That's a laugh..the first thing you did in our "debate" is try to argue I am a troll. Then we had a little contentious back and forth in which my answers were perfectly adaquete..the problem was that you copped out and ran away. Here is our final exchange:

"@shinyblurry

I was going to leave you in the metaphorical pit of self-contradiction and nonsense you had dug yourself into, but then you had to go insult my eloquence... jk, I was going to address your answers anyway:

Would you condemn and punish someone's child for something their parents did? Why should anyone respect - much less worship - a being whose moral standards are far inferior to those of the worst among us humans (or "sinners" as you call us)?

2. "Special Revelation"... and yet it is those who use reason and evidence who are "arrogant", or have a "fevered ego", right? But let me try to grasp this "Holy Spirit" thing once and for all:

Basically, a Christian cannot deny the HS, otherwise he was never a Christian? But one can only reject the HS if they have it, i.e. if they are a Christian... do you see where this is going? Moreover, this suggests a deterministic outlook: some have been chosen, the rest can suck it (you did not answer the part of my question which asks what happens to those that are not "chosen").

So God makes an exception, giving them the knowledge of good and evil only so that they do not obtain the knowledge of good and evil... Even if this fantastic extrapolation of yours was not a direct insult to the textual integrity of the Bible (which is about the only integrity that thing has got), it would only confirm my point vis-à-vis God/religion's reliance on blind obedience.

Which brings me to another tasty tidbit of yours:

He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do [...]
Mafia boss says: you don't have to pay up, but I'll beat the shit out of you if you don't.

Does the irony escape you?"

My reply:

1. You're still not getting it. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they were spiritually perfected. When they sinned their spirit became corrupt and could no longer be in the presence of God. This is why Creation fell. Human nature has been corrupted since then. This is why we live in a fallen world. Instead of starting over, God bore all of this out with us. He had a plan to restore Creation, which He did by sending His Son to die for our sins. Jesus is the name under which man is reconciled back to God and spiritually perfected, so we can again live with God. It's not about punishment, it's about restoration.

You say it's immoral for God to punish people..I'll explain why it's not but first, lets examine your hypocripsy here. You're an atheist so you believe death is the end. Yet, I bet you adovocate the death penalty or life in prison for serious crimes. You're perfectly fine with humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans, which is the same as God punishing someone forever, because if this life is all we have then a death sentence is forever. Life in prison is just as good. Yet, you somehow have a problem with God punishing people, who as our Creator and the moral authority not only has the perrogative, but indeed would be immoral if He didn't do so.

Think about it this way. You don't like God and you don't respect His authority. You certainly don't want to live forever with Him. So, though He loves you and wants to share eternity with you, He will allow you to make your choice as to whether to love Him or not. He's let you know the consequences over and over again, mostly recently through this dialogue. You are choosing directly to be seperated from God, indeed you have made it a mission to spread your ignorance about Him. So why then should you be surprised when you earn the reward you had hoped for? It's entirely moral, and entirely your choice.

2. It doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Only a Christian could receive the Holy Spirit, they are saved. A person who professes a belief in Christ yet does not accept His Spirit has committed blasphemy against the Spirit. They are not saved. A person who does not believe in Christ will never receive the Spirit, nor can they even perceive it, so they cannot commit blasphemy against Him. This is the meaning of the passage:

"Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS."

3. What was your question?

You never answered to any of this. This was your final reply:

Shiny quoted conserva-facts-don't-affect-me-pedia.com; conversation ended. You fail.

You used the excuse that I had quoted conservapedia about zooasterism to Enoch to run away from our debate. So please get off your high horse..and you never provided an intelligent or comprehensive position..most of it was simply rooted in your amatuer understanding of scripture.


