thanks for the response my friend.
you need to realize something,for it will save you a huge amount of time.
i am already aware of your theosophy so you dont have to reiterate every time we converse.
more practical that way.

Sure, always a pleasure my friend. I didn't get notification of your reply, otherwise I would have replied to this sooner. If I am reiterating anything it is to respond to bold claims and assertions about Jesus or the word of God that you're making.

I understand that in your eyes you have dissected the scripture for its "true" meaning, and that in comparison, you think I am rubbing two sticks together. Before I became a Christian and had gnostic beliefs, that is the way I approached scripture as well. I am not ignorant to your point of view, or your methodology. What I am trying to tell you is that by searching for the "true" meaning you have lost the true meaning.

i knew you would have a strong disagreement with not only my take on sin but how i dealt with those in a crisis of faith.
was to be expected. please remember that condensing 40 years down in to a few paragraphs much will be lost. so the answer would be:
no hell (not the version given by the church)
nor satan (again,not the version given by the church)
but i do not teach that salvation is a solo job.christ was the way and the light.
the path has been lit we need but to follow.
love and forgiveness are the first step towards that goal.

John 10:1

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber.

The first step is to submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. What we need foremost is Gods love and forgiveness; that is how we are validated as human beings. This is the reason I am disagreeing with you, because you are distorting what Jesus said. You're teaching people to make up their own gospel, and thus, their own Jesus. This is what is called idolatry. You're teaching people to make Jesus into a false idol. Don't like the idea of eternal punishment? No problem! Jesus didn't really mean that..He loves you and accepts you just the way you are. Don't like the idea of Satan? No problem! Evil is just a state of mind..you don't really have an enemy trying to destroy you. God would never allow that, He loves you!

What you're doing is divesting Jesus and His word of its authority and teaching people to be a judge over scripture. Instead of conforming to Gods standards, you're teaching people to make God conform to their standards, and showing them how they can justify it. It's wrong, and you're doing them more harm than good, because what you're teaching them is in fact in opposition to everything Jesus taught us to do.

i dont really understand your disagreement with my internalization/externalization example

because then you turn around and kind of make my point and even back up MY perspective.
that was interesting.

I disagree because it is all the work of the Holy Spirit. No, it is not what I happen to call the Holy Spirit and you call something else. I am talking about the literal Spirit of God, who has a mind and is God Himself. I am talking about the Spirit who searches the deep things of God, and leads into all truth. It isn't a metaphor I am using. This is where we're disagreeing. The Holy Spirit is the one who transforms us into the image of Christ, and apart from the Spirit we are chasing our own tails.

You say the Holy Trinity = body mind spirit. This is the problem with gnosticism, that it makes all sorts of connections that aren't really there. By making these kinds of associations you are actually divesting it of its true meaning. The Holy Trinity is God, there is nothing to compare God to, or associate God with. God is God and no one and nothing is like God. The equation isn't body mind and spirit in any case, it is body soul and spirit.

http://bible.org/seriespage/man-trinity-spirit-soul-body

nor do i understand your reticence to being called a baptist.it is what most closely aligns to your theosophy.sometimes we need labels to help us relate.thats why i use gnostic.
ah well.not a big point really..was just curious.

They are closer to what I believe than other denominations but what they believe doesn't represent what I believe. That's why I reject the label. I am simply a follower of the Way, a disciple of Jesus Christ.

i was thinking of a long line of questions but feel they not express the revelation i desire.
so.let me ask you this ONE question:
did god create us so he could be worshiped?

God created us to be in relationship with Him, which includes love, worship, fellowship, and service. He didn't create us because He needed anything, He created us out of the abundance of His goodness.

Let me ask you a question. Do you feel God isn't worthy of worshipped, or that He doesn't want to be worshipped?

