Quote:

r3x29yz4a said:
either you misunderstood the ninja analogy or you think god would lose a fight with me and need you to defend him.



The ninja?

Quote:

okay, then did the Pope condemn slavery outright in the 1700's when it was perverted from the initial practice?



I dunno. Europe didn't have segregated slavery back then. I'm not even sure if it Italy had slaves at all.

Quote:

so you're making up stuff to fill in gaps in the bible, thus admitting that there are huge gaps there which means the bible isn't perfect?



So what you're saying is: You don't find it insanely convenient that God told Moses to outlaw sex between family members at the time when anymore such unions would be detrimental to offspring?

Quote:

again, how does it hurt you that two gay guys are fucking, Mr. Transvestite porn.



Sodomy has proven, in the past, to be not only detrimental to the individual body, but also cause a spread of mutative diseases (gonorreah, UTI, hepatitis, damaged bowels). Furthermore, sodomy was the reason for the past AIDs outbreaks in America being so swift and brutal. With straight sex, there's actually more of a chance that you won't catch it--Although, that doesn't mean straight people with AIDs should have sex. In the end, it's not just "two gay guys", it's a large precentage of a society feeling justified in participating in a known detrimental and unhealthy act simply because "two gay guys" can do it.

Quote:

Quote:

First of all, Jerusalem is not considered by anyone to be the cradle of civilization.


which invalidates your point about judeo-christians being the foundation of morality.
the cradle of civilization, laws, the first human philosophy of ethics and values came from the Greeks.
A non-christian society that was tolerant of gays.



Actually, you said that part. Jerusalem being considered cradle of society was you. I forgot to take it out.

Quote:

And the Romans adapted it later and used it successfully long before they were Christian.



Upon further inspection you're correct, but I fail to see how you can equate democracy to "moral" or "ethical" with such snap judgement. One could argue the fact that a democracy carries scenarios of an over-abundance of ignorant people who, in the end, wouldn't know what's best for them when they vote for whoever. In which case, it would be detrimental to society.

"Giving everyone a voice" is all good and fine and technically ethical to a degree. However, in the context of democracy, it's not truly moral. No political system can be called "moral". The only chance of any government system being referred to in the same sentence with "morality" would be in relation to the administrator of the current system.

Quote:

A. It wasn't your God, it was Zeus. Your argument has been based on Judeo-Christian being the foundation of morals.
B. That doesn't prove there is a god, just that they believed in one.



My point wasn't to show that it was my God. My point was that Socrates and Plato, two of the first founders of logic, had come to the conclusion that there is a creator. The fact that you were trying to rub their use of logic in my face and label it as a juxtaposition to Christianity, a mono-theistic religion, simply had me laughing.

Quote:

Hasn't your whole point been about morals, not ethics. Morals are eternal concepts that go to the core of every person based upon compassion and empathy (not based on god, but based on a common understanding).
Ethics shift from culture to culture.



Yeah. That's exactly what I said. Thus you made my point for me. Socrates and Plato's ideals were ground in ethics and not morals.

Quote:

Just because he had creation views, doesn't mean it was your god doing the creating in his stories.



I never said it was. I simply said you don't know history. At all.

Quote:

The point I was making was that he discussed morals and values and WAS NOT Judeo-Christian.
You had argued that morality came from the foundation set down by Judeo-christian religions.



And I'm correct in that notion, since the philosophers of Greece didn't actually come up with "values and morals" but rather the use of ethics within society.

Quote:

you're getting into semantics.
I think because you know your argument is running out of steam.
You see I have facts to support me, not one little old book and a pocket full of faith.



No. You're trying to divert from the fact that there's a clear distinction between "morals" and "ethics".

Quote:

I don't hate christians. please stop saying that, its annoying.
what I hate is organized religion and the members of said religions who think they are literally holier than thou (or thee or hell, me).



Sure r3x, suuuurrre.

Quote:

you do realize that you quoted me saying "yes" and then typed this. I've forgotten the original thing you said that I was saying yes to.



Then look it up. Don't make excuses simply because you're running out of last minute arguments. I also included the context within the argument, so there's even less reason for you to complain.

Quote:

Slavery was a somewhat humane and governed practice until we (yes WE, Americans) needed more slaves to cultivate all the new American tobacco crops than indentured servitude could provide.



This isn't true. While it would have been more logical to keep the indentured servants healthy, there was a good amount of beatings from the masters. Slave ownership in the 17-1800s is more comparable to past slave-owning societies than you'd care to admit.

Quote:

have you ever taken a history class?
did you read what I typed before?
I didn't say all slavery, I said slavery in the 1700's and beyond was vastly more cruel than any before it.



r3x previously said:
It was only in christian countries where slavery became about imprisoning an entire race for life based on them not being "god's people."