>> ^hpqp:
You'd really crack me up if I didn't know you were dead serious. Remember our very first debate Mr Shiny? The one under you first sifted video? There was no quoting Leviticus, instead I provided serious questions to the ideology stemming from the Creation and Fall myths, to which you were unable to adequately reply. As for spewing Bible verses, it's a two-way street, although you definitely take it more than anyone else here, and with the added stupidity of actually thinking that an ancient collection of ideological, mythological and historical texts - compiled and edited over hundreds of years - is actually the divinely inspired word of your sky dictator. So yeah, sometimes myself and others will quote contentious scripture just to remind you that it's only manmade text (although even you go to some lengths to try and make the worst of it make sense... (re: your attempt at rationalising having to marry one's rapist)).
Most people who tried to have an intelligent debate with you here have given up. If you still can't understand why, maybe you should pore over your responses to people's questions and have a long, hard think (yes, I know that's hard).
Yours satanically,
Lucy Furr
edit: I missed part of your comment when first responding... nobody "created" us, shiny. Most secular humanists and atheists come to the conclusion that religion is bullshit all by their lonesomes, usually in their childhood or teens.. you know, when rational thought starts to outweigh parental authority. While it's nice to have speakers defending reason with arguments we could only dream of formulating so eloquently - speakers who certainly helped some who were already in doubt to make up their minds - it's not as if one needs a prophet. Maybe one reason why you have the impression you're always debating Dawkins and Hitchens is because their arguments are some of the most salient against religion, arguments that have been made since the ancient Greeks btw.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I already told you, if you go to the minute mark that I provided you will find someone talking directly about it. If you don't want to do that, or you don't believe the person in the video, that's your problem. It doesn't change the fact of what Dawkins said.
As far as arguments, I have many. I never get that far with you though. Your idea of a rational debate is to quote contentious verses in Leviticus. If you want to talk about one trick ponies..
I don't want to generalize atheists but the fact is dawkins and hitchens created a lot of you, and I feel often times I am debating them instead of the person I am talking to. In any case, it doesn't matter..I was just somewhat amused that you seemed to think that atheists are never illogical or say anything stupid.
>> ^hpqp:
Pretty rich coming from someone whose whole argument boils down to "personal revelation nananana!!!" and "God/the Bible says it so ITS TRUE!!!" All your gross generalisations based on personal experience (which could very much be made up for all we know) are but chaff to the wind, shiny.
And no, I'm not going to sit through 1h20 to try to find something that you claim Dawkins said; it's your evidence, you provide it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes, atheists actually do construct arguments which merely appeal to authority and engage of all sorts of logical fallacies, all the time. You seem to be under the illusion that atheists are in general more intelligent than the average person. I debate atheists all the time all over the internet and I can safely put that theory to rest for you. It's more that atheists are completely blinded by their certitude and think that everything they say is just so forceful and compelling, like they are the sole possessors of logic and reason in the world. After you speak to few hundred or so you start to see the group think they all share and that most of their ideas are originating from a Dawkins or a Hitchens. Many of you just parrot the things they say in their debates almost word for word.
As far as your evidence, it's buried somewhere in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw
If you go to 1 hour 17 you'll find someone talking about it.
edit; I will admit I speak to some very bright people, people are people after all..but atheism is not an exclusive group of deep thinkers..if you think that you haven't been around the internet lately.
>> ^hpqp:
[citation needed]
This is not the first time you put words in Dawkins' mouth you know.
edit: and even if Dawkins, Hitchens and the FSM all got together to argue for the historicity of Jesus, they would have to bring compelling arguments to the table. Unlike some religious people, atheists don't just go "oh since Dawkins says it it must be true, no need to think/research for myself!!"
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even Dawkins admitted Jesus is a historical figure. There are virtually no historians who support that view, so scratch probably and insert "extremely unlikely".
>> ^hpqp:
Well, considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.
http://religion.videosift.com/video/Lecture-Examining
-the-Existence-of-a-Historic
al-Jesus
>> ^messenger:
People in power usually do represent God in Jesus' parables. That's why this one seems so odd to me. Maybe I just haven't read enough of them to realize that Jesus himself preached violence against beings other than fig trees. (Mark 11: 12-14)>> ^hpqp:
That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.