This is something people bring up, that they don't feel they should have to worship God. My position is, if you don't feel like worshipping God then you clearly don't know Him. He is worthy of all honor, all praise, and all glory.

i have to admit being a bit tickled by some of your responses.they actually fit quite well from a gnostic perspective.i know you didnt mean them that way..hence me getting the giggles.
so i agree in spirit.we ARE all ONE.
this is why i end many of my letters with:namaste
what a great word.

2 Corinthians 6:14

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

We are one when we are joined together in Christ. The body of Christ is the unity that God has set apart for Himself, separate from the world. We are all made in the image of God, true, but the spirit apart from Christ is dead in its sins and is incapable of pleasing God. The family of God is made up of adopted sons and daughters, and outside of that, there is no fellowship or unity.

OH.almost forgot (because "someone" keeps using bullet form responses)
when it comes to the bible the only thing i really give any authority to is the ministry of jesus.
the old testament is the old covenant and lets be honest.god is kind of a huge dick in that book.jesus made it irrelevant.and i have read all the gospels i could get my hands on,researched the meanings,the mistranslation,other theologians hypothesis and came to two conclusions:
1.jesus was most certainly here.
2.the bible is an incomplete text,fascinating as it may be.(boring to most though,but im a dork).

It might have skipped your attention but Jesus verified the Old Testament as the truth. He verified Genesis, Noah, Jonah, and many other things. It most certainly is not irrelevent for that reason, and for the reason that it is the prophecies in the Old Testament that predict the coming of Christ, prophecies which Jesus literally fulfilled. You can read the entire OT as being a type of the Messiah to come:

http://videosift.com/video/True-and-Better

However you might see the actions of God, He was dealing with a stubborn and evil people, who defied Him at every turn. Remember when He brought Moses up on the mountain? What is the first thing the israelites did? They made a golden calf and worshipped it saying "here is the god who brought us out of egypt." This was after God had done all of these mighty miracles before them. If anything, God was way too lenient.

I'm glad we can at least agree that Jesus was here. So let me ask you two 1/2 questions:

1: why don't you think Jesus is literally God (not someone who attained it, but is the literal creator of this reality)?
1a: was He raised from the dead, and if yes, by whom and for what purpose?
2: why is the bible "incomplete"? What do you think is missing?

ps:great book for ya right here.
http://frimmin.com/books/cosmicchrist.php

I've actually seen and read similiar books to these. They attempt to turn Christianity into a universalist enlightenment religion. The 12 steps to being as God is. It is to believe everything in general without believing anything in particular. It is the same thing the serpent said to Eve:

"ye shall be as gods"

Saying, we have to become as Christ to fix the Earth. That isn't what Jesus taught. He taught us that we are servants serving in His house, and that He has been given all authority under Heaven and Earth. He said in very plain language that He is the judge of the living and the dead, and that He is going to return to this fallen world and establish His Kingdom.

There is only one Jesus Christ, and we're not it. Why do you ignore the scripture that talks about His Lordship over Heaven and Earth but then embrace everything else?

and look up christ conciousness.
thats where my general theosophy lays.

It is indeed true that we need to have the mind of Christ, but again we can't do that without the Spirit of Christ. I think it is a noble pursuit to want to be like Jesus, but you can't do that by just emulating Him. You need His Spirit, the one that raised Him from the dead. We don't get the Spirit of Christ unless we are born again and confess Jesus as Lord. It is all a work of God, and apart from Him we can do nothing.

Galatians 5:22-23

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

I hope you don't see my reply as being too harsh, because I am stating the truth of what I believe, just as you are. If you have taken any offense, please accept my apology. I don't compromise on truth, and I am only meeting you with it at the places where you have drawn the lines. Take care my friend.

