid confusion. But did you really think I saw it as the "Victor" of this debate could stand up on the "podium" and give an "acceptance speech" whilst I handed him his "First Place Trophy"?

Quote:

My god, the almighty yellow lobster God called Jeremy, for which I have no belief in - nor do I believe in the Lobsters little book called the Lobster Bible, says theres nothing wrong with rape, or anything else I care to debate. HOW DARE THIS GOD CHALLENGE MY THINKING! SURELY I MUST KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT OVER A GOD. Oh wait, maybe he doesn't exist. If I can prove this, then surely the argument of the lobster is wrong; and mine is right.

Yea ok, so I wasn't as serious about that, but I aside the little chuckle it gave me, I think it holds some relevance. Sure, using rape in that sarcastic example doesn't really get the message across that easily, but insert another word or debatable topic that isn't as strong as the word.

Look, I'm not saying rape is fine, but look at the words you're using. Evil, Moral etc. What is your definition of Evil? Where do your morals stem from? What is Evil really? - something morally objectionable? Morals are quite a personal belief (Although many are shared), almost as personal as a belief in God.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Everything we argue about based upon morals, belief, religion, God - or subjects we argue about that draw upon these is linked to a bigger picture; it Stems from a greater Issue and debate, in my opinion. You cannot debate smaller topics and arrive at an agreed conclusion, or shared argument, unless there is a shared mutual agreement in the accuracy of the morals and beliefs that govern the topic you're arguing about.

I could elaborate on that more, but my above posts cover it, I think.

_.-+| As I finish writing this I feel regretful for getting into this argument. I think what I said is too broad and could form an entirely different argument all together. But It's just my opinion, feel free to challenge it and prove my thinking wrong (which I have no doubt someone will). I don't mean to take the piss out of anyones views too much, as I've only been in this world 18 years and could learn alot from those who've been here longer |+-._

[Updated on: Sun, 04 April 2010 22:58]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424735 is a reply to message #424700]

Mon, 05 April 2010 05:40

Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006

Karma: 0

General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator

snpr1101 wrote on Sun, 04 April 2010 23:27

And about disproving God and the Bible etc. Alot of the reasons behind the arguments presented here are based upon, or have a strong link to teachings in the Bible, or a lack of. If you're a person who has an immense belief in the Bible and your God; and somebody starts to argue against certain points of it - how can the believer accept they are wrong without accepting their God does not exist - hence the teachings and everything that fuels their argument is moot? That, I believe, is the only way to prove someone wrong in this case.

actually, no, it's not.

if their entire argument is "it's wrong because god disapproves of it" (and that's what it always boils down to), then this doesn't deserve to be taken seriously UNTIL the following things have been successfully demonstrated.
1. that this god exists at all
2. that the bible is an accurate depiction of god's character
3. that god is so morally superior that his wishes overrule our ideas on human rights

nobody's done any of the above. they need to do all three before they can expect to be taken seriously.

Quote:

The same thing goes for the non-believer. How can they be proven wrong when they simply do not accept that the other persons' God does not exist; and the teachings and arguments in the Bible that fuel their arguments are false or do not pertain to what they perceive as right, or wrong.

for the non-believer, it's totally different. i have never justified my thoughts on, for example, the rights of homosexuals by saying "and the reason i think this is because i don't think your god is real". i'd think it even if god turned out to be real. even if god was real i'd still think his moral standards are appalling. you cannot disprove my moral assertions by proving there's a god, because they were never the reason for me saying them.

secondly, another reason why you're totally wrong here: there is a huge difference between an atheist's position and a christian's position. it's not a case of "the atheist thinks there isn't a god, the christian thinks there is one". you might draw a parallel between thinking there is one and thinking there probably isn't one, but that's not where the goalposts are here. the christian says: there is a god, and I know the details about him. that's not at all equivalent to my position, which is: i've never seen any convincing evidence or heard any convincing logic that there is a god. that would be square one. even if someone could show that, they would still have all their work ahead of them to prove that any particular book is the accurate source of what god expects from us, AND they would still have to successfully argue that god's wishes trump our principles of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

Quote:

If you understand how ridiculous it would be if someone seriously held the yellow lobster/child rape position, it ought to be apparent how ridiculous the "homosexuality is wrong because the judeo-christian god says so" position is.

Quote:

Look, I'm not saying rape is fine

Answer my earlier question. What do you think about the Bible's rules on rape? I've asked that two or three times now.

Here's what the Bible says. If a man rapes a woman, he must marry her and pay off her father.
Two points of commentary about this. Firstly it doesn't seem like much of a punishment to the man, as opposed to the death penalty for gay people who choose to have relationship with a consenting adult.
Secondly, look how fucked up it is from the woman's perspective. She's just been raped - I struggle to imagine what that's like - she probably needs the comfort and understanding of her family and friends, and she ought to know that the law is totally on her side and she ought never to have to look at the rapist ever again.
But what happens? She has to marry him! The bastard who raped her, she is now confined to a life attached to him as an inferior partner (the bible makes it quite clear that women are men's property, which was probably the general view at the time it was written). Never mind what she had in mind for her future, maybe she was in love with a different man and wanted to marry him, maybe she doesn't want to get married at all. No. She's got to marry a rapist who attacked and violated her.

So answer my question, and so must Altzan... do you think there's anything morally wrong with this law? Never mind whether God exists. Even if he does exist and he really did inspire this law, it's still horrendous and it would just mean God was an immoral piece of shit.

Quote:

but look at the words you're using. Evil, Moral etc. What is your definition of Evil? Where do your morals stem from? What is Evil really? - something morally objectionable? Morals are quite a personal belief (Although many are shared), almost as personal as a belief in God.

Morals stem from human solidarity, the principles of human rights, freedom under the rule of law, democracy, etc etc etc. They develop gradually, we learn more all the time.

As for where evil comes from? Religion Big Grin

before anyone objects too hard to that, it's just intended to be snappy and simplistic, don't read too much into it

Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful

[Updated on: Mon, 05 April 2010 05:42]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424835 is a reply to message #422616]

Mon, 05 April 2010 20:27

Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Quote:

No, that you THINK I have no morals, which is helped along by you twisting my words so often.

You just did.
I did not, NOT, say homosexuality is as bad as rape.
I'll get to that later.

You also asked what I believe I should do if I sinned. I replied saying I'd make a public confession at church. Next, you describe me as someone who thinks they can do horrible actions and not have to apologize to anyone but my congregationa nd God, and not to whoever I might have harmed or wronged.
You twisted my words there, since you did not mention anyone else in your question... if I wronged somebody, then a sincere apology and request for forgiveness from them is due and needed. But you represented me as one who did not think that.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

did god give you anything? life, health, prosperity etc?

I don't think God has given me anything more than what he has given others... I don't get special treatment from him, physical-wise, just for my faith in him.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

wanting something god won't give you doesn't put the person at fault instead of the god.
nor does wanting to do something god considers a sin.

It is if you shouldn't want it at all, if it is wrong.
Of course, you probably don't think they're wrong... ah, morals.

i really feel sorry for you... i really, really do. you've been completely corrupted by religion.

Maybe you should reply to my point instead of making mocking comments.
If something is morally wrong, then why is it God's fault for condemning it?

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Quote:

You still haven't answered my question regarding that...
Why should anyone go free of a law, ANY law, just because they don't agree with it?

i did answer that, actually.

