Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Muslim heritage?
Today at 07:01 AM

Qur'anic studies today
Yesterday at 08:44 PM

Sisi elected Egypt pres...
Yesterday at 06:32 PM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
by akay
Yesterday at 10:28 AM

Scientists and .............
June 18, 2019, 07:06 PM

Nominal from Bedfordshire
June 17, 2019, 08:32 PM

Mobeen Azhar: Hometown
June 17, 2019, 07:59 AM

From religion to... unrel...
June 15, 2019, 06:35 PM

India vs Pakistan... in E...
June 15, 2019, 06:03 PM

Kismet: Does it inevitabl...
June 15, 2019, 10:57 AM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
June 14, 2019, 08:06 PM

Freely down loadable Boo...
June 13, 2019, 04:39 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Shaneequa vs Cheetah

 (Read 18061 times)
  • Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #30 - September 25, 2008, 07:12 PM

    I'll deal with the rest tomorrow,  I'm late for a party.

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #31 - September 25, 2008, 09:15 PM

    I understand you were raised Roman Catholic, but I notice that Roman Catholics see things differently....for example, the word "holy". If we were to play "Scategories" and the word "holy" came up....the Roman Catholic team would win, because Roman Catholics see more things as Holy.

    Protestants, or at least fundamentalists would lag far behind. We'd quickly call out "Trinity!" "Bible!" "Spirit!" "Ummm....Communion" then it would be "ummm....ummm....ahhh...ummm".....because "holy" means something completely "other" to us....something set apart, perfect, without sin....it is something that will never perish, and something we can't even begin to fathom.

    Your team would blow us out of the water.

    So even though you have read the bible....you were taught to see things differently...even the bible, itself. Were you not also taught to view equally, the wisdom of man? How about Thomas Aquinas?
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #32 - September 27, 2008, 10:29 AM

    Quote
    Here we go. Mary and Joseph had much the same ancestry, so in a way, Jesus did share Joseph's bloodline in that Mary shared much of Joseph's bloodline 


    But in order to fulfill OT prophecy about the Messiah, Jesus had to be a direct descendant of David.  The genealogy given to support that claim is given through Joseph, his step father, not his mother.  So unless Joseph and Mary were brother and sister, Jesus was not a direct descendant of David, and therefore not the Messiah.

    Quote
      Matthew's and Luke's differ, because Matthew's way was Jewish and Luke's way was Greek...plus Luke also named some women. His purpose was to show how Christ's line was linked to all humanity....all the way to Adam. 


    That apologia might work if there were merely discrepancies between the earlier parts of the genealogy, but the writers of Matthew and Luke disagree over the name of Joseph's father.  Now, common sense should tell you that varying methods and motives of the two writers  make no difference to the identity of Joseph's father.  So why do the Gospels name two different men?

    Quote
    Here are three plausible explainations for having two different names:


    • Heli is Mary’s father


    • Heli is Joseph’s step-father


    • Heli is the father of Joseph’s mother

    We are simply not told!


    So, in other words, the person quoted above doesn't know why two different names are given, he is just fishing for “plausible” explanations that fit in with his preconception that the Bible is true.  Here's another plausible explanation – the Bible is NOT true at all.  Its just a collection of myths from a primitive era which has no relevance to our lives today.

    The sermons you linked to had no bearing on whether or not the Bible is divinely inspired.  Just more quoting of scripture from people who are already convinced.

    Quote
    I understand you were raised Roman Catholic,  snip


    Completely irrelevant.  If I was still a practicing, or believing, Catholic that would be relevant, but I am not.  I'm an atheist, who has already rejected the religious ideas I was raised with, so they have no bearing on this conversation at all..

    So to summarize then........

     1) The Bible contradicts known facts of biology and physics, (facts for which we have plenty of evidence, while the Bible has nothing, worse than nothing, it is defended by charlatans like Ken Ham).

    2) The Bible is morally odious – it validates genocide, it accepts eternal torture as a punishment for  thought crimes.

    3) The Bible is riddled with contradictions and historical inaccuracies.


    The only question I am left with is why you would wish to believe, in the face of all evidence, in such a horrible delusion to begin with.

    Unless you have an answer for that, or evidence to refute any of the three points above, I think we're done here.

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #33 - September 27, 2008, 08:26 PM


    So, in other words, the person quoted above doesn't know why two different names are given, he is just fishing for “plausible” explanations that fit in with his preconception that the Bible is true.


    At least the explanations are plausible.
    Quote
    Here's another plausible explanation – the Bible is NOT true at all.  Its just a collection of myths from a primitive era which has no relevance to our lives today.


    Alright. I'm convinced otherwise, but if it isn't relevant for our lives today, what do you see as relevant for our lives today?

    I will show you an example of how it it relevant, from the old testament:
    Quote
    1Sa:2:12: Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial; they knew not the LORD.


    The sons of Eli were supposed to be priests of the LORD, but they were sons of the 
    devil. Does this remind you of what is happening today? Are not "priests", nuns, and protestant pastors today behaving like devils?

    The sons of Eli were not subtle about it. They extorted from the flock and raped women...possibly even young girls. Everyone knew about it, including their father, Eli...and Eli did nothing about it.

    Is this not happening today?

    Do "religious authorities" today not have much blood on their hands? Are there not hypocrites of the most evil sort? And why does God seem to hold his silence on these cruelest of evils? Does he not care?

    Here are two verses that I believe answers this question:

    Quote
    Psalms:50:21: These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.

    Psalms:50:22: Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.


    God saw that Eli's sons were murdered, and Eli, himself died of a broken heart.

    Yet before that, God held back His wrath for a time. Does he not seem to that also today? We can look at how these bloody, raping, filthy hypocrites that have tormented so many lives are getting away these things....yet God is going to tear them to pieces. They are going to wish they were never born. Some today have committed suicide, and at this moment are wishing they were never born...especially the ones that have victimized and corrupted little children and  adolescents.

    It is relevant for today. We may take comfort in that.

    And I repeat, it's not only Roman Catholic authorities, but protestant pastors as well. Some are outright devils, but mostly they are wolves in sheep's clothing...and the worst kind of all.

    I shall repeat this verse:
    Quote
    Psalms:50:21: These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.


    Now look at this:
    Quote
    ...thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself...


    Religious authorities do this all the time....and have caused their flocks to do the same...in some cases, causing one's to think God is devil that smiles on authorities that threaten, rape, terrorize and extort, and murder supposedly in His name...causing their victims to think that God is such a one like these devils.

    Sometimes, as humanists, we believe God should be a one such as ourselves....so we reject Him, because He isn't. We will say the bible is a farce and decide there is no such God....or that there is no God at all. Others create a god in their own image, a god of their own imagination, believing that He is indeed, altogether like themselves.