>> ^enoch

>> ^marbles:

Don’t Blame Capitalism for Wall Street’s Corruption and Lawlessness:
When Mahatma Gandhi was asked what he thought about Western civilization, he answered:
I think it would be a good idea.
I feel the same way about free market capitalism.
It would be a good idea, but it is not what we have now. Instead, we have either socialism, fascism or a type of looting.
If people want to criticize capitalism and propose an alternative, that is fine . . . but only if they understand what free market capitalism is and acknowledge that America has not practiced free market capitalism for some time.


think you'll find that it's the move towards a more free market that made things worse, from deregulation in the 70's onwards. governments and presidents Preached about the reduction of big government, and letting the market do what it wants.
Granted, its never strictly speaking been, a free market, because you still had government taxing (though as Wolff has pointed out in the video, shifting the burden completely away from business, and therefore, the market) but what you can say is this:

history now tells us that the more free the market, the worse things become....what makes you think having a 100% free market would make things perfect?
It would be total anarchy. The wealth divide would become incomprehensible.

It's all there, in history. The proof to end all these arguments is there, because it's already happened. Regulation, after the great depression, immediately improved things for America, taxing the wealthy, using that money to put in infrastructure that made america a superpower.
Deregulate everything, and watch the western worlds decline (for the majority).
That is what happened, you cannot argue a situation that actually happened.

All you need is a government that isn't corrupt, that doesn't pander to the free market and peoples desires to win elections, but instead holds certain ideas to be true. The death of idealism was supposed to make individuals free, instead it produced a new kind of control that made things a lot worse for the majority of people.
I believe science will ultimately find out the definition of 'human flourishing' and therefore create a new idea of what is actually best for a society.

Don’t Blame Capitalism for Wall Street’s Corruption and Lawlessness:

When Mahatma Gandhi was asked what he thought about Western civilization, he answered:

I think it would be a good idea.

I feel the same way about free market capitalism.

It would be a good idea, but it is not what we have now. Instead, we have either socialism, fascism or a type of looting.

If people want to criticize capitalism and propose an alternative, that is fine . . . but only if they understand what free market capitalism is and acknowledge that America has not practiced free market capitalism for some time.

...

People pointing to the Western economies and saying that capitalism doesn’t work is as incorrect as pointing to Stalin’s murder of millions of innocent people and blaming it on socialism. Without the government’s creation of the too big to fail banks, Fed’s intervention in interest rates and the markets, government-created moral hazard emboldening casino-style speculation, corruption of government officials, creation of a system of government-sponsored rating agencies which had at its core a model of bribery, and other government-induced distortions of the free market, things wouldn’t have gotten nearly as bad.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Let's take a deep breath and take it down a notch. @quantumushroom that is a borderline racist comment, please refrain. @GenjiKilpatrick I sense your frustration but that's an inappropriate way to respond and an ad hom, so please refrain. This an official warning. Thanks.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Yeah QuantumDickface, since her surname is Sanchez she obviously unloads the van full of pregnant undocumented immigrants at every polling station in Orange County in order to rig every election she's run for.
So @dag, if I heard from an anonymous source that @quantumushroom is clearly a racist & moronic meatbag filled to the brim with human feces..
..it's not technically breaking the AD HOM rule since it's only hearsay, right?
>> ^quantumushroom:
The biggest obstacle to job creation is the obama regime itself. No sane business is going to produce anything when there's no demand from consumers and this lawless excuse of a government stands ready to seize all the profits.

Sanchez - proof that Mexican illegals vote in American elections.

Yeah QuantumDickface, since her surname is Sanchez she obviously unloads the van full of pregnant undocumented immigrants at every polling station in Orange County in order to rig every election she's run for.

So @dag, if I heard from an anonymous source that @quantumushroom is clearly a racist & moronic meatbag filled to the brim with human feces..

..it's not technically breaking the AD HOM rule since it's only hearsay, right?

>> ^quantumushroom:

The biggest obstacle to job creation is the obama regime itself. No sane business is going to produce anything when there's no demand from consumers and this lawless excuse of a government stands ready to seize all the profits.

Sanchez - proof that Mexican illegals vote in American elections.

