Quote by Persocom01
Quote by tobiast88You haven't answered my question (again). Why are some parts of the bible not to be followed
(i.e., stoning for arbitrary reasons), and why are others to be followed to the letter (i.e., Noah's Ark)? Which
ones? And what about the question of gays in your religion? Give me a straight answer, instead of dancing around. I
don't see why wearing two types of cloth was so "unholy" as to merit stoning. I agree that laws are
provided to maintain societal order, although to "root out evil" as you say sounds extreme. And in the future,
please refrain from random preaching comments such as this: "It is because of Jesus death on the cross for our sins
that we are spared our own deaths." It is no more valid an argument than an unexplained appeal to authority, and I
will disregard it as more christian nonsense. I argue with facts, not mythologies.
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." - Romans 3:28
It is written. By faith alone a man is justified without need for the laws. I am not trying to preach to you when I say
that Jesus died for our sins. It is because of his death, and the new covenant he made with us that we do not need the
laws. I cut out the conclusion of the chapter. For more elaboration on why we do not need the law you can read that
chapter in the Bible. We are believing what the Bible says. It is not about cutting out parts we would like to believe
and discarding the rest that sound unpleasent.
I believe that gays have to repent of their ways, just like adulterers, liars... etc. It should not be treated
differently from any other sin, and Christians should aim to lead a sinless life.
"For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is
no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with
me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law
of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." - Romans 7:19-23
Christians wage a war against their sinful natures all their lives.
Quote by tobiast88You have answered my question about the religious organisations, for which I thank you. However, you
posted only a little higher up "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Kinda contradictory with the
approach of "the christians go first for aid", no? Isn't a neighbour simply the person next to you,
regardless of religion, skin color, sexual preference, etc? I believe that it is hypocritical to assert that christians
will help anyone (thy neighbour), then turn around and only provide aid for those who submit to unwanted
preaching.
"But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? And Jesus answering said, A certain
[man] went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded [him],
and departed, leaving [him] half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he
passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked [on him], and passed by on
the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion [on
him], And went to [him], and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him
to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave [them] to the host,
and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now
of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on
him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise." - Luke 10:29-37
This is the parable of the good samaritan. You are right that who your neighbour is does not depend on his religion or
skin colour... etc, and yes, I agree that it is unfair to withhold aid from people who refuse Bible classes. However
limited resources might make it necessary to choose who gets aid over who doesn't, in which case it is fair to
choose to give aid to people who would give the gospel a chance, since you cannot afford to aid everyone. I also believe
that people who are truely in need would accept free aid whomever it comes from, regardless of the conditions.
Quote by tobiast88Your example about afterlife is quite ironic. It asserts that christian people will help others in the
purely selfish goal of a better afterlife, while atheists will help when motivated by their conscience, and since they
expect no reward in a hypothetical future, their actions are completely unselfish. Atheists may not help as much in this
case, but their actions must be considered much more moral than that of a christian racking up "good deeds" in
order to get into heaven. Kant develops this argument (rather heavy reading, I might add) in "Criticism of Pure
Reason", speaking of morality. My memory is rather vague on its finer points, such as the exact vocabulary (I just
had a week of 4 hour tests, and I am letting summer wipe my brain) but Kant explains that morality can never be seen in
the optic of reward, or else it is merely the research one's personal gain. In other words, selfishness. I
recognize that christians are not conniving people who do good deeds just to get into heaven, but moral atheists who
their good deeds never thinking how it might advance them in the afterlife must be considered in the light that they
don't expect a reward. Is this not more moral than seeking to gain a better afterlife?
Yes, I would agree that it is selfish to do good works for that reason. However, I am not born a Christian. Nobody is.
It takes faith to believe what is written in the Bible. God did not give us a heavenly bank account where we can check
how much reward we have earned. I am human too. What if the rewards don't exist? They very well might not,
don't you think?
It is through faith and love, more than our own selfishness, that we do good works. I don't think that anyone can
keep up the self-sacrifice required by Christianity in the long run out of selfishness alone.
Quote by tobiast88Your evidence that "man did live with dinosaurs, and that the earth is 6000 years old" is
not "evidence" per se: evidence is what constitutes a theory and then and only then validates it. Your
"evidence" seeks to prove a theory not elaborated upon said "evidence"; it is alternate and arguably
false interpretations of scientific data. Where scientists have fact and build theories upon them, you take the
conclusion and seek what fits the bill to validate it. And I was not endoctrinated by the evolutionary theory: in
science class we are presented with data, and given a chance to analyse it on our own, the theory I have heard in
science class seems coherent to me, while your notion that god protected the genome so that incest was not a problem in
ancient times seems irrational to me and not based on evidence. Your theory starts with facts and a conclusion, and
seeks to fill out the middle; scientific theories begin with facts, then elaborate a theory and seek to prove it.