    I have done both...denied there is a God....and created one that suited my humanistic sensibilities. The latter is a violation of the second commandment. I worshiped a graven image in my mind, a god of my own imagination.

    Quote
    The sermons you linked to had no bearing on whether or not the Bible is divinely inspired.  Just more quoting of scripture from people who are already convinced.


    I'm still relying on the Holy Spirit to convince you.

    Quote
    I understand you were raised Roman Catholic,  snip

    Completely irrelevant.  If I was still a practicing, or believing, Catholic that would be relevant, but I am not.  I'm an atheist, who has already rejected the religious ideas I was raised with, so they have no bearing on this conversation at all..


    Here's why I bring it up. I believe all Roman Catholic education has consistently and blatantly downgraded the holiness of God and the concept of holiness, altogether...and this brings down one's concept of God's goodness and righteousness.

    We know genocide is evil. Yet, God in the past has called for genocide. The difference is that God can read hearts while we cannot...and God sees evil things we do not see as evil. His standard of good is higher than ours....and God knows the future....and outcomes we are not able to see.

    Today, we are not called to do such things as destroy nations, stone homosexuals and disobedient children, yet He has shown us how severely He sees sin...even disobedience to parents.   

    Quote
    So to summarize then........

     1) The Bible contradicts known facts of biology and physics, (facts for which we have plenty of evidence, while the Bible has nothing, worse than nothing, it is defended by charlatans like Ken Ham).


    I do not know that Ken Ham is a charlatan. He may turn out to be....but that doesn't mean he is not doing right in some things. So far, I trust him (as far as one can put one's trust in man). By 1Corinthians 13, I chose to believe and hope the best in people, but not to lose hope if I find out someone I trusted later turns out to be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

    One can learn from what these men say, as far as they are true and the gospel is preached. If we come to find out they are hypocrites, we can still benefit from the truths they have taught, even though they did not live by these, themselves.

    If I listen to someone lecturing about the dangers of smoking...then find out he is  closet smoker and a child molester...that does not mean his lectures on smoking were any less true. It does mean he is a fraud and a child molester....and he needs to punished to the fullest.

    Quote
    2) The Bible is morally odious – it validates genocide, it accepts eternal torture as a punishment for  thought crimes.


    I have already answered this, but will continue to show examples of holiness and God's righteousness pertaining to his holy wrath. It will come to show you the greatness and relevance of His mercy.
    Quote
    3) The Bible is riddled with contradictions and historical inaccuracies.


    Yes...it seems to be....but all I can give you is plausible explanations that will not be good enough for you.


    Quote
    The only question I am left with is why you would wish to believe, in the face of all evidence, in such a horrible delusion to begin with.

    Unless you have an answer for that, or evidence to refute any of the three points above, I think we're done here.


    I do...and alot more than the examples I have given.
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #34 - September 28, 2008, 03:48 AM

    Quote
    At least the explanations are plausible.


    That's a very weak defense, Shaneequa.  If someone who believes in the Bible as divinely inspired can give three or four different, equally plausible, explanations for that one contradiction it somewhat suggests that the Bible is just another book that we can take multiple interpretations of.  Just like Moby Dick, Macbeth, or the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    Also, my explanation was every bit as plausible as the ones from the man you quoted, so if plausible explanations are the criteria, why discount mine when you don't discount his, (even though you don't know which one of his various explanations to believe).

    And furthermore, this equality of plausability would only be a viable defense of the Bible if the contradiction between Mark and Luke on the subject of genealogy were the only contradiction between them. 

    However, the four Gospels contradict each other, (off the top of my head), on the following subjects..

    - The date of Christ's birth

    - The details of Christ's birth

    - The timeline between Christ's commencement to ministry and his entry into Jerusalem

    - The location of the Sermon on the Mount

    - The last moments of Christ on the cross before he died, (all four Gospels give a different account of that).

    - The witnesses to the empty tomb and the Crucifixion.


    Try and give me all the "plausible" explanations for those contradictions.  When you've finished showing all the different and equally "plausible" excuses for these contradictions, try finding a reason why there are so many excuses needed for a book that is supposed to be inspired by God.   And that is just looking at four books out of the whole Bible.  You have already shown that you cannot give explanations for the contradictions in Genesis without using...ahem... "creative license".

    When a book claims to be divinely inspired, and simultaneously needs this amount of plausible and not so plausible apologetics, I'm afraid the most reasonable explanation is that the book itself is just as flawed as any other book written by mere men without any supernatural help.

    Quote
    The sons of Eli were supposed to be priests of the LORD, but they were sons of the
    devil. Does this remind you of what is happening today? 


    No, not particularly.

    Quote
      Are not "priests", nuns, and protestant pastors today behaving like devils?

     

    No, don't be so ridiculous.  They are behaving like human beings.  That means, of course, that a small number among them will be total psychos, but it also means that the vast majority will be ordinary, decent human men and women just trying to do their best by the only means they know how.


    Quote
      The sons of Eli were not subtle about it. They extorted from the flock and raped women...possibly even young girls. Everyone knew about it, including their father, Eli...and Eli did nothing about it.

    Is this not happening today?


    Er.... no.  And I see no reason to believe that it ever did happen.  Do you have any evidence that Eli ever existed, even?

    Quote
    Do "religious authorities" today not have much blood on their hands


    Not really. Historically, those religious authorities who find themselves in charge of religions which have been around for a while,  certainly do feel the need to apologise for past wrongs done in their name.    Not because they are guilty of those wrongs, but merely because they have survived long enough for the moral zeitgeist to outlive the days when  their predecessors'  violence was seen as morally acceptable.

    Quote
      Are there not hypocrites of the most evil sort? And why does God seem to hold his silence on these cruelest of evils? Does he not care?


    No, there are not "hypocrites of the most evil sort", there are just human beings, struggling through life the best way they know how.  Nor is there the "cruellest of evils" to deal with here.  You are just being melodramatic. 

    Quote
      God saw that Eli's sons were murdered, and Eli, himself died of a broken heart.

    Yet before that, God held back His wrath for a time. Does he not seem to that also today? We can look at how these bloody, raping, filthy hypocrites that have tormented so many lives are getting away these things....yet God is going to tear them to pieces. They are going to wish they were never born. Some today have committed suicide, and at this moment are wishing they were never born...especially the ones that have victimized and corrupted little children and  adolescents.

    It is relevant for today. We may take comfort in that.


    You want me to take comfort in the idea that God deliberately stood back and allowed people to be raped, and then God stepped in, after allowing all these rapes,  and then  tore them to pieces as punishment?  What kind of a God is that? 

    Also, Shaneequa, what kind of a person are you, if you can believe in the scripture on the evidence of this story?  That's utterly horrible.  You expect me to be attracted to a God that tears people to bits and makes them wish they weren't born? 