The biggest obstacle to job creation is the obama regime itself. No sane business is going to produce anything when there's no demand from consumers and this lawless excuse of a government stands ready to seize all the profits.



Sanchez - proof that Mexican illegals vote in American elections.

Actually, he stated that the Bush figure was also over the same length of time: "how many did George Bush, I wonder, propose in the same time period in his first term?"

>> ^quantumushroom:

It's never explained if Bush's 643 is over 8 years versus 613 for Odumbo's 3.5 years. We all know who spent more tax money (and uselessly).
Bush was a liberal (bailouts/scamulus) except on foreign policy. He spent like an amateur liberal, rubber-stamping everything that slipped onto his desk. We'll never know what he'd have done had there been no muslim attacks.
Really, how long is the left going to keep defending this inflamed appendix of a fraudsident? The Kenyawaiian's gift to all of us is a complete disregard for the Constitution. We are sitting out the reign of this dangerous, clueless and corrupt regime, then hopefully it's back to business.


I want you to know posts like this are not calculated to offend. Rs aren't much better right now, but I am genuinely scared shirtless for this country with the current regime of lawless clowns at the helm.

What the heck does spending tax money have to do with this?

Obama is utterly disregarding the Constitution? I'd assume you loved Reagan. Show me one thing Obama did that violates the Constitution more than the Iran-Contra Affair under Reagan.

>> ^quantumushroom:

It's never explained if Bush's 643 is over 8 years versus 613 for Odumbo's 3.5 years. We all know who spent more tax money (and uselessly).
Bush was a liberal (bailouts/scamulus) except on foreign policy. He spent like an amateur liberal, rubber-stamping everything that slipped onto his desk. We'll never know what he'd have done had there been no muslim attacks.
Really, how long is the left going to keep defending this inflamed appendix of a fraudsident? The Kenyawaiian's gift to all of us is a complete disregard for the Constitution. We are sitting out the reign of this dangerous, clueless and corrupt regime, then hopefully it's back to business.


I want you to know posts like this are not calculated to offend. Rs aren't much better right now, but I am genuinely scared shirtless for this country with the current regime of lawless clowns at the helm.

It's never explained if Bush's 643 is over 8 years versus 613 for Odumbo's 3.5 years. We all know who spent more tax money (and uselessly).

Bush was a liberal (bailouts/scamulus) except on foreign policy. He spent like an amateur liberal, rubber-stamping everything that slipped onto his desk. We'll never know what he'd have done had there been no muslim attacks.

Really, how long is the left going to keep defending this inflamed appendix of a fraudsident? The Kenyawaiian's gift to all of us is a complete disregard for the Constitution. We are sitting out the reign of this dangerous, clueless and corrupt regime, then hopefully it's back to business.



I want you to know posts like this are not calculated to offend. Rs aren't much better right now, but I am genuinely scared shirtless for this country with the current regime of lawless clowns at the helm.

>> ^SDGundamX:

@NetRunner
@bcglorf
I think it might be useful to look at the case of Jose Padilla. Remember him? Accused of plotting a radiological bomb attack in the U.S., later classified by Bush as an enemy combatant, later again return to the criminal court system (and subsequently convicted of conspiring to engage in terrorist activity).
The most important and relevant part of that case is that the courts decided that, although Bush had the presidential authority to name any American citizen an "enemy combatant," the American enemy combatant also had the right to challenge that status in court. In other words, although the AUMF grants the President wide powers in determining who is associated with the attacks on 9/11 (or future attacks), those powers don't trump the Constitution.
As far as I can tell in this case, al-Awlaki was never given the chance to challenge his status in court. He was not killed on a battlefield during combat (which would have been a legal killing)--he was quite clearly assassinated by his own government and without due process.
BUT, as @NetRunner point out, in the current judicial climate, if this were ever to make it before the courts (it never will), it is a crap shoot as to which way the cards will fall on the issue. The courts seem to be leaning more towards strengthening Presidential authority than weakening it, in particular when it comes to the area of National Security.
EDIT: Originally typed "civil court" when I meant "criminal court."


I think all of us that don't outright oppose the death here are ALL agreed a court hearing and prosecution would have been infinitely preferable. We are saying the reality is that was NEVER going to happen, ever. In that reality, what do you do about a man supporting the murder of people from the safety of a lawless region of a country where anyone even suspected of sympathizing with our idea of law and order would be killed?

As was pointed out up thread, if you oppose this, propose an alternative?

Presumably not killing him, no? That means owning and accepting that he can act from Yemen's fringes with impunity trying to murder innocent civilians abroad, and the right course of action for us is not to act, even though we have the ability to stop him with a drone attack. Own that and we at least have a disagreement on the principles and not the fundamental facts and nature of the problem.

>> ^aurens:

I suspect you realize that your post is wildly speculative. I'd rather not spend too long on this, but I'll humor you and point out a few of the fallacies in your imaginative dystopia. In general, though, you seem to be confusing small government and a lack of regulation for lawless amorality. In any event, here we go:

1. "As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce."
If you think antitrust laws are an undying force of good, read this. (Also, don't confuse free-market capitalism with corporatism.)

2. "People can get fired on a whim without regulations."
Too absurd to even address.

3. "People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies)."
You're right. Government subsidies on food have been enormously successful in the United States.

4. "Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded."
Read pages three and four (or the whole thing, for that matter): http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.



Of course the post is highly speculative: It says that RP gets elected. I thought this would be obvious.

1. The question would be: What would happen if Antitrust-laws exist no more at all, not: Are Anti-trust laws at the moment used fairly?


2. Either you adress it or you don't. It is not absurd. Tell me why it would be.


3. Again, the inferred question is not: Does it work now?; the question at hand is: What would happen if the farm subsidies in a first-world-country would fall away? Would farming become too unprofittable and only be used for subsistence; importing cheaper food from outside the US? Or would it become profittable again by increasing the price of food immensely, cutting heavily into the income of poorer people?


4. That text says on the first page (paraphrased): "46 million USAsians have no health insurance: Not a problem: 40 percent of those are young, 20% are wealthy." Yes, fuck the poor and the young, they don't need health insurance. Give me a serious unbiased text on this, and I'll read it. I really will. But to dismiss at least 40% of the uninsured right out of hand is highly irresponisble and assholish.

I suspect you realize that your post is wildly speculative. I'd rather not spend too long on this, but I'll humor you and point out a few of the fallacies in your imaginative dystopia. In general, though, you seem to be confusing small government and a lack of regulation for lawless amorality. In any event, here we go:


1. "As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce."

If you think antitrust laws are an undying force of good, read this. (Also, don't confuse free-market capitalism with corporatism.)


2. "People can get fired on a whim without regulations."

Too absurd to even address.


3. "People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies)."

You're right. Government subsidies on food have been enormously successful in the United States.


4. "Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded."

Read pages three and four (or the whole thing, for that matter): http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Was the Kenyawaiian's golf game disturbed by the sound of a Gibson guitar? That's all the excuse these lawless eco-thugs need these days.


To paraphrase Judge Dredd, "They are ... the law".

Seriously though, good woods for quality guitars are becoming increasingly rare and valuable so this is no light matter. The good resonating woods come from old-growth forests in high altitudes and as such are ripe for exploitation in developing nations. However, as this is likely to be done on the blackmarket in these nations they are just as likely to be harvested in an unsustainable way thereby cutting future guitar making off at the knees. So proper regulation would make sense unless you are the type that thinks "Oh, Indian tigers are almost endangered now. I'd better go get me one before they become extinct".

Was the Kenyawaiian's golf game disturbed by the sound of a Gibson guitar? That's all the excuse these lawless eco-thugs need these days.

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.