No. Slavery in America wasn't the most cruel there is, nor was it Christian-based. Was it used by Christians? Yes. But it wasn't root of Christianity.

Quote:

You can prove a city was there. You can prove it fell. Show me the proof that a horn caused it to fall.



The cause of it falling was "mysterious". No one can figure out how such a well reinforced barrier fell and scattered the debris flat. If it was somehow blasted into or broken through, the bricks would have been fragmented, yet they weren't. More than that it wasn't somehow propelled to fall over by some force since the black to scatter far enough away.

It's seemingly unbelievable that Josue and his troops could have brought down that wall on their somehow and had its pieces remain intact. There is, however, one account that tells how....

We know it happened, we know it would have been impossible for him to do it on his own, and we know of the how by an eye-witness describing what happened. That's just short of witnessing the happening yourself. Would you believe it if the story was in the NY Times?

Quote:

You can prove evidence of a massive flood.
Show me the evidence of one man building a massive ark to contain every species on earth (even ones not indigenious to his homeland) and enough of his family to repopulate the earth.



It's true that Noe's tale falls shorter of full proof than Jericho in that we don't have the ark. However, I think we'll find it soon enough. It's been discovered and lost over and over during the past century, I have hope it'll turn up again. However, attributed to the argument of Noe is the fact that the flood was a reality and yet there's still land roaming animals on the planet as well as humans. Back then, the only way they could have survived was with a massive boat...

Quote:

Quote:

Sodom and Gommorah = Proven


I've never heard any proof of it existing, but lets say you can prove the city existed.



Go to page one and read over my post addressing MagicJay.

Quote:

And lets say you can prove it was destroyed suddenly.


Show me proof that two angels caused brumstone to rain down and destroy it.



The angels came to warn Lot. God was the one that rained fire on the cities. The brimstone, raw petrol components, was already proven to by the cause of their destruction. There was also a salt deposit at a certain spot outside of the cities (Lot's wife turned to salt when she looked back at the cities). I can't actually prove that God did these things. But one would be foolish not to find it insanely convenient. In all of the desert, fiery destruction raining from the sky decided to hit the two cities of Sodom and Gommorah and nothing else. And then there's a life-size pillar of salt at an isolated spot outside of these cities...

Quote:

because I was raised christian and I remember there being no witnesses to the actual ressurrection.



There were many witnesses to his death. And trust me, He was dead. The Romans knew how to kill people. After three days, He showed Himself to the apostles and a large open crowd. Forty days later, there's also witnessed an ascension into the sky.


I find it very hard to believe that someone claiming to be this logical can be so stubborn. You have everything short of being there yourself.

Quote:

it seems like your whole argument is based on this anger because I don't believe the same thing you do. you've accepted the bible as truth, as the word of god. I haven't.
why get so bent out of shape?
if you look at what I'm saying and what your saying, my words are peppered with light hearted banter and you seem to be losing your mind here.
just calm the fuck down and look at it this way:
if i'm right then who knows what happens after death. if you're right, then i go to hell.

in the end this debate won't change the course of religion. and if you believe so strongly in your faith nothing i say should shake your belief. however your anger does come off as a bit too defensive.



I’m not bent out of shape. Just pointing out the satire here; you’re ignorant. More than that, I’ll take this as a concession on your part that modern secularity has accepted the Bible as historically correct and people simply don’t want to admit it off hand.

Quote:

but you said its accepted by most of the people of the world. there are about 2 billion christians out there, leaving 4 billion non-christians. that means 2/3 of the world don't believe fully in christianity.
just because you think their reasons for not believing in the bible are wrong doesn't change the fact that they don't believe in it.



My point was not that they believe in it, but rather they have take it under consideration due to the Bible’s authenticity.

Quote:

then how did Noah build?



He had a full century and half head start to build and finish the arc. More than that, he was given specific instructions on what to build it out of. Even if others had created boats, they wouldn’t have known to create them out of “Gopher Wood”, which was a type of cypress that’s incredibly sturdy and holds well against water.

Quote:

but this was a world wide flood, right? were there no fishing villages anywhere? no places where someone knew how to build a boat to save even just their family?



Civilization was still localized in one place at that time.
Quote:

no one in the whole "world wide" flood could make a decent boat, but simple Noah gets a crash course in boat building and suddenly builds a boat capable of holding millions of creatures.



Precisely. And Noah was not simple

There prolly were many transients, who wandered more of the globe, but there’s nothing that says they were good at building boats—More than that, the specific design of the ark was a roof shelter specifically designed to repel water making its way onto/into the boat. If there were other boats, the ark was unlike any other water faring craft ever built at that time.