    I would rather burn in Hell

    Quote
    Religious authorities do this all the time....and have caused their flocks to do the same...in some cases, causing one's to think God is devil that smiles on authorities that threaten, rape, terrorize and extort, and murder supposedly in His name...causing their victims to think that God is such a one like these devils. 


    Yes, including the religious "authorities" who indoctrinated you in your rehab days.  You were prime fodder, I suspect.


    Quote
    Sometimes, as humanists, we believe God should be a one such as ourselves....so we reject Him, because He isn't. We will say the bible is a farce and decide there is no such God.


    None of that is relevant to whether or not the Bible is true, nor is it even relevant to my beliefs, in fact it's the total opposite of my concept of God.

    Quote
    or that there is no God at all

     

    There may be a God, but your concept of God is a very specific one.  Unfortunately for you, your specific concept of God is so far at odds with the basic realities of the world we live in that I feel quite confident in my atheism as regards your God.

    Quote
    Others create a god in their own image, a god of their own imagination, believing that He is indeed, altogether like themselves.

    I have done both...denied there is a God....and created one that suited my humanistic sensibilities. The latter is a violation of the second commandment. I worshiped a graven image in my mind, a god of my own imagination.


    You have done plenty with your own imagination.  Violating some Bronze Age edict from the most delusional and exclusivist interpretation of it is the least of your sins.

    Quote
      Here's why I bring it up. I believe all Roman Catholic education has consistently and blatantly downgraded the holiness of God and the concept of holiness, altogether...and this brings down one's concept of God's goodness and righteousness.


    You believe lots of things that are not true, so why should I believe you on this one?   I left the Catholic Church long ago, and I have read the Bible many times since I left the Catholic Church, so you can drop your delusion that a non-Catholic version of the Bible will contain some magical properties of conversion.


    Quote
      We know genocide is evil. Yet, God in the past has called for genocide. The difference is that God can read hearts while we cannot...and God sees evil things we do not see as evil.


    So did God read evil in the hearts of the children who he drowned in the flood?  What kind of evil do you think resides in the hearts of children?

    Quote
    His standard of good is higher than ours....and God knows the future....and outcomes we are not able to see. 

     

    God committed genocide against the entire population of the planet, according to the Bible. He killed everyone - babies, unborn children, animals, plants, everyone and everything.  So  obviously God's standard of "good" is not higher than ours at all,  on the contrary, it is demonstrably lower. 

    And putting meaningless half sentences like "and God knows the future" together with other meaningless half sentences with a few dots in between, does not do anything to obscure the fact that you are peddling a delusion.

    Quote
      Today, we are not called to do such things as destroy nations, stone homosexuals and disobedient children, yet He has shown us how severely He sees sin...even disobedience to parents.   


    And if you were called on to do those things in the name of your religion?  Would you do them?

    Quote
      I do not know that Ken Ham is a charlatan. He may turn out to be....but that doesn't mean he is not doing right in some things. So far, I trust him (as far as one can put one's trust in man). By 1Corinthians 13, I chose to believe and hope the best in people, but not to lose hope if I find out someone I trusted later turns out to be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

    One can learn from what these men say, as far as they are true and the gospel is preached. If we come to find out they are hypocrites, we can still benefit from the truths they have taught, even though they did not live by these, themselves. 


    On reflection, I take back the charge that Ken Ham is a "charlatan".  That word suggests that he is dishonest, and I really don't know if he is.  However, I do know that he is wrong.  Whether he is deliberately dishonest, or genuinely in the grip of a delusion, I do not know.

    Quote
    If I listen to someone lecturing about the dangers of smoking...then find out he is  closet smoker and a child molester...that does not mean his lectures on smoking were any less true. It does mean he is a fraud and a child molester....and he needs to punished to the fullest.


    Sure, but that is not in any way an analogy to Ken Ham.  A proper analogy would be - if you heard someone whom you trust,  propound on the non-harmful qualities of cigarettes, and then you were presented with impartial evidence from biology which linked cigarettes with lung cancer, what would you do?

    Would you carry on believing in that person, or would you discard your previous opinion in favour of new evidence?


    I am still not going to believe in the Bible, or at least your interpretation of it, because you believe that the Bible has to be interpreted literally when it says that Man was created from dust, and woman was created from a rib. 

    These beliefs fly so far into the face of all known facts that they deserve examination on their own.  So I examined, and here is what I found....

    http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/cre_thinking_disorder.htm
     









     



    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #35 - September 30, 2008, 03:25 AM

    ...deleted for being a duplicate post...
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #36 - September 30, 2008, 03:30 AM



    That's a very weak defense, Shaneequa.  If someone who believes in the Bible as divinely inspired can give three or four different, equally plausible, explanations for that one contradiction it somewhat suggests that the Bible is just another book that we can take multiple interpretations of.  Just like Moby Dick, Macbeth, or the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


    How plausible are Moby Dick, Macbeth, or the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

    Quote
    Also, my explanation was every bit as plausible as the ones from the man you quoted, so if plausible explanations are the criteria, why discount mine when you don't discount his, (even though you don't know which one of his various explanations to believe).


    Which explanation?

    Quote
    And furthermore, this equality of plausibility would only be a viable defense of the Bible if the contradiction between Mark and Luke on the subject of genealogy were the only contradiction between them.

     

    Why?

    Quote
    However, the four Gospels contradict each other, (off the top of my head), on the following subjects..

    - The date of Christ's birth

    - The details of Christ's birth

    - The timeline between Christ's commencement to ministry and his entry into Jerusalem

    - The location of the Sermon on the Mount

    - The last moments of Christ on the cross before he died, (all four Gospels give a different account of that).

    - The witnesses to the empty tomb and the Crucifixion.

     Verses, please?


    Quote
    Try and give me all the "plausible" explanations for those contradictions.  When you've finished showing all the different and equally "plausible" excuses for these contradictions, try finding a reason why there are so many excuses needed for a book that is supposed to be inspired by God.   And that is just looking at four books out of the whole Bible.  You have already shown that you cannot give explanations for the contradictions in Genesis without using...ahem... "creative license".

    When a book claims to be divinely inspired, and simultaneously needs this amount of plausible and not so plausible apologetics, I'm afraid the most reasonable explanation is that the book itself is just as flawed as any other book written by mere men without any supernatural help.


    Okay. Let me do the first thing, then you can remind of the second thing.

    Quote
    No, not particularly.


    Come on! Look at all the televangelists extorting money, giving false hope and preaching a false gospel. If they can do all this for the public to see, it causes one to wonder what evils that they do in private.

    Quote
    No, don't be so ridiculous.  They are behaving like human beings. 

    Exactly. What does the bible say about the human heart? It's desperately wicked, for one.

    Quote
    That means, of course, that a small number among them will be total psychos,


    Yes. There are psychopaths that thrive on wickedness. They are happy to do the most evil they can do. The bible says their consciences have been seared "with a hot iron"...so much, that there is no repentance, nor any desire for repentance.