Leviticus. what a great guy. But why don't god botherers heed ALL of his advice, not just the being gay bit.
Off the top of my head:
Where are the animal sacrifices that all God botherers must make to satisfy god
men shouldn't go to church when "unclean"
nor women during their period

men mustn't cut their beards or the sides of their hair

and my favourite:

Christmas trees are expressly forbidden inside a house (at christmas).

Still I'm sure the guy in this video adheres to all of those and would never insult god with, what is clearly a satanic object of a Fraser Fir at Christmas time.

Seriously. if you want to be a bible thumper, stop peddling this evil, nasty, hateful, self=loathing shit. Market church and god bothering for what it really can be good for:

Frienshdip, a sense of community, an identity, a code of conduct and ethics, a sense of purpose, a structure for life, or a path/code to follow for life.

stop peddling "everlasting life" (who the fuck wants to live forever - how boring would that be!), stop peddling sin and self-hate, and all that other shit.

People like this just make me sick and, if there was ever something good to come from religion, it's twats like this that hide it under their veil of control, deceit and passive hatred.

Actually, I pretty much accepted the idea of death when I was agnostic. The reason I believe in God is because I know He is real, not because I'm afraid of death. I wasn't afraid of it then and I'm certainly not afraid of it now. I do what I do for God because it's what is right. You're wasting all of your time here, missing the entire point to life, which is to live a life pleasing to God so you are worthy of eternal life with Him.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
You're the only one utterly terrified here.
You're utterly terrified of what will happen to you in the moments of your death.
You want to live forever.
That's why you believe so hard in your precious fairy tale ending afterlife.
If proof that no gods existed was confirmed this day, multiple times..
(Or something worse, like proof that Allah existed and was the one true god)
You would breakdown crying hysterically.
>> ^shinyblurry:
this is the damned speaking to the damned..find hope in no hope! when his spirit leaves his body he is going to be utterly fucking terrified

You're the only one utterly terrified here.

You're utterly terrified of what will happen to you in the moments of your death.
You want to live forever.
That's why you believe so hard in your precious fairy tale ending afterlife.

If proof that no gods existed was confirmed this day, multiple times..
(Or something worse, like proof that Allah existed and was the one true god)

You would breakdown crying hysterically.
>> ^shinyblurry:

this is the damned speaking to the damned..find hope in no hope! when his spirit leaves his body he is going to be utterly fucking terrified

1. You're still not getting it. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they were spiritually perfected. When they sinned their spirit became corrupt and could no longer be in the presence of God. This is why Creation fell. Human nature has been corrupted since then. This is why we live in a fallen world. Instead of starting over, God bore all of this out with us. He had a plan to restore Creation, which He did by sending His Son to die for our sins. Jesus is the name under which man is reconciled back to God and spiritually perfected, so we can again live with God. It's not about punishment, it's about restoration.

You say it's immoral for God to punish people..I'll explain why it's not but first, lets examine your hypocripsy here. You're an atheist so you believe death is the end. Yet, I bet you adovocate the death penalty or life in prison for serious crimes. You're perfectly fine with humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans, which is the same as God punishing someone forever, because if this life is all we have then a death sentence is forever. Life in prison is just as good. Yet, you somehow have a problem with God punishing people, who as our Creator and the moral authority not only has the perrogative, but indeed would be immoral if He didn't do so.

Think about it this way. You don't like God and you don't respect His authority. You certainly don't want to live forever with Him. So, though He loves you and wants to share eternity with you, He will allow you to make your choice as to whether to love Him or not. He's let you know the consequences over and over again, mostly recently through this dialogue. You are choosing directly to be seperated from God, indeed you have made it a mission to spread your ignorance about Him. So why then should you be surprised when you earn the reward you had hoped for? It's entirely moral, and entirely your choice.