You didn't, really. You first made a point out of the specific situation, and I replied by generalizing it. Then you started asking me questions about democracy.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Lot (the Sodom/Gomorrah man) didn't 'throw defenseless girls at mobs of rapists'... although he came close to. And he was wrong to make the offer.
I also wonder how you know the other man didn't get punished.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Quote:

Besides... man throws girl to save self, girl dies... how is that NOT murder?

you're admitting the guy was morally wrong, so why doesn't the bible condemn it?

He committed murder, yes? (I don't see how it couldn't be.) God condemns murder.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

do you think that is a good rule for cases of rape?

Of course not, we live in different times now. Civilization was a lot different back then.
I have never lived in those times so I can't say how good or bad that law was.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

here's what i asked.
"what, in your view and in the view of your church, is the worse act of these two:
- a man rapes a woman
- two men, consenting adults, choose to have a sexual relationship"
you answered:
"No sin is worse than another."
and that's all you said on the subject. you said neither was worse than the other. it's right there.

You asked what was worse in terms of sin.
I said that God will not condemn a man for one act more than over another.
I made no comment regarding which act was worse.
How can you confuse the two?

Do you think it makes sense to 'rank' sins?

But let me satisfy your curiousity. Sins and laws aside... which do I think is worse? Definitely rape. By far.
Nothing to twist there.

And if you in all honesty misinterpreted my post, or did not make your query clear, I will admit it could be my fault as much as yours that it happened. But there are my views, and I will clarify if needed.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

quote it all, hmm? everything in genesis explaining who satan is and explaining that the snake was satan.

The Bible does not explicitly name the snake as Satan, but basic logic confirms it.
For one, animals couldn't talk, and no human possessed the snake and made it speak.
That leaves three options, God, Satan, or some other diety. Obviously it wasn't God. And if another diety existed, the Bible either would have made no mention of it at all or would have gone on in further detail.
So it must have been Satan.

Also, the prophecy made (not that you believe they're valid, but anyway) said, as God was cursing the snake, 'You and man are now enemies, and man will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel.'
The bruised heel represents Jesus dying on the cross, and the bruised head represents Jesus' resurrection.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

You didn't say anything about the origin of morals. They didn't just 'appear' when humans did, did they?

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

you said that anyone who finds your religion unconvincing is "desperately trying to find an excuse because they want an easier path".

Quote me, since I have no idea what you're referring to.

this was the same post or nearby as the "hopeless case" remark

That doesn't help much.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

that isn't even internally consistent

I have yet to see evidence it isn't...

the gospels can't agree on almost anything.

I've read from each many times and I have no idea what you might be referring to.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

and we have monumentally large implications.

What?

heaven and hell?

Ah, I suppose that was obvious, sorry.
I'll use the dictionary next time.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

lol? i replied to everything i saw, and all of it horribly feeble.

"Everything you saw" didn't include hyperlinks in the article?
But Okay, here you go.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

well, yeah. their religion is even more incomprehensible and absurd than yours, so they must have more faith if they believe in it, right?

Faith isn't a measurable concept, you know.
You can't have more or less faith. You have it or you don't.
What you have faith IN, is a different matter.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Quote:

You quoting scripture and pointing at it is NOT an opinion, it's a point you were trying to make.
So I replied in kind.

i'm still confused as to your point

*sigh* Let me try once more.
I said I wouldn't attempt to refute an opinion.
You asked why I tried to refute your verses/claim with Matthew Henry.
I said it was because your verses/claim was not an opinion.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

"so evil"? It doesn't have to be "So evil" to trigger that.

and doesn't that suck?

Duh, no.
"OK, don't sin or you'll suffer the consequences!...well, unless it's a really small sin, you know, those don't count."

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

well, i couldn't help but ask what those things were. what were these horrific crimes you committed? you wouldn't say.

Well, if someone asked you to list the morally unjust things you've done that have violated your moral code, would you list them all?

Ok, but...
Why am I a bad person for not wanting to list actions I have done that I don't feel proud of?

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

4. State that you believe christ is the son of God (Romans 10:10)
For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
well, i don't believe that. i do have a question, though.
what would you prefer?
person A doesn't believe this, and says so honestly.
person B says he believes this, and you don't have any way of really knowing whether he's telling the truth or just wants you to shut the fuck up.

What I'd prefer?
Person A, myself.
Because with Person B, I don't even have a chance to save them.

save them from what?

Hell?
In other words, if you outright said no, I don't believe this, I'd try and talk to you about it, and if you continued to decline and ask me not to bother you anymore with it, etc, I'd do so.
But if you said you did believe, got baptized, worshipped with us and so forth, but you really didn't, I would have no way of knowing, and couldn't do anything.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Quote:

He was speaking to the imminent prisoners at the time, but the message is not addressed to just specifically them, but to everyone.

how do you know? remember, you said earlier that a particular verse is only applicable to the israelites.

Right, because they were in different circumstances. They had to move about and interact with other groups, and that was one of God's commands regarding that.
Here, he was speaking to them about how to remain faithful and be saved. Seeing as how that is the same thing we are to do today, the statement applies to us in today's time as well.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

well, "be faithful". define that for me, please. you'd also better explain what "the crown of life" is.

are you sure that's what "faithful" means? usually "faith" seems more to do with believing stuff without evidence.

I meant in terms of "be faithful and obey". Yes, faith does involve belief in the unseen, which is included in the meaning of the verse, but it also means obeying his commandments, such as what I listed above.

I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424910 is a reply to message #424835]

Tue, 06 April 2010 08:14

Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006

Karma: 0

General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator

Altzan wrote on Mon, 05 April 2010 22:27

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Quote:

No, that you THINK I have no morals, which is helped along by you twisting my words so often.

You just did.
I did not, NOT, say homosexuality is as bad as rape.

of the three really sick moral opinions of yours i posted, you only seem to feel defensive about one of them...

Quote:

You also asked what I believe I should do if I sinned. I replied saying I'd make a public confession at church. Next, you describe me as someone who thinks they can do horrible actions and not have to apologize to anyone but my congregationa nd God, and not to whoever I might have harmed or wronged.
You twisted my words there, since you did not mention anyone else in your question... if I wronged somebody, then a sincere apology and request for forgiveness from them is due and needed. But you represented me as one who did not think that.

dude, do yourself a favour, don't lie. don't act like i twisted your words, don't act like i misrepresented your statement. you won't get away with it and you make yourself look much worse by trying.

i asked you very clearly how you define "repenting" if you do something wrong. you said: ask forgiveness in church if it's a public sin, ask forgiveness through prayer if it's a private sin. i immediately responded by saying: what, so nothing about apologising to the actual people you affected, nothing about trying to rectify a situation you made worse? you didn't reply with ANY indication that you thought either of those was important.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

did god give you anything? life, health, prosperity etc?

I don't think God has given me anything more than what he has given others... I don't get special treatment from him, physical-wise, just for my faith in him.

what has he given others?

Quote:

Maybe you should reply to my point instead of making mocking comments.
If something is morally wrong, then why is it God's fault for condemning it?

and what if it's not morally wrong? what if it's a basic human right god is condemning? it's not automatically bad just because your monster of a god doesn't like it.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Lot (the Sodom/Gomorrah man) didn't 'throw defenseless girls at mobs of rapists'... although he came close to. And he was wrong to make the offer.

on what basis do you say he was wrong to make the offer?

Quote:

I also wonder how you know the other man didn't get punished.

i found no report that he did, and neither did you.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Quote:

Besides... man throws girl to save self, girl dies... how is that NOT murder?

you're admitting the guy was morally wrong, so why doesn't the bible condemn it?