    Quote
    but it also means that the vast majority will be ordinary, decent human men and women just trying to do their best by the only means they know how.


    Again, the bible says there are no decent humans. God's standard is perfection. It matters not that we try our best to do what's right. the fall renders us entirely depraved.


    Quote
    Er.... no.  And I see no reason to believe that it ever did happen.  Do you have any evidence that Eli ever existed, even?


    Even if he had not existed, the "story" proves to be relevant for current times.


    Quote
    Not really. Historically, those religious authorities who find themselves in charge of religions which have been around for a while,  certainly do feel the need to apologise for past wrongs done in their name.    Not because they are guilty of those wrongs, but merely because they have survived long enough for the moral zeitgeist to outlive the days when  their predecessors'  violence was seen as morally acceptable.


    I'm not sure I get what you're saying.

    Quote
    No, there are not "hypocrites of the most evil sort", there are just human beings, struggling through life the best way they know how.  Nor is there the "cruellest of evils" to deal with here.  You are just being melodramatic. 


    Pastors that fail to rightly divide scripture and earnestly proclaim the truth according to the scriptures are held in greater accountability. If a pastor does not treble at God's word....but glories in his own vain "methods"....he will have much blood on his hands if he does not repent.

     
    Quote
    You want me to take comfort in the idea that God deliberately stood back and allowed people to be raped, and then God stepped in, after allowing all these rapes,  and then  tore them to pieces as punishment?  What kind of a God is that?

     

    I seriously don't know how to answer that.
    Quote
    Also, Shaneequa, what kind of a person are you, if you can believe in the scripture on the evidence of this story? 


    That's not the reason I believe.

    Quote
    That's utterly horrible.  You expect me to be attracted to a God that tears people to bits and makes them wish they weren't born? 

    I would rather burn in Hell


    Seriously....at least understand what it is you are rejecting. Can you explain to me who Jesus is, and tell me why He died?

    Hell is eternal and there will not be a moment's rest from the agony. It will be physical torment with no hope for reprieve.


    Quote
    Yes, including the religious "authorities" who indoctrinated you in your rehab days.

     
    That rehab chaplain was a nice guy, but I knew he was just as spiritually confused as the rest of us.

    Quote
    You were prime fodder, I suspect.


    Not for him. I liked him, but he believed that a person could choose a pair of sneakers to be one's higher power, and he did not believe in God any more than I did.


    Quote
    Sometimes, as humanists, we believe God should be a one such as ourselves....so we reject Him, because He isn't. We will say the bible is a farce and decide there is no such God.


    The verse is relevant, because it speaks to people that expect God to be altogether one such as ourselves.

    Quote
    There may be a God, but your concept of God is a very specific one.  Unfortunately for you, your specific concept of God is so far at odds with the basic realities of the world we live in that I feel quite confident in my atheism as regards your God.


    He's not "my concept of God", but who He says He is, regardless of who I might have wanted Him to be.
    Quote
    You have done plenty with your own imagination.  Violating some Bronze Age edict from the most delusional and exclusivist interpretation of it is the least of your sins.


    Will you please explain?

    Quote
    You believe lots of things that are not true, so why should I believe you on this one?

     
    If I find out I believe something that isn't true, I immediately repent to God for having an erroneous image of Him. It has happened in the past, and, as one with a finite mind, it will likely happen again. It is called growing in the word.
    Quote
    I left the Catholic Church long ago, and I have read the Bible many times since I left the Catholic Church, so you can drop your delusion that a non-Catholic version of the Bible will contain some magical properties of conversion.


    I'm not wrong about the Roman Catholic downgrade of holiness.

    I have to reboot my computer. BRB

    Okay, if I reboot right now, my download will fail...but it keeps freezing up my typing.

    Anyway:
    Quote
    So did God read evil in the hearts of the children who he drowned in the flood?  What kind of evil do you think resides in the hearts of children?


    From birth we are little rebels with a natural enmity toward God. Fortunately, we are under the age of accountability, so babies go to heaven.

    Quote
    God committed genocide against the entire population of the planet, according to the Bible. He killed everyone - babies, unborn children, animals, plants, everyone and everything.  So  obviously God's standard of "good" is not higher than ours at all,  on the contrary, it is demonstrably lower.

     

    First, He is the author of life. We cannot say that about any human being...so if
    He were to choose to zap us all today, we could have no complaint. It is by His mercy that He holds back His terrible and righteous wrath. Our every breath is a sign of his mercy, as we are not guaranteed our next breath.

    Remember, all these people died. Likewise, it is appointed for all of us to die. In their case, it happened all at once.
    Quote
    And putting meaningless half sentences like "and God knows the future" together with other meaningless half sentences with a few dots in between, does not do anything to obscure the fact that you are peddling a delusion.


    "God knows the future" is not a half sentence. I use dots to say "this is like a comma, only the pause is longer. Other times, my dots are an ellipsis.

    Also, I'm not peddling anything. Salvation is not for sale, and Jesus is not a product.  The disciples were not called to market the gospel, but to proclaim it. True evangelism is not results oriented. It matters not how people respond to the word, but that the word be faithfully proclaimed.

    Quote
    And if you were called on to do those things in the name of your religion?  Would you do them?


    Nope. For one thing, the bible is closed. Everything we need to know is in the bible, and that means we will not receive new revelations.

    If a "prophet" or "apostle"....or even a booming voice from the sky were to make such a command, we know unequivocally, we are not to heed to such a one.


    Quote
    Sure, but that is not in any way an analogy to Ken Ham.  A proper analogy would be - if you heard someone whom you trust,  propound on the non-harmful qualities of cigarettes, and then you were presented with impartial evidence from biology which linked cigarettes with lung cancer, what would you do?


    I would want to know the facts. Even though I trust a person doesn't mean a person can't be wrong.

    Quote
    Would you carry on believing in that person, or would you discard your previous opinion in favour of new evidence?


    I have actually discarded previous opinions in favour of new evidence, many times.


    Quote

     
    Alright. I'll have a look.








     



  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #37 - September 30, 2008, 04:39 PM

    Quote
    How plausible are Moby Dick, Macbeth, or the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?


    Irrelevant question, because I am not claiming inerrancy or divine inspiration for the above three books, I would claim that all of them are works of fiction.  You are claiming both inerrancy and divine inspiration for the Bible, therefore you have to establish that unlike the above, it is not a work of fiction.

    Quote
    Which explanation?


    That the Bible is no more divinely inspired or true than Moby Dick, Macbeth or the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    Quote
    Why?


    Because when you have conflicting accounts of the same story from two or more different witnesses, or inconsistencies in the story of one witness, what you need to do is look for evidence from other sources to establish which, if any, of the witness accounts are true.  What you don't do is start making up excuses that are nowhere alluded to or implied by the witnesses themselves. 