2. It doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Only a Christian could receive the Holy Spirit, they are saved. A person who professes a belief in Christ yet does not accept His Spirit has committed blasphemy against the Spirit. They are not saved. A person who does not believe in Christ will never receive the Spirit, nor can they even perceive it, so they cannot commit blasphemy against Him. This is the meaning of the passage:

"Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS."

3. What was your question?

Btw, I don't delve into apologetics. Not knowing anything about apologetics, I can see why you've made this mistake. This is entirely from my own understanding.

http://videosift.com/video/Queen-Who-Wants-To-Live-Forever-1

hey, for all ya bleeding hearts wanting to live forever, he's still havin' a great run....no worries

Thanks for the doublepromote. Happy Boxing Day

In reply to this comment by NicoleBee:
*doublepromote

Happy boxing day?

Hi. Two cents here from a newbie-the best health care is prevention and education. If a nation of fat-arses, fast-food junkies, and burdens to the health care system are taught from infancy to stop eating poison in the form of so-called "food" (anything manufactured, promoted, grown or marketed by *corporate food-Nazis like ADM, Monsanto, etc.) then they won't neeeeed "health care". Let a couple of generations pass, and BOOM!, the world will be telling insurance companies to kiss their buttocks! Besides, who wants to "live forever" in this twisted paradigm?? Change comes from radical adjustment in thought and action. Governments are tainted, they can't help anything but their own organism.

*see Codex Alimentarius below
http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp

Answer this question please, NetRunner: When is the last time you tasted a "real" tomato?

Posting polls and opinions?? That's akin to urging sensible people to believe everything they read or see on television.

>> ^Jaace:
Okay, but who would REALLY want to live forever? I mean, wouldn't that get kinda boring? .


Reminds me of the game "Lost Odyssey".
The game on the whole doesn't do a whole lot to convey the message of living forever, but every once in a while, you get a story unlock, and it really gives you a sense of more...sadness.

Being unable to age and die, and still see the world around you, families, friends, colleagues, everyone really, live their lives until they run out, and starting over again.. That really would be a hell on earth to me. I couldn't stand having to repeat a cycle over and over, knowing how it's going to end every time.

"Okay, but who would REALLY want to live forever?"

You're welcome to opt out of medical treatments in 50 years that would expand your life span. Don't let the door hit you on the way out

>> ^Jaace:
Okay, but who would REALLY want to live forever? I mean, wouldn't that get kinda boring? Plus, the overpopulation problem. Obviously that's not what they were actually after, but they made it sound like it at some points. I feel bad for her.


I'd prefer the option of not dying if I don't want to. There's always going to be a way to end your life, however well your body resists aging. As for this girl, it'll be interesting to see if she really doesn't age - that is to say, her DNA doesn't decay as she grows older, her joints heal themselves, the nervous system doesn't degenerate... I kind of doubt that's the case, she just isn't growing like people usually do.

>> ^Jaace:
Okay, but who would REALLY want to live forever? I mean, wouldn't that get kinda boring?

It would only get boring if technology never moved past where it is today (assuming you're healthy). Besides, extreme longevity isn't the same as immortality.


>> ^andybesy:
Are aging and growing the same thing?


No. At early ages people grow as they age, but that is different than the myriad of degenerative diseases referred to as the "aging process" later in life. Assuming she lives that long, it will be interesting to see how she fares in her later years.

I definitely want to live forever, I wouldn't care if sterility was a consequence of that.


"Okay, but who would REALLY want to live forever? I mean, wouldn't that get kinda boring? Plus, the overpopulation problem. Obviously that's not what they were actually after, but they made it sound like it at some points. I feel bad for her."

Okay, but who would REALLY want to live forever? I mean, wouldn't that get kinda boring? Plus, the overpopulation problem. Obviously that's not what they were actually after, but they made it sound like it at some points. I feel bad for her.