He committed murder, yes? (I don't see how it couldn't be.) God condemns murder.

actually, the bible gives plenty of situations when murder is positively recommended and a few when it's flat-out ordered. same goes for slavery and rape.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

do you think that is a good rule for cases of rape?

Of course not, we live in different times now. Civilization was a lot different back then.
I have never lived in those times so I can't say how good or bad that law was.

what a cowardly, euphemistic answer.

the law is sick and immoral, there's no two ways about it. and if it came from god, then god's sick and immoral too.

yes, civilisation was different back then. they had really shitty morals. you can tell just by reading books written at the time, most obviously the bible. thank god we don't have huge numbers of people trying to live their lives based on the moral standards of primitive middle-east barbarians.

oh wait, we do, don't we

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

You asked what was worse in terms of sin.
I said that God will not condemn a man for one act more than over another.
I made no comment regarding which act was worse.
How can you confuse the two?

firstly, god condemns homosexuality worse than rape. the punishment ordered for homosexuality is worse than rape, and the punishment for the woman victim of rape is worse than for the male offender.

secondly, do you really want to say your god condemns all sins equally? that would not put god in a good light.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

quote it all, hmm? everything in genesis explaining who satan is and explaining that the snake was satan.

The Bible does not explicitly name the snake as Satan, but basic logic confirms it.

*rollseyes*

it's time to admit you were totally wrong again, dude.

Quote:

For one, animals couldn't talk, and no human possessed the snake and made it speak.
That leaves three options, God, Satan, or some other diety. Obviously it wasn't God. And if another diety existed, the Bible either would have made no mention of it at all or would have gone on in further detail.
So it must have been Satan.

there's no mention of satan at all in genesis, and very little mention in the entire old testament. it isn't until at least a thousand years later than men decide to invent the idea of "satan" as you probably think of him now. you really have to try very hard to apply the much later inventions to the much earlier passages, and like you said about deities, if the writers of genesis said the snake was possessed by insert-power-here, they would have said so. what was all that about don't add anything into the bible? Big Grin

Quote:

Also, the prophecy made (not that you believe they're valid, but anyway) said, as God was cursing the snake, 'You and man are now enemies, and man will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel.'
The bruised heel represents Jesus dying on the cross, and the bruised head represents Jesus' resurrection.

again, you're trying way too hard here. god's obviously just pissed at the snake, and he's punishing all snakes, not just the one who was there. as, of course, is his unjust and vindictive nature.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

You didn't say anything about the origin of morals. They didn't just 'appear' when humans did, did they?

if you read the statement you just quoted you'll see i actually did answer the question.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

you said that anyone who finds your religion unconvincing is "desperately trying to find an excuse because they want an easier path".

Quote me, since I have no idea what you're referring to.

this was the same post or nearby as the "hopeless case" remark

That doesn't help much.

here it is:
"Actually, the people wanting proof are those desperately looking for a reason not to believe something they don't want to believe because they want am easier path."

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

that isn't even internally consistent

I have yet to see evidence it isn't...

the gospels can't agree on almost anything.

I've read from each many times and I have no idea what you might be referring to.

are you kidding?

i'll be generous and give you a version of events from someone claiming to be a christian.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_lib.htm

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

lol? i replied to everything i saw, and all of it horribly feeble.

"Everything you saw" didn't include hyperlinks in the article?
But Okay, here you go.
sigh... this is nearly as bad as the stuff i've already debunked. there's nothing there that some other book couldn't have said. for a lot of it you really have to struggle to "interpret" (the christian euphemism for "it looks wrong, let's see if we can change it so we get the answer we wanted"), plus there are plenty of cases where the scientific assertions of the bible are flat out wrong, like when it says pi is 3, for example.

finally, all this dodges the most important question i asked. if you find something in the bible that turns out to be useful knowledge, why does that vindicate the entire bible?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

well, yeah. their religion is even more incomprehensible and absurd than yours, so they must have more faith if they believe in it, right?

Faith isn't a measurable concept, you know.
You can't have more or less faith. You have it or you don't.

that doesn't answer my question.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Quote:

You quoting scripture and pointing at it is NOT an opinion, it's a point you were trying to make.
So I replied in kind.

i'm still confused as to your point

you're talking complete bullshit here, dude. it seems very obvious to me you're just trying to avoid the fact that there were a lot of things i said you simply couldn't think of an answer to.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

"so evil"? It doesn't have to be "So evil" to trigger that.

and doesn't that suck?

Duh, no.
"OK, don't sin or you'll suffer the consequences!...well, unless it's a really small sin, you know, those don't count."

and yet you admitted that you did "sin"...

Quote:

Ok, but...
Why am I a bad person for not wanting to list actions I have done that I don't feel proud of?

that's not the part that makes you a bad person.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

4. State that you believe christ is the son of God (Romans 10:10)
For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
well, i don't believe that. i do have a question, though.
what would you prefer?
person A doesn't believe this, and says so honestly.
person B says he believes this, and you don't have any way of really knowing whether he's telling the truth or just wants you to shut the fuck up.

What I'd prefer?
Person A, myself.
Because with Person B, I don't even have a chance to save them.

save them from what?

Hell?

i.e. the thing you originally threatened them with? calling that "saved" is like using the word "protection" to describe a mafia give-us-money-and-we-won't-kill-you deal.

Quote:

In other words, if you outright said no, I don't believe this, I'd try and talk to you about it, and if you continued to decline and ask me not to bother you anymore with it, etc, I'd do so.
But if you said you did believe, got baptized, worshipped with us and so forth, but you really didn't, I would have no way of knowing, and couldn't do anything.

Do you seriously believe that everyone claiming to be a Christian actually is?

Don't you think that the endless threats and bullying and intimidation might be a big part of why so many people don't feel secure being honest about their religious views?

And don't you think that this would be an evil climate to perpetuate, since it would mean that a huge number of people would end up going to hell just because they were too scared to actually speak up about their doubts?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Quote:

He was speaking to the imminent prisoners at the time, but the message is not addressed to just specifically them, but to everyone.

how do you know? remember, you said earlier that a particular verse is only applicable to the israelites.

You are entirely choosing for yourself, on no basis whatsoever, which parts of the bible apply to you. Just be honest with yourself and admit that this is what you are doing.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

well, "be faithful". define that for me, please. you'd also better explain what "the crown of life" is.

are you sure that's what "faithful" means? usually "faith" seems more to do with believing stuff without evidence.

k.

so, you asked earlier what i thought of the five-step plan? it's shit.

Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #425058 is a reply to message #422616]

Wed, 07 April 2010 21:00

Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

dude, do yourself a favour, don't lie. don't act like i twisted your words, don't act like i misrepresented your statement. you won't get away with it and you make yourself look much worse by trying.
i asked you very clearly how you define "repenting" if you do something wrong. you said: ask forgiveness in church if it's a public sin, ask forgiveness through prayer if it's a private sin. i immediately responded by saying: what, so nothing about apologising to the actual people you affected, nothing about trying to rectify a situation you made worse? you didn't reply with ANY indication that you thought either of those was important.

You never gave me a chance.
I didn't mention apologies to people because you didn't ask. I focused on the sin itself and not on who I might have committed it against - it never even crossed my mind, to be honest, since you gave no indication whatsoever that one was involved.
After I replied, you didn't ASK anything. You said this:

Quote:

This is what I expected, which only reaffirms my earlier statement that you really don't know right from wrong. You say nothing of actually apologising to people you wronged, nor of trying to make amends for a situation you affected. No, never mind that - you just try to please your imaginary friend.