    For example, I showed you inconsistencies in the Genesis story of the Flood.  Your response was “maybe it meant this”, “maybe it meant that.”  At no stage did you even attempt to look for evidence.  Never mind though, because we have plenty of evidence about the Flood – all of it points to the truth of one version of the story, and  the true version is that the Flood never happened  That is a well established fact, Shaneequa, its not a “plausible” excuse, nor an opinion, nor “just a theory”, it is a fact which is evidentially supported by the following observable realities......

    A global flood would cause planetary temperature fluctuations ranging from between approx 40 Kelvins to approx 2,000 Kelvins.  There is no way that a wooden boat full of livestock would survive the experience.

    A global flood would have left us with a single, uniform, globally present sedimentary stratum of recent date.  No such thing exists.

    Archaeological evidence shows that  the Ancient Egyptians and the Chinese maintained unbroken continuity of activity all throughout  the time that they were supposed to be under 9,000 metres of water.

    A global flood would have wiped out entire swathes of aquatic taxa, and yet said taxa are still swimming around, spawning to their hearts content.   
     
    The Flood is supposed to have happened within the last 6,000 years.  After the Flood the only creatures left standing were the inhabitants of the Ark, or so the Bible tells us.  And yet from genetics we now know that it is impossible to achieve the genetic diversity which exists on earth today within a time frame of 6,000 years, (and that holds true whether it was seven or two each of the animals in the Ark).


    To take another example, I showed you inconsistencies in the creation story, and you responded with some nonsense that our western bias perceives a contradiction where there is none.  Leaving aside that our western perception of linear time stems from the same Judeo Christian tradition as the Old Testament itself, again you brought forward no evidence to corroborate your version of the story.  And again, we have plenty of evidence to show that the creation story in the Book of Genesis is not true.  For a start, if Eve had been created from Adam's genetic material, ie his rib, she would have had one X chromosome and one Y chromosome.  In other words she would have been a man.  (So if creationism really was true, God would have created Adam and Steve, not Adam and Eve grin12).

    Even more importantly, we know that humans evolved from other primates, slowly and incrementally.  None of our forebears were created from dust or a rib, and this is not an opinion, nor a “plausible” explanation, nor just a theory either.  Since the mapping of the human genome the weight of evidence in favour of evolution has become so heavy that we no longer even need the fossil record at all as evidence for it.  We can see it in our genes.    However, as it happens, the fossil record also remains perfectly consistent with evolution, as does the rest of geology.  And as if all that weren't enough, we can see evolution happen in real time, with our own eyes.  Insecticide resistant insects, antibiotic resistant bacteria, and numerous other examples of descent with modification among the flora and fauna around us which have taken place within a short enough timespan for us to observe.  Here's one example for you..


    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/061201_quietcrickets

    Now, you said in your last post...

    Quote
    I have actually discarded previous opinions in favour of new evidence, many times.


    So now that I have given you evidence, are you going to discard your opinions that the Flood and the Biblical creation story are literally true?  If not, how do refute the evidence I have shown you?

    Quote
    Verses, please?


    Sure.

    The date of Christ's birth – Matt 2:1 vs. Luke 2:1-2

    The details of Christ's birth – First two chapters of Matthew vs same of Luke

    The timeline – The Gospel of John vs the other three

    The location of the Sermon on the Mount - Matt 5:1,2:  vs Luke 6:17,20:

    The last moments of Christ - Matt 27:46,50: vs Luke 23:46 vs John 19:30

    I made a typo in my last post.  I meant the witnesses to the empty tomb and the Resurrection, not the Crucifixion.  Apologies.  Anyway – here's the verses - Matt 28:1 vs Mark 16:1 vs John 20:1

    Quote
    Okay. Let me do the first thing, then you can remind of the second thing.


    Fire away.

    Quote
    Come on! Look at all the televangelists extorting money, giving false hope and preaching a false gospel.


    Anybody – televangelist or otherwise -  who preaches the literal truth of the creation story and the Flood is “giving false hope and preaching a false gospel”, not to mention inculcating a false fear of guilt and eternal torture.  Do you now finally understand why I say it is unethical for you to be doing that on this forum?  I know you're not extorting money, but you are still spreading falsehood.

    Quote
    If they can do all this for the public to see, it causes one to wonder what evils that they do in private.


    No, that doesn't follow.  Just because somebody has an eye to the main chance and spots a way to part  fools from their money does not mean they are capable of any evil under the sun.  Humans are not that simplistic.  You also need to take into account that televangelists have mostly found themselves a scam that doesn't involve the risk of prosecution, so if these private evils you are imagining them to be capable of include stepping outside the law, its likely that most would be too risk averse to carry them out, even if they were psychologically capable of it.

    Quote
    Exactly. What does the bible say about the human heart? It's desperately wicked, for one.


    I have already established that the Bible contains untruths, so unless you refute my evidence anytime you start an assertion with the words “the bible says...” the rest of the sentence will fall on deaf ears.

    Quote
    Yes. There are psychopaths that thrive on wickedness. They are happy to do the most evil they can do. The bible says their consciences have been seared "with a hot iron"...so much, that there is no repentance, nor any desire for repentance.


    Psychopaths make up a small minority of the population, they are not in any way a representative example of human nature.  And I don't care what the Bible says about them, that has fallen on deaf ears (see above).

    Quote
    Again, the bible says  snip


    See above.

    Quote
    Even if he had not existed, the "story" proves to be relevant for current times.


    No it does not.  You made an unsubstantiated assertion on the basis of a few bible quotes and some seedy televangelists.

    Quote
    I'm not sure I get what you're saying.


    That the moral zeitgeist becomes generally more humane from generation to generation.  Have a read of this, its not very long...

    Quote
    In sixteenth-century Paris, a popular form of entertainment was cat-burning, in which a cat was hoisted in a sling on a stage and slowly lowered into a fire. According to historian Norman Davies, "[T]he spectators, including kings and queens, shrieked with laughter as the animals, howling with pain, were singed, roasted, and finally carbonized." Today, such sadism would be unthinkable in most of the world. This change in sensibilities is just one example of perhaps the most important and most underappreciated trend in the human saga: Violence has been in decline over long stretches of history, and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species' time on earth.
    In the decade of Darfur and Iraq, and shortly after the century of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, the claim that violence has been diminishing may seem somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene. Yet recent studies that seek to quantify the historical ebb and flow of violence point to exactly that conclusion.


    http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html

    Therefore, anyone who finds themselves at the head of an institution which has survived for many centuries, the Pope say, will find they have plenty to apologise for on an institutional basis, even though they as individuals have no blood on their hands.

    Quote
    Pastors that fail to rightly divide scripture and earnestly proclaim the truth according to the scriptures are held in greater accountability. If a pastor does not treble at God's word....but glories in his own vain "methods"....he will have much blood on his hands if he does not repent. 