I have been following the "Why can't science and god go together?" thread and I say that I must agree
with Plunkies: some of your posts are truly ostrich-like, burying the head in the sand and repeating
"Goddidit". Also, what annoys Plunkies is that you have a tendancy to ignore his posts, evidence, and
questions.
"god protected the genome so that incest was not a problem in ancient times" - Mr.tobiast88
God did not protect the genome. God created it perfect. The reason incest is a problem is due to an impefect genome, and
the genome entropies with time due to mutation.
I cannot prove that what the Bible says is fact. I can only prove, using science, that it is possible. My statements are
not mine alone, they are backed by scientists, and I often give only a short summary of their theories.
It is fair for you to believe what evolutionists say about the history of life. However, I will state that though they
have evidence, they cannot prove that what they say happened really occured.
Some of the things that they cannot prove:
1. A single celled organism can evolve into a multicellular organism.
2. Life came from non-living matter.
3. How ape-like ancestors started walking upright.
4. Sex was a result of evolution.
Among many others. Their theory is far from absolute.
Quote by tobiast88If sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, why are Shakespeare's comedies so widely renouned? They are
chock-full of irony and sarcasm, and everybody laughs. Sarcasm may not feel nice when directed at you, so all the more
reason to send it back. It isn't harmful in most cases, and when it becomes malicious, a simple apology is in
order. Words are not the swords one may fear them to be.
I beg to differ. I am sure at one time it was popular entertainment to see gladiators kill each other in an arena, but
that does not make killing right.
"There is that speaketh like the piercings of a sword: but the tongue of the wise [is] health." - Proverbs
12:18
I believe in the dire consequences that words can cause. Words convey emotion, and can cause more harm than any sword.
Read for yourself on the forum, many people say things like "I do not cry when I break my arm, but yet I cry when
my girlfriend said that she hates me. Do you find it strange?". It is not unusual nor uncommon at all.
It is also said, "prevention is better than cure". You might also have heard people say, "if sorry can
solve everything there wouldn't be wars". A simple apology isn't enough for everyone.
"A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger." - Proverbs 15:1
I don't support the use of sarcasm. There are other verses in the Bible that govern a Christian's conduct on
speech, but this is what I can find for now.
"Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words." - Proverbs 23:9
If you think that I have avoided answering any questions I am sorry. I do not always give an answer to Mr.Plunkies it is
obvious to me that it often falls on deaf ears. However to others who seek the truth as I do, it is not my intention to
ignore any questions you have.
Since Persocom01 won't reply directly on the forum (perhaps afraid of having others involved) I have taken the
liberty of quoting his post in my guestbook here.
Now.
Persocom01, I have told you, and I will not say it again. Preaching is not a valid argument. I have tried to talk
civilly with you but your superciliousness is nothing short of insulting. All of your sources are the bible, which, as
you know since I have many times stated to be an atheist, I do not believe in, and that does not constitute any form of
proof in my eyes; even more so, since you throw them out as another appeal to authority, which proves that your
fairytale book directs your thoughts. Can't you come up wih a better argument than "The Bible says such, so
god says such, so this must be true"?
Quote by Persocom01"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by
faith without the deeds of the law." - Romans 3:28
It is written. By faith alone a man is justified without need for the laws. I am not trying to preach to you when I say
that Jesus died for our sins. It is because of his death, and the new covenant he made with us that we do not need the
laws. I cut out the conclusion of the chapter. For more elaboration on why we do not need the law you can read that
chapter in the Bible. We are believing what the Bible says. It is not about cutting out parts we would like to believe
and discarding the rest that sound unpleasent.
I believe that gays have to repent of their ways, just like adulterers, liars... etc. It should not be treated
differently from any other sin, and Christians should aim to lead a sinless life.
"For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is
no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with
me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law
of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." - Romans 7:19-23
Christians wage a war against their sinful natures all their lives.
This IS preaching. You toss out a bible verse, assert it to be true with no proof whatsoever, and then tell me
"Jesus died for our sins". Honestly, I couldn't care less. Big sacrifice, he was revived three days
later! This bible verse is particularlty vile, because it says in essence that the faithful need only obey the bible,
not the law. And yet the bible advocates stoning at every turn. You DO cut out whatever becomes intolerable to society
in the present: stoning is illegal now and would be overwhelmingly decried if applied; that is why it was stopped.
However, gays are not yet recognized as a natural phenomenon (and I know you're going to argue this in your next
post, but whatever) which is why the church still discriminates and hates gays (and bisexuals for that matter, like
myself). If your religion doesn't cut out what is unpleasant, why is wearing two types of cloth at once a mortal
sin? You have not answered that, nor have you answered why it was so grave an offense in ancient times, when according
to you this rule was applicable. Being gay is not a sin. It is a natural way of life. Instead of loving one sex, you
love the other. Big honkin' deal. And your quote: "Christians wage a war against their sinful natures all
their lives." sounds suspiciously violent. Extreme-islamistic, perhaps?