Quote:

A. matters of opinion don't count in terms of being corrected (anti-bush posts)



This isn’t about Bush. This about your assertions regarding history—Especially history regarding religion. Half the shit you said was wrong and the other half was half truth. Even when you tried to teach people a lesson in Greek prefixes for fuck’s sake!

Quote:

B. I stand by my posts, Poopy Pants. I grew up on the history channel and PBS and read whenever I get the chance. When I'm online, I'm glued to sites like wikipedia for the constant new information I can gain.



Yeah, it…It really shows……Yeah…………………Yeah.

Quote:

You're some fuck who holds the bible in one hand and transvestite porn in the other (that's a sin, right) and then preaches to me like you're some great guru.



“Preaches” to you? I’m trying to correct you on the policies and past policies of a religion you’re trying to interpret and are failing to do so. Not once have I ever tried to convert you.

Quote:

No offense to Rob. But I don't really think of these boards as anything but casual conversation. This whole thread is just a fun little debate when I'm bored.



Riiiiight.

Quote:

I never said it was about slavery, just that it turned a blind eye to it.



The Vatican? In the 1700s? I haven’t heard of it.

Quote:

I'm a whore now? please explain the logic behind that. or is this one of those times where you don't have logic, just faith in my being a whore?



You’re selling your intellect (whatever resembles it anyway) to its use. You’re using ad hominem to confuse the issue like so many of the civil rights storm troopers.

Quote:

wait. clarify that.
you think the terrorists deny their doctrine or that the peaceful muslims deny their doctrine?



Strawman. You know what I meant. If I’m referring to non-terrorists, as is what I made clear, then it means I’m not referring to terrorists. The peaceful Muslims who don’t agree with the Jihad simply don’t agree with their doctrine.

Quote:

have you ever known a muslim?



Yes. Foreign exchange student.

Quote:

they will describe daily life as a "jihad" to maintain purity. A struggle to maintain the strict diet and teetotaler standards, and to maintain their cycle of daily prayers.
In their religion they must pray for a certain length at different times throughout the day.
That is a jihad.



That is patently inaccurate. Muslims shy away from the use of the word “Jihad” because they know of its past uses and religious implications. “Jihad” doesn’t have a consistently metaphorical context, as you assert. In which case, they use the more standard wording for illustrating life as being a struggle. By all intents and purposes they simply use the word “battle”, or, I should say, their word for “battle”, to describe a work day or something: “Mowing the lawn's a “battle”.”

Quote:

If a foreign army invades their land, they are required to fight them and defend their home and family and religion.



And by the consistent views and mannerisms of Islamic history, going on raids and terrorism is its legitimate use. The reason they didn’t bother the Jews was because they weren’t over-shadowing their religion and raking in converts, in which case, they would have slaughtered them. And that, again, has always been considered proper etiquette. Right now, Westerners, non-Muslims, are occupying their land and perverting its holiness. In which case, a “jihad” (terrorist attack) is totally appropriate.

Quote:

The terrorist Jihad is a perversion on one hand and an interpretation of our actions as an invasion.



There’s no indicator of this being true.

Quote:

if you don't trust me, then look it up. That's what I do with your "facts."
go to the library or save time and check out wikipedia.org (a damn good site by the way).



You’re the one who made the assertions, it’s your job to back it up.

Quote:

And Muslims in America are living in a land that violates some of their purity standards. But the "jihad" of that is to abstain from beer at a ballgame, to keep their diet free of pork and whatnot at restaurants.
to schedule in their prayer ritual.



Again, you’re lip-service, but I’ve seen things to the contrary and you’ve failed to back it up.

Quote:

I think he had his reasons, I think we (the CIA) put the gun in his hands.
I'll never agree with the murder of any person for revenge purposes or misguided senses of justice.

I think the money and influence he used for 9/11 would've worked out better by building political and public support for his views. He could've waged a public campaign to discredit Bush and his cronies that would've had him coming out looking better and his enemy looking worse (same with every terrorist act, violence begets violence).



You don’t agree with him, but there’s nothing here that says you object to it or would feel any anger towards it. Meaning, you think this is a legitimate war.

Quote:

I do not believe a civilized country invades another on what if theories.
I do not believe intelligent leaders invade a country they do not intend to conquer without an exit strategy.



I don’t know what the hell this is supposed to mean.

Quote:

I believe people will fight for their homeland when it is threatened or invaded.



Their homeland has inhabitants other than themselves. Their festering their fellow countrymen’s wounds and making them suffer without cause. If you really think there’s no need for violence, even whilst you justify their actions, then the smartest way to get American troops out of Iraq would be to use political science and diplomacy.