    More unsubstantiated assertions.  You didn't put “the Bible says” that time, but you may as well have.

    Quote
    I seriously don't know how to answer that. 


    At least you're honest about it.  I think the answer is that such a God is not worth worshipping. 

    Quote
    That's not the reason I believe.


    Well, then I'm a little confused as to why you gave that story in response to the sign off question in my last post.  So why do you believe then?

    Quote
    Seriously....at least understand what it is you are rejecting.


    I understand that in your last post you thought we could “take comfort” in the idea that God has torn rapists to pieces and sent them to an eternal torture so horrible that they wish they weren't born.  After, of course, this omnipotent deity stood by and allowed all the rapes to happen.  That notion of God is worthy of nothing but rejection.

    Quote
    Can you explain to me who Jesus is, and tell me why He died?


    The bible tells us that he was the son of God and he died for our sins. But as I have already established at the top of this post, the Bible contains untruths.

    Quote
    Hell is eternal and there will not be a moment's rest from the agony. It will be physical torment with no hope for reprieve.


    And you think God sent Mother Theresa there for a thought crime, and yet you still pray to this monster?

    Quote
    That rehab chaplain was a nice guy, but I knew he was just as spiritually confused as the rest of us.


    I wasn't referring to him, you've told me about him before.  He sounds a few sandwiches short of a picnic too, with his “worship a sneaker” nonsense.

    But even that is slightly less insane than the fundamentalist doctrine of Biblical inerrancy and Young Earth Creationism that you ended up falling for.

    Quote
    The verse is relevant, because it speaks to people that expect God to be altogether one such as ourselves.


    I never have expected God to be altogether like ourselves, so it is not relevant to me.

    Quote
    He's not "my concept of God", but who He says He is, regardless of who I might have wanted Him to be.


    “The Bible says.”.....see above.

    Quote
    Will you please explain?


    The literal truth of the bible, young earth creationism, eternal torture for thought crimes.

    Quote
    I'm not wrong about the Roman Catholic downgrade of holiness.


    Yes, you are, but this debate is not about Catholicism, so never mind.  Suffice to say, I am not influenced by the Catholic view of things any longer so it is irrelevant to this thread.  You are trying to convert an atheist, not a Catholic.

    Quote
    From birth we are little rebels with a natural enmity toward God. Fortunately, we are under the age of accountability, so babies go to heaven.


    Quote
    First, He is the author of life. We cannot say that about any human being...so if
    He were to choose to zap us all today, we could have no complaint. It is by His mercy that He holds back His terrible and righteous wrath. Our every breath is a sign of his mercy, as we are not guaranteed our next breath.

    Remember, all these people died. Likewise, it is appointed for all of us to die. In their case, it happened all at once.


    Quote
    Also, I'm not peddling anything. Salvation is not for sale, and Jesus is not a product.  The disciples were not called to market the gospel, but to proclaim it. True evangelism is not results oriented. It matters not how people respond to the word, but that the word be faithfully proclaimed.


    I'm sure the bible says all these things, see above.

    Quote
    Nope. For one thing, the bible is closed. Everything we need to know is in the bible, and that means we will not receive new revelations.

    If a "prophet" or "apostle"....or even a booming voice from the sky were to make such a command, we know unequivocally, we are not to heed to such a one.



    No, Shaneequa, you have completely missed the point of the question.  I'm not questioning whether or not the bible calls on you to do these things today.  Let's accept for the sake of argument that you are right and it doesn't.  Now – hypothetically speaking – if the bible DID call on you to stone homosexuals, etc, what would you do?  Would you obey the Bible, or not?

    Quote
    I would want to know the facts. Even though I trust a person doesn't mean a person can't be wrong.


    True.  I've given you some facts, and I look forward to either your refutation backed with evidence, or your acceptance of them.  Here's a link to a source so you can double check my representation of them.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/





     

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #38 - September 30, 2008, 06:50 PM

    Cheetah, this may take awhile...and my b-day is tomorrow, or wednesday...whichever day is October 1....but we are celebrating wednesday....so I can work on it tonight and tomorrow.
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #39 - September 30, 2008, 09:36 PM

    Cheetah, this may take awhile...and my b-day is tomorrow, or wednesday...whichever day is October 1....but we are celebrating wednesday....so I can work on it tonight and tomorrow.


    No bother Shaneequa, take your time.  I would prefer you to examine all the links I have posted and the relevant evidence carefully before you give any response.

    Happy Birthday for tomorrow. Smiley

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #40 - September 30, 2008, 09:42 PM

    Cheetah, this may take awhile...and my b-day is tomorrow, or wednesday...whichever day is October 1....but we are celebrating wednesday....so I can work on it tonight and tomorrow.


    No bother Shaneequa, take your time.  I would prefer you to examine all the links I have posted and the relevant evidence carefully before you give any response.

    Happy Birthday for tomorrow. Smiley


    Thank you, Cheetah! hugs

    Tomorrow, I get paid! That means not being flat broke anymore (for a time).
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #41 - October 16, 2008, 01:51 AM

    Sorry. My attention-span is like that of a gnat right now, so I will start with these. you gave me the addresses, so, I need to post what the verses say. Then try to give an answer.

    Some of these look like questions some of your priests or nuns could have answered when you were in school. Did you not trust these people? Okay...maybe that's another topic.

    Anyway:

    Quote
    The date of Christ's birth – Matt 2:1 vs. Luke 2:1-2


    M't:2:1: Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

    Lu:2:1: And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.


    Are you talking about the fact that there were both a king and a caesar at the time?
    That's how it worked back then. King Herod was a Jewish king even though he was under Roman rule. He had some power as long as he did not rebel against the Roman government and the rulers of his day.

    I don't know what your question is.
    Quote
    The details of Christ's birth – First two chapters of Matthew vs same of Luke


    Please break it down for me. Name a detail and some bible verses.

    Quote
    The timeline – The Gospel of John vs the other three


    Same answer.
    Quote

    The location of the Sermon on the Mount - Matt 5:1,2:  vs Luke 6:17,20:

    M't:5:1: And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
    M't:5:2: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

    Lu:6:17: And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases;
    Lu:6:18: And they that were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed.
    Lu:6:19: And the whole multitude sought to touch him: for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all.
    Lu:6:20: And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.

    I would say that they were on a higher part of the mountain then moved down to a lower and flatter part of the mountain...probably for acoustic reasons...and probably so people from the seas of Tyre and Sidon could more easily reach him...or at least hear with the better acoustics.

    Quote
    The last moments of Christ - Matt 27:46,50: vs Luke 23:46 vs John 19:30


    M't:27:46: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
    M't:27:47: Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.
    M't:27:48: And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
    M't:27:49: The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
    M't:27:50: Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

    Lu:23:46: And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

    Oh....Oh...Oh...I can answer! When Matthew said that Jesusd cried out again, he didn't say what Jesus cried out...but Luke tells us He said "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit".