That's not a query, it's a label, and a wrong one. You can't call me out on something you NEVER MENTIONED.

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

Quote:

I don't think God has given me anything more than what he has given others... I don't get special treatment from him, physical-wise, just for my faith in him.

what has he given others?

No, no, I meant that I don't get anything extra compared to others, based on belief.

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

Quote:

Lot (the Sodom/Gomorrah man) didn't 'throw defenseless girls at mobs of rapists'... although he came close to. And he was wrong to make the offer.

on what basis do you say he was wrong to make the offer?

Those morals you mention?

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

Quote:

You asked what was worse in terms of sin.
I said that God will not condemn a man for one act more than over another.
I made no comment regarding which act was worse.
How can you confuse the two?

firstly, god condemns homosexuality worse than rape. the punishment ordered for homosexuality is worse than rape, and the punishment for the woman victim of rape is worse than for the male offender.

I'm not understanding what you're getting at here.

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

secondly, do you really want to say your god condemns all sins equally? that would not put god in a good light.

I'd love to hear why you think he should condemn certain sins less than others.

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

He's mentioned in the Old Testament more than 'very little'. God even has a conversation with him regularly, in Job.

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

Quote:

again, you're trying way too hard here. god's obviously just pissed at the snake, and he's punishing all snakes, not just the one who was there. as, of course, is his unjust and vindictive nature.

Defending the snakes? How appropriate.

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

Quote:

You didn't say anything about the origin of morals. They didn't just 'appear' when humans did, did they?

if you read the statement you just quoted you'll see i actually did answer the question.

You explained how they evolved over time. Not their origin.
Unless you are saying man made up morals as he went along...
But how does that make sense?

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

here it is:
"Actually, the people wanting proof are those desperately looking for a reason not to believe something they don't want to believe because they want am easier path."

I am wrong with that statement too, then.

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

i'll be generous and give you a version of events from someone claiming to be a christian.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_lib.htm

He sure seems to comment a lot on Jesus' birth... but nothing concrete.
One gospel says Joseph was his father, another that he was the son of a virgin. Well, calling Joseph his father hardly means his biological one, does it?
Another doesn't even mention the birth... well, how does that indicate that they didn't believe in it?

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

sigh... this is nearly as bad as the stuff i've already debunked. there's nothing there that some other book couldn't have said.

Yet they didn't.

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

all this dodges the most important question i asked. if you find something in the bible that turns out to be useful knowledge, why does that vindicate the entire bible?

I never said it would.

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

Quote:

Faith isn't a measurable concept, you know.
You can't have more or less faith. You have it or you don't.

that doesn't answer my question.

I did. The answer is no, because faith isn't measurable.

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Quote:

You quoting scripture and pointing at it is NOT an opinion, it's a point you were trying to make.
So I replied in kind.

i'm still confused as to your point

you're talking complete bullshit here, dude. it seems very obvious to me you're just trying to avoid the fact that there were a lot of things i said you simply couldn't think of an answer to.

What tangent are you running off to now?
You've gone and lost me now. I think we're on two different pages...

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 23:47

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 02 April 2010 06:45

"so evil"? It doesn't have to be "So evil" to trigger that.

and doesn't that suck?

Duh, no.
"OK, don't sin or you'll suffer the consequences!...well, unless it's a really small sin, you know, those don't count."

and yet you admitted that you did "sin"...

Yes, I did.

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

i.e. the thing you originally threatened them with? calling that "saved" is like using the word "protection" to describe a mafia give-us-money-and-we-won't-kill-you deal.

How? The mafia's the one setting up the danger they'll protect you from. And they don't have a reason to, other than money.

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

Don't you think that the endless threats and bullying and intimidation might be a big part of why so many people don't feel secure being honest about their religious views?

Don't you think I'm just as opposed to these types of bullies as you are?

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

And don't you think that this would be an evil climate to perpetuate, since it would mean that a huge number of people would end up going to hell just because they were too scared to actually speak up about their doubts?

Yes, I do.

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

Quote:

You are entirely choosing for yourself, on no basis whatsoever, which parts of the bible apply to you. Just be honest with yourself and admit that this is what you are doing.

I won't 'admit' that because it's wrong.
So, go on if you like.

I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire

[Updated on: Wed, 07 April 2010 21:01]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #425095 is a reply to message #425058]

Thu, 08 April 2010 03:00

Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006

Karma: 0

General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator

Altzan wrote on Wed, 07 April 2010 23:00

Of course it didn't cross your mind, and that says it all.

Quote:

After I replied, you didn't ASK anything. You said this:

Quote:

That's not a query, it's a label, and a wrong one. You can't call me out on something you NEVER MENTIONED.

And you didn't challenge it.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

Quote:

I don't think God has given me anything more than what he has given others... I don't get special treatment from him, physical-wise, just for my faith in him.

what has he given others?

No, no, I meant that I don't get anything extra compared to others, based on belief.

just answer the question.... what has god given your average person?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

Quote:

Lot (the Sodom/Gomorrah man) didn't 'throw defenseless girls at mobs of rapists'... although he came close to. And he was wrong to make the offer.

on what basis do you say he was wrong to make the offer?

Those morals you mention?

which come from you, not the bible. there's no condemnation of his action in the bible, and plenty of opportunity to. remember, lot's basically saved from the destruction of the city on the grounds that he's the only righteous man there, right?

incidentally, i recall they were told to just get the hell out of there without looking back at the carnage. lot's wife turned back to look, and for this terrible crime she was turned into a pillar of salt (?!)

if god can take the time to kill (presumably) a woman just because she took a glance back while fleeing from a collapsing city, you'd think he could take the time to say "lot, you shouldn't have offered those girls to the rape mob to save yourself"

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

Quote:

You asked what was worse in terms of sin.
I said that God will not condemn a man for one act more than over another.
I made no comment regarding which act was worse.
How can you confuse the two?

firstly, god condemns homosexuality worse than rape. the punishment ordered for homosexuality is worse than rape, and the punishment for the woman victim of rape is worse than for the male offender.

I'm not understanding what you're getting at here.

i don't know why.

you keep saying god won't punish one sin worse than another even if one act is worse. the bible seems to contradict this view. homosexual sex, never mind if it's consenting adults (the idea that this makes no difference shows just how crap the bible's authors' morals were), entails a much worse penalty than the penalty for a man who rapes a woman.

(indeed, it seems like a man who particularly wants to marry a woman doesn't need to worry about whether she or her family approves of the marriage. he can just rape her, and then boom, she's forced to marry him. all he's gotta do is pay off her dad.)

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

secondly, do you really want to say your god condemns all sins equally? that would not put god in a good light.

I'd love to hear why you think he should condemn certain sins less than others.

basic moral sense?

shouldn't the jail term for murdering a child be longer than for smoking a joint in the privacy of your own home?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

He's mentioned in the Old Testament more than 'very little'. God even has a conversation with him regularly, in Job.

of course, and the depiction there is not at all like the current idea of satan. he comes across as like a prosecutor in a heavenly court, who needs god's permission to do anything to torment the faithful job. god freely and repeatedly gives it, f course.

Quote:

again, you're trying way too hard here. god's obviously just pissed at the snake, and he's punishing all snakes, not just the one who was there. as, of course, is his unjust and vindictive nature.

Defending the snakes? How appropriate.