Quote:

Bush and his people are squarely to blame for the current deaths in Iraq. Due to piss poor planning and a focus on oil money over human life.



Right. The game of shifting blame. Rather despicable if you ask me. Whatever your (lies) reasoning for saying Bush was wrong to go into this war, the fact of the matter is that these insurgents are the ones who are continuing the death. The war’s long over but they still feel the need to kill needlessly.

Quote:

see above.
I ask again, do you know anyone of the Islamic faith or are you basing this information on some "analysis of Islam" you read on Anne Coulter's website?



My knowledge is first hand. I wonder though, what has Ann Coulter said on the subject that was wrong—According to you.

Quote:

tomato tomatoe



No “tomato tomatoe” about it. Asking someone to convert isn’t the same as forcefully converting.

Quote:

how can something that's 100% accurate be open for interpretation?



Wizen up. Something can be 100% percent accurate in its own context yet still be interpreted differently from different sides of the equation.

Quote:

you never went to a museum as a child?
they're kind of fun, you should try one out.



Considering you didn’t offer a link, I’ll take this to mean that you have none.

Quote:

I outright refuse to believe any religion that says you're condemned simply for not believing.



A person’s not forsaken for simply “not believing”, they’re condemned for being ignorant. If they have the knowledge of understanding God within their grasp and dismiss it as fantasy or some shit rather than actually looking it over and forming an honest opinion before you cast it aside, that’s foolishness.

Quote:

And argue that point all you want but you know as well as I that a person isn't "saved" by being good, they're "saved" by believing in christ.



Wrong.

Quote:

i also find it ridiculous that the christians don't even use a correct image or pronunciation of their saviors name.
they use an english translation of a greek word, and a white washed middle ages redesign.



What does it matter!? Simply because the pronunciation is off and we’re going on historical probability rather than confirmable fact that He was white, that doesn’t dispel the fact that we refer to Him.

Quote:

explain your definition of the word "saved."



Heaven.

Quote:

created from dust and a rib? then why was it so hard to map the human genome?




I’m not sure whether or not the rib was metaphorical, but I do know that dust is an assorted mass and variety of particles that are found in our physiology, but merely greater amass.

Quote:

I'll ask again. Outside of the Bible/Torrah where are the records of the Judeo-Christian god in other cultures?



Again, God used the Middle East and Europe as His catalyst for spreading His Word after humans had broken up into different groups and cultures.

Quote:

If its the one true god then it should be referenced elsewhere.



Explain this reasoning. Simply because He’s the “one true God”, that doesn’t mean He showed himself to everyone.

Quote:

how about all those bones they found in Africa.
or the artifacts in china that predate many western civilizations.



I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but I’m gonna need a specific reference so I can address it properly.

Quote:

wouldn't it matter to the people who weren't saved and went to hell?



God gave us rudimentary instincts for a reason. Whilst people outside of the religious circles had no true concept of morals or ethics, they did have an idea of what it means to hurt others and be apathetic. In which case, to be proponent of such actions would prolly warrant hell. But they still retained ability to use basic logic, meaning they’re not precisely exempt from judgment due to every humans understanding of empathy amongst one another.

They may or may not go to hell, but they don’t all go to hell.

Quote:

and why have christ be born then? if god was smart he'd have christ be born today so all the miracles could be televised.



Two reasons that have been figured for the date of Christ’s birth:

One: Using his presence as a baseline. Even today, we say “before Christ”.

Two: Faith is a test that we should find our self. We shouldn’t have to be dazzled by constant bouts of tricks simply to be convinced of His divinity. “Do not test the Lord our God”.

Quote:

did he wear a swastika on his arm as Jews were put in ovens?



Are you judging a kid for being scarred?

Quote:

alive only millions of years ago was sighted alive during the time of Noah.


I'm a big believer in cryptozoology.

Quote:

and we've already proven that it was a very non-judeo christian culture that first had discussions of value systems and morality.



Not morality. Ethics.

Quote:

someone above posted Hitler's various pro-Christian remarks.



Which were used purely as propaganda. Hitler wasn’t Christian.

Quote:

and Hitler's anti-semetic views were picked up by the culture he came from.


Quote:

Quote:

Pau Pot was raised secular. I guess that means secularity inspires mass genocide.


yes. yes it does.



I guess this means you concede the point.

Quote:

r3x29yz4a said:
were they Judeo-Christian? because thats the point I was countering Pariah on.



No. You weren't. Your entire statement was:

"Jerusalem is not considered the Cradle of Civilization."

The use of "Jerusalem" was misplaced, however the context is very clear--Which had nothing to do with religion.

Quote:

And Greece is also known as the "Cradle of Western Civilization." At least its more popularly known as that.



Popularity doesn't dictate fact.