    Joh:19:30: When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

    Okay. He probably did not cry that one out...but said it quietly when He said "it is finished"

    So...all together, it probably went like this:

    1. First He yelled out "Eli Eli....!"
    2. Then he cried out, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit"
    3. Then, quietly...as they offered the vinegar, He said, "it is finished".

    Quote
    I made a typo in my last post.  I meant the witnesses to the empty tomb and the Resurrection, not the Crucifixion.  Apologies.  Anyway – here's the verses - Matt 28:1 vs Mark 16:1 vs John 20:1


    M't:28:1: In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

    M'r:16:1: And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

    Joh:20:1: The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

    Okay. The first two accounts line up...but the John account is different. I will have to look this one up....but before I do, let me say that it sounds as though Mary had gone to the site earlier, but thought she was hallucinating...so she ran into Peter and told him what she saw...then she went to get the other Mary for the annointing
    because she didn't believe what she saw the first time.

    It was still dark when she went alone...and it was getting light when she and the other Mary went.
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #42 - October 16, 2008, 02:21 AM

    Quote
    Are you talking about the fact that there were both a king and a caesar at the time?


    No, I am not.  I am referring to the fact that Matthew's version of the birth of Jesus explicitly states that it took place " in the days of Herod the king", whereas Luke's version says - equally explicitly - that the birth of Christ happened " in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed."

    I'm sorry Shaneequa, but Herod died in 4 BC.  The tax census under Caesar Augustus happened in 6 AD. 

    Do the math.

    I'm only playing with this concept here, of course.  Your particular concept of biblical innerrancy remains ridiculous because I have already established that this book contradicts known facts about the world around us.

    I will not be playing for much longer.  The Bible contains untruths, so therefore, your attempts to reconcile the ridiculous will remain fruitless until you refute the evidence I gave to you above about the non-existence of  the Flood and the creationist story of Genesis.


    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #43 - October 16, 2008, 02:43 AM




    I'm sorry Shaneequa, but Herod died in 4 BC.  The tax census under Caesar Augustus happened in 6 AD. 

    Do the math.




    Where are you getting this information? I do not know when they started calling "AD", "AD". That confuses me. But if in an extra-biblical source, it says that Augustus Caesar called for the tax in 6 AD, and Jesus wasn't born yet...that would confuse me. Why would it be called 6 AD if Jesus isn't born yet?

    Could it be that he decreed a tax 6 years before that?

    And how many Herod have there been? I think there have been alot of Herods...

    Anyway, between the tax decree and Herod's ordering the killing of the children, there was at least two years. Jesus was an infant when the wise men visited him, but was around the age of two.

    Please name the sources that say Augustus decreed the tax in 6 AD, and Herod died in 4 BC. 
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #44 - October 16, 2008, 04:41 AM

    Shaneequa, I have established already that the Bible is basically a work of fiction.  You can carry on with your silly, little pawn war of quibbles, if you like, but it will not make the fictional Flood in the fictional book of Genesis, suddenly or magically become fact. 

    The Bible contains untruths.  The Bible is false in many places, and I have shown why it is false.   The first woman was not created from the rib of the first man, this is utter crap.

    None of our ancestors were created suddenly, we evolved slowly and incrementally from other primates.

    Refute the above, please, I am a bit fed up of playing word games with you about  a book that even you cannot produce evidence to support.

    Your holy book contradicts all the known facts of the natural world around us.  In fact, your book is so embarrassingly bad that even a literal believer like yourself has to avoid the debate I've raised about its contents like the Plague.  Why else would you refuse to answer the points I raised above?


    And btw, those Ancient Chinese and Egyptians, who managed to carry on living away, all throughout the Flood?  How did they manage that, did they develope gills for the duration Roll Eyes








    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #45 - October 16, 2008, 04:56 AM

    This is not a debate on whether the bible is the word of God. This is not even a debate. You asked me to do to you what I do to King Tut. I give King Tut bible verses and try to reach his conscience, because I know the word is like a sword, and it will cut to the conscience whether one believes it or not. It is the word of God, and I know it will work on you as long as the Holy Spirit wills it to work on you.

    Now the hard part:

    Would you consider yourself to be a good person?
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #46 - October 16, 2008, 03:07 PM

    Quote
    This is not a debate on whether the bible is the word of God.


    If you cannot establish that the Bible is the word of God then your entire religion is a joke.


    Quote
    This is not even a debate.


    That's your problem.  If you cannot defend your world view then take a long, hard look at it and yourself. 

    Quote
    You asked me to do to you what I do to King Tut.



    Stop falling back on silly word games, and stop dragging King Tut into a thread where he is not allowed to post.  Make that the last time you mention him in this thread, please.  (That is the second time I've had to say that to you. Roll Eyes)

    I challenged you to convert me, your efforts so far are confined to quotes from a silly old book written by a pack of Bronze Age tribal chieftans who knew less than the average 7 year old does today.

    I have shown you evidence that their writings are not true.  Did you even attempt to address that?  No, because you know you cannot.  You know your book is a work of fiction.  You have emotional reasons for believing in it, but I'm afraid that is also your problem, not mine. Afro

    Quote
    Now the hard part:

    Would you consider yourself to be a good person?


    That's not the hard part.  This is the hard part - whether or not I am a good person, I still want to know the answer to something......

    How did the Chinese and Egyptians manage to continue an unbroken chain of activity all throughout the entire time your precious Bronze Age scribblers thought they were under a global deluge?

    Why does your supposedly inerrant book not know about the fact of evolution?  Why does it directly contradict that, and other known facts about the natural world around us?

    That's the hard part, which is why you keep avoiding it Shaneequa. Tongue








    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #47 - October 20, 2008, 11:00 AM



    That's your problem.  If you cannot defend your world view then take a long, hard look at it and yourself.


    It's not a problem. This is simply not a debate.

    Quote
    Stop falling back on silly word games, and stop dragging King Tut into a thread where he is not allowed to post.  Make that the last time you mention him in this thread, please.  (That is the second time I've had to say that to you. Roll Eyes)


    It's not a word game. It is the reason I suggested we have a one on one. He is the reason this thread came about. I should not have to remind you again.

    Quote
    I challenged you to convert me, your efforts so far are confined to quotes from a silly old book written by a pack of Bronze Age tribal chieftans who knew less than the average 7 year old does today.


    If they knew so little, then explain the pyramids. Explain the writings, themselves. Then again, you 
    are free to choose what you want to believe. If you will not be converted, it is no reflection on me. I'm doing the way the bible says for me to do it.

    Quote
    I have shown you evidence that their writings are not true.  Did you even attempt to address that?  No, because you know you cannot.