"the snakes"... tell me, why are all snakes guilty of a crime committed by one snake?

i'm not really defending snakes, i'm criticising the idea of punishing innocents for the crimes of someone else, which happens over and over and over again in the bible. need an example? when the ten commandments are given, it is stated that god won't just punish people who break them, he'll punish their succeeding generations, their sons, grandsons etc. what the fuck is moral about that?

in the old testament it says that a child born out of wedlock can't enter the kingdom. well, why's that the child's fault?

and do you believe in the concept of original sin?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

Quote:

You didn't say anything about the origin of morals. They didn't just 'appear' when humans did, did they?

if you read the statement you just quoted you'll see i actually did answer the question.

You explained how they evolved over time. Not their origin.

read what you just said there buddy

Quote:

Unless you are saying man made up morals as he went along...
But how does that make sense?

why doesn't it make sense? the men who wrote the bible did the same, and our modern understanding of morality is a hell of a lot better than theirs was.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

here it is:
"Actually, the people wanting proof are those desperately looking for a reason not to believe something they don't want to believe because they want am easier path."

I am wrong with that statement too, then.

good of you to acknowledge that.

Quote:

you'd think they could at least get the details of jesus' life right, considering how crucial they must have thought it was.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

sigh... this is nearly as bad as the stuff i've already debunked. there's nothing there that some other book couldn't have said.

Yet they didn't.

how do you know? the christian authorities went on a rampage against the greek schools of philosophy, for example...

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

all this dodges the most important question i asked. if you find something in the bible that turns out to be useful knowledge, why does that vindicate the entire bible?

I never said it would.

then my original question still remains unanswered: where's the evidence supporting the account as reported in Genesis?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

Quote:

Faith isn't a measurable concept, you know.
You can't have more or less faith. You have it or you don't.

that doesn't answer my question.

I did. The answer is no, because faith isn't measurable.

surely you'd need more faith to believe something if there was less evidence for it?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

i.e. the thing you originally threatened them with? calling that "saved" is like using the word "protection" to describe a mafia give-us-money-and-we-won't-kill-you deal.

How? The mafia's the one setting up the danger they'll protect you from.

BINGO!

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

Don't you think that the endless threats and bullying and intimidation might be a big part of why so many people don't feel secure being honest about their religious views?

Don't you think I'm just as opposed to these types of bullies as you are?

how often and how loudly do you say so?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

Yes, I do.

i'm glad you agree.

Quote:

You are entirely choosing for yourself, on no basis whatsoever, which parts of the bible apply to you. Just be honest with yourself and admit that this is what you are doing.

I won't 'admit' that because it's wrong.
So, go on if you like.

Of course it's true.

I hear all the time from Christians that certain parts of the Bible are either "metaphors" (meaning "we used to take it literally but it's just too ridiculous for modern people to believe), or "don't apply to modern life" (meaning "it's morally repulsive, we get that now")

They usually don't all come to the same conclusion about each thing, though.

Take the rape rule, for example. The really sick one, that forces a rape victim to spend the rest of her life as the semi-property of the bastard who violated her. Tell me, at what part in the New Testament does Jesus say "by the way, that old rape rule, well, god's really embarrassed at inflicting such an evil doctrine upon you. it doesn't count now and i hope you'll forgive god for enforcing such a repulsive law upon you, and we're incredibly sorry for the women's lives that have been completely ruined by it", because I must have missed that in the gospels.

Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful

[Updated on: Thu, 08 April 2010 04:55]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #425273 is a reply to message #425095]

Fri, 09 April 2010 19:18

Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

Quote:

That's not a query, it's a label, and a wrong one. You can't call me out on something you NEVER MENTIONED.

And you didn't challenge it.

Again, because you never gave me the chance.
Or perhaps it's better to say you set the impression that I couldn't... it was awhile ago. But I distinctly remember reading that accusation and wanting to reply to it, yet could not.

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

just answer the question.... what has god given your average person?

...Whatever the average man gets today?
I know it varies greatly, thanks to combination of ancestors' actions and plain luck, though.

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

which come from you, not the bible. there's no condemnation of his action in the bible, and plenty of opportunity to.

'Plenty of opportunity to'. I don't see how you came to that conclusion. If there was, there'd be plenty of opportunity to condemn every sinful action, not just particular ones.

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

remember, lot's basically saved from the destruction of the city on the grounds that he's the only righteous man there, right?

Yes, him and his family.

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

if god can take the time to kill (presumably) a woman just because she took a glance back while fleeing from a collapsing city, you'd think he could take the time to say "lot, you shouldn't have offered those girls to the rape mob to save yourself"

He wasn't trying to save himself, he was trying to save the angels that were visiting him (although I wonder why he thought angels needed saving).

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

you keep saying god won't punish one sin worse than another even if one act is worse. the bible seems to contradict this view. homosexual sex, never mind if it's consenting adults (the idea that this makes no difference shows just how crap the bible's authors' morals were), entails a much worse penalty than the penalty for a man who rapes a woman.

That's physical punishment, not spiritual. Hell isn't a Dante's inferno, with specific levels for each magnitude of sin.

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

shouldn't the jail term for murdering a child be longer than for smoking a joint in the privacy of your own home?

Yes, provided it is a jail term.
The Spiritual jail won't have terms, though...

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

i'm not really defending snakes, i'm criticising the idea of punishing innocents for the crimes of someone else, which happens over and over and over again in the bible. need an example? when the ten commandments are given, it is stated that god won't just punish people who break them, he'll punish their succeeding generations, their sons, grandsons etc. what the fuck is moral about that?

I assume you're referring to this verse?

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;"

That's referring to idols.

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

and do you believe in the concept of original sin?

I looked it up, and assuming it means "we inherit the sins of our ancestors, including Adam, along with our own", then no, I do not.

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

Quote:

You didn't say anything about the origin of morals. They didn't just 'appear' when humans did, did they?

if you read the statement you just quoted you'll see i actually did answer the question.

The chicken lays the egg, yes. Morals grow over time, improve over time (I hope). But there has to be an origin.
So are you saying that when man was created/born/whatever, they started out with a basic sense of morals already implanted within his conscience?

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

sigh... this is nearly as bad as the stuff i've already debunked. there's nothing there that some other book couldn't have said.

Yet they didn't.

how do you know? the christian authorities went on a rampage against the greek schools of philosophy, for example...

I was going to say, because they just haven't, but you did just raise an interesting point here.

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

all this dodges the most important question i asked. if you find something in the bible that turns out to be useful knowledge, why does that vindicate the entire bible?

I never said it would.

then my original question still remains unanswered: where's the evidence supporting the account as reported in Genesis?

Well, what about the rock layers where literally thousands of fossils are all in the same area, as if they had all died at once, or created at once?

What about the flood fossils?
Dr. John R. Hornet in Digging for Dinosaurs stated,
"Judging from the concentration of bones in various pits, there were 30 million fossil fragments in that area. At a conservative estimate, we had discovered the tomb of 10,000 dinosaurs. There was a flood. This was no ordinary spring flood from one of the streams in the area but a catastrophic inundation. . . That's our best explanation. It seems to make the most sense, and on the basis of it we believe that this was a living, breathing group of dinosaurs destroyed in one catastrophic moment."

Or,
"When the carbon-14 dating method is "correctly" calibrated, and 25-thousand radiocarbon dates are graphed, the result shows evidence of a great peak of deaths about 4-thousand years ago."

Or,
"Thousands and millions of fish fossils which retain all the body parts indicating very rapid burial. Under normal conditions, fish do not fossilize. Dead fish are torn apart by scavengers and disintegrated by bacteria. There are the existence of fossils with soft tissue like jellyfish and sponges. There are the preservation of animal tracts, fish odors, amino acids, proteins, epidermal bark in plants, cell details, chlorophyll, etc."

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

surely you'd need more faith to believe something if there was less evidence for it?

No, you would need faith but not more faith.
Still, I'm not the authority on faith and measurement, so I guess faith can be considered measurable.
But that's not how I view it, because then the question remains of how much is enough? What amount of faith just doesn't cut it?

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

i.e. the thing you originally threatened them with? calling that "saved" is like using the word "protection" to describe a mafia give-us-money-and-we-won't-kill-you deal.

How? The mafia's the one setting up the danger they'll protect you from.

BINGO!

The analogy still makes no sense. The mafia in this case isn't the only danger out there, there's many other dangers that can happen that are totally unrelated to the mafia.
And the mafia aren't the ruling body in the situation.

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Tue, 06 April 2010 10:14

Don't you think that the endless threats and bullying and intimidation might be a big part of why so many people don't feel secure being honest about their religious views?

Don't you think I'm just as opposed to these types of bullies as you are?

how often and how loudly do you say so?

I have little opportunity, since those types of radicals are rare around here. The closest one I know of (different state too) is the Baptist group in Kansas (Fred Phelps) who state that the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq was caused by God as punishment for committing homosexuality (which is ridiculous).
They've also said that the recent mining accident was caused by God because of America's "tolerance".

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

I hear all the time from Christians that certain parts of the Bible are either "metaphors" (meaning "we used to take it literally but it's just too ridiculous for modern people to believe), or "don't apply to modern life" (meaning "it's morally repulsive, we get that now")
They usually don't all come to the same conclusion about each thing, though.

I did some looking into this.

One man I found said that the laws can be views in different lights... such as the "civil" view, where the laws of the time don't apply today because they were for a specific people of a specific time, like today's taxes, road laws, and such.

Another view was the "moral" one, where the only laws from the OT we should obey are ones not repealed by the NT and the Ten Commandments (Except Sabbath which was repealed).

He also said that the OT was mostly for our understanding while the NT was for application... and that "All of the Bible is FOR us but not all of it is TO us".

I'm not specifically siding with his views, although I think the "moral" view sounds the most plausible.

I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #425280 is a reply to message #425273]

Fri, 09 April 2010 22:29

Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006

Karma: 0

General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

just answer the question.... what has god given your average person?

...Whatever the average man gets today?
I know it varies greatly, thanks to combination of ancestors' actions and plain luck, though.

do you think you have god to thank for your life, for example?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

which come from you, not the bible. there's no condemnation of his action in the bible, and plenty of opportunity to.

'Plenty of opportunity to'. I don't see how you came to that conclusion.

see re: god has time to turn lot's wife into a pillar of salt (wtf? plenty of god's punishments are creatively vicious, but that one's just weird) just because she looked behind her.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

remember, lot's basically saved from the destruction of the city on the grounds that he's the only righteous man there, right?

Yes, him and his family.

so after god and the angels save him, don't you think god ought to say hang on lot, i got you out of there because you were the only good man in the city, now i find you throwing defenceless girls at a mob of rapists so the men will survive?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

He wasn't trying to save himself, he was trying to save the angels that were visiting him (although I wonder why he thought angels needed saving).

not much of a difference, it's just an indicator of how backward the men who wrote the bible were.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

That's physical punishment, not spiritual. Hell isn't a Dante's inferno, with specific levels for each magnitude of sin.

give me a complete description of hell, please.

i.e. tell me everything you 'know' about it.

[quote]

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

shouldn't the jail term for murdering a child be longer than for smoking a joint in the privacy of your own home?

Yes, provided it is a jail term.
The Spiritual jail won't have terms, though...[/quote
why?

Quote:

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;"

That's referring to idols.

yes. punishment of innocents for the crime of someone else, assuming that worshipping something other than this particular god actually is a crime.

plus the other example i mentioned (i.e. children can't enter the kingdom of god if their parents were not married. it's hardly the kid's fault, is it?). plus the egyptian firstborn, there's another example...

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

and do you believe in the concept of original sin?

I looked it up, and assuming it means "we inherit the sins of our ancestors, including Adam, along with our own", then no, I do not.

good

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

Quote:

You didn't say anything about the origin of morals. They didn't just 'appear' when humans did, did they?

if you read the statement you just quoted you'll see i actually did answer the question.

well, consider morals like intelligence. some animals are more intelligent than others, right? some animals are also more 'moral' than others, i.e. concerned for their family, for their fellow creatures acting in a group, etc.

it seems quite likely that the reason for that is simply evolutionary. it suits them to work as a team so they become naturally pre-disposed to thinking that way. same with us... most of us generally have a sense of human solidarity.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

then my original question still remains unanswered: where's the evidence supporting the account as reported in Genesis?

Well, what about the rock layers where literally thousands of fossils are all in the same area, as if they had all died at once, or created at once?

Exactly... what about them? If you're trying to vindicate noah's flood, that wouldn't vindicate the rest of genesis... creation is what i was asking about.

still...

Quote:

What about the flood fossils?
Dr. John R. Hornet in Digging for Dinosaurs stated,
"Judging from the concentration of bones in various pits, there were 30 million fossil fragments in that area. At a conservative estimate, we had discovered the tomb of 10,000 dinosaurs. There was a flood. This was no ordinary spring flood from one of the streams in the area but a catastrophic inundation. . . That's our best explanation. It seems to make the most sense, and on the basis of it we believe that this was a living, breathing group of dinosaurs destroyed in one catastrophic moment."

"catastrophic inundation" =/= "deliberate flooding of the whole word, covering the entire planet up to the highest mountains, with a few of each animal and a handful of humans intentionally permitted to survive by the psycho who carried out the genocide"

Quote:

Or,
"When the carbon-14 dating method is "correctly" calibrated, and 25-thousand radiocarbon dates are graphed, the result shows evidence of a great peak of deaths about 4-thousand years ago."

even more vague

Quote:

Or,
"Thousands and millions of fish fossils which retain all the body parts indicating very rapid burial. Under normal conditions, fish do not fossilize. Dead fish are torn apart by scavengers and disintegrated by bacteria. There are the existence of fossils with soft tissue like jellyfish and sponges. There are the preservation of animal tracts, fish odors, amino acids, proteins, epidermal bark in plants, cell details, chlorophyll, etc."

fish were killed in the flood? first time i've heard that from someone who actually believes in it.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 05:00

surely you'd need more faith to believe something if there was less evidence for it?

it's a stupid question about an extremely stupid subject, really, isn't it?

Quote:

The analogy still makes no sense. The mafia in this case isn't the only danger out there, there's many other dangers that can happen that are totally unrelated to the mafia.

you said the danger that you need "saving" from is hell.

two questions.
1: who created hell, and who is responsible for deciding whether we go there?
2: who is telling us about this punishment?

Quote:

And the mafia aren't the ruling body in the situation.

hey, might makes right doesn't cut it for me, but earlier on in the thread it seemed to be good enough for you...

Quote:

the Baptist group in Kansas (Fred Phelps) who state that the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq was caused by God as punishment for committing homosexuality (which is ridiculous).
They've also said that the recent mining accident was caused by God because of America's "tolerance".

Well, I can easily call that ridiculous, but on what basis do you call it ridiculous? in the bible, natural disasters like earthquakes and plagues are always because god's pissed at something. when did god announce he was not going to do that anymore?

Quote:

this just brings me back to my earlier point. there are differing views, and you don't seem entirely clear yourself... so couldn't the "revelation" have been made a bit more clear?

Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #425285 is a reply to message #422616]

Fri, 09 April 2010 23:55

Majid123
Messages: 8
Registered: April 2010
Location: Florida

Karma: 0

Recruit

Pretty heated debate here.

Hi Spoony!

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #425359 is a reply to message #425285]

Sun, 11 April 2010 00:07

Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

Spoony wrote on Mon, 05 April 2010 07:40

snpr1101 wrote on Sun, 04 April 2010 23:27

I would like to add to Spoony's reply to this.

It's very inhumane to ask to disprove the existence of a god for you to stop shoving your beliefs on others.

Here's an example of an ancient Aztec human sacrifice:

Aztec priest: allright now hold his hands and legs...
Atheist: fuck stop NOW you brutes
Aztec priest: this sacrifice will repay the gods!
Atheist: how fucking wrong is this? no human deserves to die even if your bloody gods are real.
snpr1101: you're wrong atheist! Prove the gods are not real. Only if you prove so will the sacrifice be stopped.

So there it is.

btw, all gods are proved or disproved on the basis of probability. What is the probability of Zeus being true? None right now though it was 100% back in ancient times. The same logic is applied for all the gods today, including the christian god. So the existence of the christian god is highly improbable along with the existence of allah or the mormon god though their followers claim otherwise.

snpr1101 wrote on Sun, 04 April 2010 23:27

And no, I don't think this is "another" argument to "win". I thought you might of observed how I made reference to God, the Bible etc. I didn't make light of this debate. I simply saw a way, in my opinion, whether it be wrong or not, to allow someone to accept another's thinking as truth over their own. Perhaps I should of written it as above to avoid confusion. But did you really think I saw it as the "Victor" of this debate could stand up on the "podium" and give an "acceptance speech" whilst I handed him his "First Place Trophy"?

I was getting at how high the stakes are now in real life. And it's worrying to see such bankruptcy of reason.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #425367 is a reply to message #422616]

Sun, 11 April 2010 03:57

Herr Surth
Messages: 1684
Registered: July 2007

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

why is this thread still alive?

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #425454 is a reply to message #425359]

Sun, 11 April 2010 21:12

Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

do you think you have god to thank for your life, for example?

Well, since I believe that God created life, then yes, I believe I wouldn't be alive without him.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

see re: god has time to turn lot's wife into a pillar of salt (wtf? plenty of god's punishments are creatively vicious, but that one's just weird) just because she looked behind her.

That isn't proof that he had room and initiative to record other acts he condemns.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

So thinking of doing the act is just as bad as committing it?
If you're so mad at someone you want to murder them, should you be arrested for attempted murder?

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

give me a complete description of hell, please.
i.e. tell me everything you 'know' about it.

We know what the Bible tells us.

Toggle Spoiler

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

Quote:

Yes, provided it is a jail term.
The Spiritual jail won't have terms, though...

why?

After Judgement, there's only 2 places to go, Heaven or Hell. Whichever you go to, you stay in.
Thta's how he designed it.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

plus the other example i mentioned (i.e. children can't enter the kingdom of god if their parents were not married. it's hardly the kid's fault, is it?).

I've never heard this one to be honest. Is it a Biblical verse?

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

Quote:

Well, what about the rock layers where literally thousands of fossils are all in the same area, as if they had all died at once, or created at once?

Exactly... what about them? If you're trying to vindicate noah's flood, that wouldn't vindicate the rest of genesis... creation is what i was asking about.

Read the bold...

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

Quote:

Or,
"When the carbon-14 dating method is "correctly" calibrated, and 25-thousand radiocarbon dates are graphed, the result shows evidence of a great peak of deaths about 4-thousand years ago."

even more vague

I don't see how this is vague.
Although it concerns the flood and not creation.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

Quote:

fish were killed in the flood? first time i've heard that from someone who actually believes in it.

I sincerely doubt all fish can survive in every type of water at any depth...

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

Quote:

it's a stupid question about an extremely stupid subject, really, isn't it?

Factually, no.
But you're entitled to your own opinion, even if it's about a question you originally asked...

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

you said the danger that you need "saving" from is hell.
two questions.
1: who created hell, and who is responsible for deciding whether we go there?
2: who is telling us about this punishment?

1&2) God
Which is my point.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

New Testament?
When Jesus established his church and ascended to Heaven, God's direct influence ceased and won't return until the second coming.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

this just brings me back to my earlier point. there are differing views, and you don't seem entirely clear yourself... so couldn't the "revelation" have been made a bit more clear?

It could if he provided an explicit list of OT rules to remain and OT rules to replace or do away with.
That's about the only way.

Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 11 April 2010 01:07

all gods are proved or disproved on the basis of probability. What is the probability of Zeus being true? None right now though it was 100% back in ancient times. The same logic is applied for all the gods today, including the christian god. So the existence of the christian god is highly improbable along with the existence of allah or the mormon god though their followers claim otherwise.

Isn't the probability always 50-50? The diety either exists or doesn't.
The only thing that can sway it is proof toward either, of which there is none.

I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #425455 is a reply to message #422616]

Sun, 11 April 2010 21:34

GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605
Registered: March 2006

Karma: 0

General (2 Stars)

longest

thread

ever

(I also probably agree with most of what Spoony has to say)

Toggle Spoiler

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #425457 is a reply to message #425454]

Sun, 11 April 2010 22:01

Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

Altzan wrote on Sun, 11 April 2010 23:12

Isn't the probability always 50-50? The diety either exists or doesn't.
The only thing that can sway it is proof toward either, of which there is none.

You oversimplified it while avoiding history.

Let's see how many different races/tribes/peoples/cultures have come up with a thousand different gods. So in light of this established historical record of isolated groups of people forming their own religions (hence the varied religions of the past and present; not said gods "coming down" and revealing themselves) AND how the movement of people and ideas throughout history through conquests and travel combined, generated, and consolidated new ideas, the need for "proof toward either" is not required because the chances of said claims being true are absolutely low at best if even none.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #425458 is a reply to message #422616]

Sun, 11 April 2010 22:49

GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605
Registered: March 2006

Karma: 0

General (2 Stars)

God loves everyone

that's why his only one and true religion was started in America, the episcopalian church

everyone else is wrong

Toggle Spoiler

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #425460 is a reply to message #422616]

Sun, 11 April 2010 23:28

Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California

Karma: 0

General (2 Stars)

Can we go back to making fun of people who get caught cheating and making fun of Atomix now?

Attachment: Epicurus.jpg
(Size: 85.31KB, Downloaded 320 times)

DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19

Remember kids the internet is serious business.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #425510 is a reply to message #425454]

Mon, 12 April 2010 08:13

Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006

Karma: 0

General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator

Altzan wrote on Sun, 11 April 2010 23:12

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

do you think you have god to thank for your life, for example?

Well, since I believe that God created life, then yes, I believe I wouldn't be alive without him.

then the "so this part doesn't apply now because he was talking to the israelites" point is nonsense.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

see re: god has time to turn lot's wife into a pillar of salt (wtf? plenty of god's punishments are creatively vicious, but that one's just weird) just because she looked behind her.

That isn't proof that he had room and initiative to record other acts he condemns.

indeed, he's not perfect and neither is the bible. this could simply be yet another example of the contempt shown towards women, or it could be yet another example of the general incompetence and fallibility of the 'revelations'

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

So thinking of doing the act is just as bad as committing it?
If you're so mad at someone you want to murder them, should you be arrested for attempted murder?

the bible says yes, doesn't it?

still, lot didn't just "think" of throwing the girls to the rape mob; he addressed them and specifically made the offer.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

give me a complete description of hell, please.
i.e. tell me everything you 'know' about it.

We know what the Bible tells us.

so, to summarise:
- hell is worse than losing an eye or a hand
- your soul and body can both be destroyed there
- "all who do evil" end up there
- it's a "fiery furnace" where there willl be weeping and gnashing of teeth
- it's everlasting
- angels can end up there too

does it follow that one particular crime will have the same punishment as a less heinous one? quite possibly, if it's everlasting.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

Quote:

Yes, provided it is a jail term.
The Spiritual jail won't have terms, though...

why?

After Judgement, there's only 2 places to go, Heaven or Hell. Whichever you go to, you stay in.
Thta's how he designed it.

then he's an immoral mean lady with no sense of justice.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

plus the other example i mentioned (i.e. children can't enter the kingdom of god if their parents were not married. it's hardly the kid's fault, is it?).

I've never heard this one to be honest. Is it a Biblical verse?

yeah... it's something like "bastard children can't enter the presence of the lord for the next ten generations" or something.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

Quote:

Well, what about the rock layers where literally thousands of fossils are all in the same area, as if they had all died at once, or created at once?

Exactly... what about them? If you're trying to vindicate noah's flood, that wouldn't vindicate the rest of genesis... creation is what i was asking about.

Read the bold...

you're suggesting the fossils were created, and that vindicates genesis?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

Quote:

Or,
"When the carbon-14 dating method is "correctly" calibrated, and 25-thousand radiocarbon dates are graphed, the result shows evidence of a great peak of deaths about 4-thousand years ago."

even more vague

I don't see how this is vague.
Although it concerns the flood and not creation.

how does this even prove the flood is true? there was a catastrophic event and lots of animals died? that's happened quite a few times.

Quote:

fish were killed in the flood? first time i've heard that from someone who actually believes in it.

I sincerely doubt all fish can survive in every type of water at any depth...

me too, but that only happens if you try to think scientifically. i don't remember god making any particular intention clear to wipe out fish. the result of the flood as far as the fish are concerned seem to depend on how lucky they are... for every other animal - including humans - it's only the ones in the ark who will survive.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

Quote:

it's a stupid question about an extremely stupid subject, really, isn't it?

Factually, no.
But you're entitled to your own opinion, even if it's about a question you originally asked...

well, i may as well try clarifying what is meant by "faith", since nobody's ever, ever come up with a rational explanation for it or made the case that it's a good thing.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

you said the danger that you need "saving" from is hell.
two questions.
1: who created hell, and who is responsible for deciding whether we go there?
2: who is telling us about this punishment?

1&2) God
Which is my point.

so it's the same as the mafia protection, then. we're being "saved" by the guy who put us in the danger in the first place.

the second question was simply to remind you that god is not telling us about the punishment. men wrote the bible.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

New Testament?
When Jesus established his church and ascended to Heaven, God's direct influence ceased and won't return until the second coming.

First time I've heard this from a Christian...

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

this just brings me back to my earlier point. there are differing views, and you don't seem entirely clear yourself... so couldn't the "revelation" have been made a bit more clear?

It could if he provided an explicit list of OT rules to remain and OT rules to replace or do away with.
That's about the only way.

or he could make it a bit easier to believe, have given all people alive at the time a reasonable chance of reading it (it took centuries to spread across the world, remember, and by the time that had happened the book had been translated and re-translated, altering many meanings in the process, and the churches themselves had schismed)

Quote:

Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 11 April 2010 01:07

Isn't the probability always 50-50? The diety either exists or doesn't.
The only thing that can sway it is proof toward either, of which there is none.

wow, lol... so if i say unicorns are real, you'd have to accept there is a 50% probability that they actually are?

if you're making no distinction as to the actual likelihood of the claim, i'm not sure on what grounds you say one god is real and all the others aren't.

Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #425535 is a reply to message #425455]

Mon, 12 April 2010 16:20

NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch

Karma: 0

Colonel

GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Sun, 11 April 2010 23:34

longest

thread

ever

No no no... I'm fairly certain the last one was over 8 pages after the same amount of time. Roll Eyes

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine

Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #425577 is a reply to message #422616]

Mon, 12 April 2010 23:35

raven
Messages: 595
Registered: January 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Karma: 0

Colonel

Religion is gay

-Jelly Administrator
-Exodus Administrator

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #425675 is a reply to message #425510]

Tue, 13 April 2010 21:21

Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

Altzan wrote on Sun, 11 April 2010 23:12

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

do you think you have god to thank for your life, for example?

Well, since I believe that God created life, then yes, I believe I wouldn't be alive without him.

then the "so this part doesn't apply now because he was talking to the israelites" point is nonsense.

How does that relate to what I said at all?

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

does it follow that one particular crime will have the same punishment as a less heinous one? quite possibly, if it's everlasting.

Very possibly.
I don't see any passage hinting at a person going from one to the other after they've arrived (remember the gulf).

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

plus the other example i mentioned (i.e. children can't enter the kingdom of god if their parents were not married. it's hardly the kid's fault, is it?).

I've never heard this one to be honest. Is it a Biblical verse?

yeah... it's something like "bastard children can't enter the presence of the lord for the next ten generations" or something.

Deu 23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

From what I found as I resarched this, there are disputes as to the original meaning of the phrase, 'enter into rhe congregation of the LORD'.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

Quote:

Well, what about the rock layers where literally thousands of fossils are all in the same area, as if they had all died at once, or created at once?

Exactly... what about them? If you're trying to vindicate noah's flood, that wouldn't vindicate the rest of genesis... creation is what i was asking about.

Read the bold...

you're suggesting the fossils were created, and that vindicates genesis?

Fossils created? No, the living beings they used to be...
If life slowly spread over Earth and not just suddenly appeared, there wouldn't be fossils just mass-appearing in groups. They'd be showing up in small but increasing numbers.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

Quote:

Or,
"When the carbon-14 dating method is "correctly" calibrated, and 25-thousand radiocarbon dates are graphed, the result shows evidence of a great peak of deaths about 4-thousand years ago."

even more vague

I don't see how this is vague.
Although it concerns the flood and not creation.

how does this even prove the flood is true? there was a catastrophic event and lots of animals died? that's happened quite a few times.

On this scale?
There were other events that killed off nearly the entire planet?

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

so it's the same as the mafia protection, then. we're being "saved" by the guy who put us in the danger in the first place.

We're always 'in the danger' as it is from the start, then, because there are no other options other than accept or refuse... in this case, you're blaming him for not 'saving' people from punishment who've done nothing in return.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

the second question was simply to remind you that god is not telling us about the punishment. men wrote the bible.

Well, as I have already stated, I don't believe that.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

Quote:

When Jesus established his church and ascended to Heaven, God's direct influence ceased and won't return until the second coming.

First time I've heard this from a Christian...

I'm surprised...
What do the Catholics/Christians in your area think, then?

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

wow, lol... so if i say unicorns are real, you'd have to accept there is a 50% probability that they actually are?

At base, yes. Then you look at the evidence and proof.
And yes, I get the reference, hehe.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

if you're making no distinction as to the actual likelihood of the claim, i'm not sure on what grounds you say one god is real and all the others aren't.

My grounds is my belief, I'm not trying to declare it as absolute fact.

I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire

Report message to a moderator

Pages (11): [ « ‹ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 › »]

Previous Topic:	Blasphemy Day
Next Topic:	Renegade is thoroughly broken

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Wed Nov 06 08:29:26 MST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01784 seconds