For once you answer a question, mine about aid. You find it fair that with limited resources, christian aid
organisations take priority with those who submit to their indoctrination, and leave the others aside with no help
whatsoever. I do not. But since there are so many other aid organisations, secular ones which don't indoctrinate
the recipients, I feel somewhat relieved. And your quote, again, proves nothing because if your christian aid
organisations are the "good samaritan", your analogy does not apply since many, many others are willing to
help the poor, the"man who went among thieves".
You completely evade my question about morality. I say that it is selfish to do good deeds as a christian, since you
feel you know you will be rewarded in the afterlife. You say this nonsensical glob of text:
Quote by Persocom01Yes, I
would agree that it is selfish to do good works for that reason. However, I am not born a Christian. Nobody is. It takes
faith to believe what is written in the Bible. God did not give us a heavenly bank account where we can check how much
reward we have earned. I am human too. What if the rewards don't exist? They very well might not, don't you
think?
It is through faith and love, more than our own selfishness, that we do good works. I don't think that anyone can
keep up the self-sacrifice required by Christianity in the long run out of selfishness alone.
Either clarify this, or answer my question honestly and as fully as you can, instead of posting irrelevant
trash.
You also nitpick my post to find the one instance where I slightly misquoted you to develop an attack, without (once
again) answering my question. I say your evidence is not evidence, but simple facts twisted to fit a preset conclusion -
you type this:
Quote by Persocom01"god
protected the genome so that incest was not a problem in ancient times" - Mr.tobiast88
God did not protect the genome. God created it perfect. The reason incest is a problem is due to an impefect genome, and
the genome entropies with time due to mutation.
I cannot prove that what the Bible says is fact. I can only prove, using science, that it is possible. My statements are
not mine alone, they are backed by scientists, and I often give only a short summary of their theories.
It is fair for you to believe what evolutionists say about the history of life. However, I will state that though they
have evidence, they cannot prove that what they say happened really occured.
Some of the things that they cannot prove:
1. A single celled organism can evolve into a multicellular organism.
2. Life came from non-living matter.
3. How ape-like ancestors started walking upright.
4. Sex was a result of evolution.
Among many others. Their theory is far from absolute.
You admit the genome mutates. You admit that you cannot prove the bible to be fact. And as for your questions, their
answers have been sufficiently detailed in the aforementioned thread, "Why can't science and god go
together?". I will not type 6 pages of the same discussion, while you answer in the same way. Answer my question,
and ask yourself why about 95% of the world's scientists back the evolutionary theory. It has sufficient proof.
Yours has twisted facts, madcap theories, and "goddidit" at the center of it.
Quote by Persocom01Quote by
tobiast88If sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, why are Shakespeare's comedies so widely renouned? They are
chock-full of irony and sarcasm, and everybody laughs. Sarcasm may not feel nice when directed at you, so all the more
reason to send it back. It isn't harmful in most cases, and when it becomes malicious, a simple apology is in
order. Words are not the swords one may fear them to be.
I beg to differ. I am sure at one time it was popular entertainment to see gladiators kill each other in an arena, but
that does not make killing right.
"There is that speaketh like the piercings of a sword: but the tongue of the wise [is] health." - Proverbs
12:18
I believe in the dire consequences that words can cause. Words convey emotion, and can cause more harm than any sword.
Read for yourself on the forum, many people say things like "I do not cry when I break my arm, but yet I cry when
my girlfriend said that she hates me. Do you find it strange?". It is not unusual nor uncommon at all.
It is also said, "prevention is better than cure". You might also have heard people say, "if sorry can
solve everything there wouldn't be wars". A simple apology isn't enough for everyone.
"A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger." - Proverbs 15:1
I don't support the use of sarcasm. There are other verses in the Bible that govern a Christian's conduct on
speech, but this is what I can find for now.
"Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words." - Proverbs 23:9
If you think that I have avoided answering any questions I am sorry. I do not always give an answer to Mr.Plunkies it is
obvious to me that it often falls on deaf ears. However to others who seek the truth as I do, it is not my intention to
ignore any questions you have.
Well I'm not christian, so I'll be as sarcastic as I choose. And it is obvious you avoid questions: a third of
the time it's goddidit, another third you can't prove it (which someone does later), and the last third
it's complete ignoring of said proof to focus on a minor misquote, gray area, etc; just plain nitpicking. And stop
the patronising, arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude, because it really isn't conducive to intelligent discussion;
it only makes one desperately want to mock you. You are probably the finest specimen of supercilious christianity on the
planet.