    Yes. I did, because you promised we would go on no further rabbit trails until I have told you what the gospel is. It seems you are trying to keep yourself from hearing the gospel. If not, then prove it to me, and let me take you through the gospel.



    Quote
    That's not the hard part.  This is the hard part - whether or not I am a good person, I still want to know the answer to something......

    How did the Chinese and Egyptians manage to continue an unbroken chain of activity all throughout the entire time your precious Bronze Age scribblers thought they were under a global deluge?

    Why does your supposedly inerrant book not know about the fact of evolution?  Why does it directly contradict that, and other known facts about the natural world around us?

    That's the hard part, which is why you keep avoiding it Shaneequa. Tongue


    You say that is not the hard part. So prove it to me and answer the question. If you do not want to answer for yourself, then answer this: is man basically good?

    So what if there were Chinese people? They either came from Shem, Ham or Japhite. 








    [/quote]
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #48 - October 20, 2008, 11:27 AM

    Quote
    It's not a word game. It is the reason I suggested we have a one on one. He is the reason this thread came about. I should not have to remind you again.


    Not quite.  You were proselytising at King Tut, and that is why I challenged you to convert me.  Your insistence on using a forum designed for people who have left their religion for your own agenda is the reason this thread came about.  King Tut was merely your victim, so stop dragging him into this thread, and stop playing with the phrase "do what I do to King Tut" as if it were a get out of jail free card.

    Quote
    If they knew so little, then explain the pyramids.


     Cheesy



    There were pyramids built by other ancient societies, Shan.  Including the Mayans - now what was their religion? Whatever they believed must be true, after all they built pyramids.   Cheesy

    Quote
    Explain the writings, themselves.


    I'm not sure which explanation is true between these two options - ignorant, backward rubbish, or a book of allegories and fables which has to be studied and interpreted.

    Quote
    Then again, you
    are free to choose what you want to believe. If you will not be converted, it is no reflection on me.


    Of course it will be no reflection on you.  It will simply reflect the intellectual bankruptcy of Biblical literalism.

    Quote
    I'm doing the way the bible says for me to do it.


    Exactly.  It will merely reflect on the Bible's claim to be the word of God, not on you as a person.  So don't worry about it.

     Smiley

    Quote
    Yes. I did, because you promised we would go on no further rabbit trails until I have told you what the gospel is. It seems you are trying to keep yourself from hearing the gospel. If not, then prove it to me, and let me take you through the gospel.



    Shaneequa, the Bible has fallen at the first hurdle and you keep trying to skip to the second and third hurdle without even attempting to pick up the first one.

    Let me try again - the Flood didn't happen.  Adam and Eve never existed.  The earth is not 6,000 years old.  The human race was not created suddenly.

    Refute the assertions I have made in that paragraph above please, or change your interpretation of the Bible.

    Quote
    You say that is not the hard part. So prove it to me and answer the question. If you do not want to answer for yourself, then answer this: is man basically good?



    Yes, I'm basically good, and yes the rest of the human race is too. 

    Quote
    So what if there were Chinese people? They either came from Shem, Ham or Japhite. 


    You obviously didn't understand the point I made there.  Chinese people carried on writing books and making pots, jewelry, etc, all throughout the time that your infallible, holy book tells us there was a global flood.

    Did the Chinese develop gills during that 40 day period, and then lose them again?  If not, how did they manage to survive the flood?  And why does the Bible say God destroyed every thing when we know that  the Chinese and Egyptians carried on regardless?













    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #49 - October 20, 2008, 11:54 AM



    Not quite.  You were proselytising at King Tut, and that is why I challenged you to convert me.  Your insistence on using a forum designed for people who have left their religion for your own agenda is the reason this thread came about.  King Tut was merely your victim, so stop dragging him into this thread, and stop playing with the phrase "do what I do to King Tut" as if it were a get out of jail free card.


    Everyone has an angenda. If we didn't, we'd be dead. I mean, why does anyone say or do anything? Even if it's for the sake of just saying or doing something, it's still an agenda. And you act as though I tried to rape KT...or beat him up. I use the phrase, because that is what caused me to have a one-on-one with you.

    Quote
    There were pyramids built by other ancient societies, Shan.  Including the Mayans - now what was their religion? Whatever they believed must be true, after all they built pyramids.   Cheesy


    No. Alot of intelligent people are spiritually lost. Anyway, why do people try to portray the ancient people as knuckle-dragging ape-men with no technical ability? The pyramids show this is simply not true.

    Now I have to go. My eye hurts.
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #50 - October 20, 2008, 12:27 PM

    Quote
    . And you act as though I tried to rape KT...or beat him up.


    No, I'm acting as though you tried to preach at him, which is a form of intellectual rape.

    Quote
    I use the phrase, because that is what caused me to have a one-on-one with you.


    The way you have used that phrase throughout this thread is dishonest.  It has been a repeated attempt to whittle the thread down to you preaching and me as a passive, unquestioning audience.  If you are going to succeed in converting me, you will have to answer the questions I have about the book you are using as a conversion manual.  If you can't do that,  my doubts will remain, and therefore I won't be converted. 

    Quote
    No. Alot of intelligent people are spiritually lost. Anyway, why do people try to portray the ancient people as knuckle-dragging ape-men with no technical ability? The pyramids show this is simply not true.


    I don't know why people portray them like that, but I do know that the pyramids are not the only example of why it isn't true.  The ancient Greeks, for example, knew that evolution was a fact.  Nobody knew how it worked till Charles Darwin turned up, but evolution itself was known about thousands of years ago.  Why there are still people in the 21st century who remain more backward than the ancient Greeks is a mystery to me. 

    Possibly their emotional need to believe in a literal interpretation of a scientifically illiterate text like the book of Genesis is responsible.

    Anyway, hope your eye gets better soon, and when it does, could you possibly make some attempt to pick up that first hurdle for me?  Thanx in advance. Wink



    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #51 - October 22, 2008, 02:34 AM

    Shan, I've just looked back over this thread.  On September 11th I asked you if you believed in the literal truth of the Genesis verse about Eve being created from Adam's rib.

    It took you a page and a half to admit to answering yes, and since then you have wriggled around till October 21st , (so far), without answering my questions about why.

    I have to conclude that you don't really believe in Young Earth Creationism yourself, nor Biblical literalism.  If you did, you would surely have defended either one by now.

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #52 - December 12, 2008, 02:57 PM

    I declare: Cheetah is the winner.

    Osmanthus, will you please lock this thread? Thank you.
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #53 - December 12, 2008, 03:00 PM

    Thread closed

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: Shaneequa vs Cheetah
     Reply #54 - December 12, 2008, 03:01 PM

    You didn't have to declare me the winner.   Tongue  We'll just agree to differ.  Thanks for taking the time and trouble to debate with me Shaneequa.  Smiley

    I'll lock the thread again now.

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »