Feed on Posts or Comments 01 October 2014

Christianity Thomas on 27 Oct 2012 12:44 am

The insanity of religion – forcing their beliefs upon others

Every intelligent, rational person understands that God is imaginary – God is as imaginary as Rudolf the red nose reindeer or Jack’s beanstalk. And yet, here in the most powerful nation on earth, we still include “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Now there is a new challenge to this long-standing practice:

Massachusetts Supreme Court Will Hear Case to Stop Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in Public Schools

This one is so simple to understand. If the Pledge was changed to say “under Allah”, the Christians would all be howling with rage. They would instantly understand the problem that intelligent people have with being forced to say “under God”.

This situation demonstrates one of the big problems with religion: Religious people want to force their bizarre, delusional beliefs upon everyone else. Why do they feel this compulsive need?

195 Responses to “The insanity of religion – forcing their beliefs upon others”

  1. on 27 Oct 2012 at 10:43 pm 1.Asher said …

    OK, two questions for Thomas.

    1. Who forces anyone to say those words? One can remains silent.

    2. What religion is being forced on others with “under God”? To be true to the Constitution, What law is being enforced to establish a religion?

    More tax dollars being wasted on atheist stupidity. We need a law stopping atheist stupidity so we can focus of jobs, deficit reduction and human suffering.

  2. on 27 Oct 2012 at 11:01 pm 2.Anonymous said …

    Does the puppet master ever actually read the posts and follow the links? Probably not considering that he’s going to post his strawman arguments anyway. Anything to divert the conversation away from their irrational beliefs, so it seems.

    “Asher”, how about you answer the question posed in the blog post?

  3. on 28 Oct 2012 at 12:26 am 3.alex said …

    “Religious people want to force their bizarre, delusional beliefs upon everyone else. Why do they feel this compulsive need?”

    deep down, they know it’s bullshit. they have to continuously remind themselves that it’s not. what better way to do this than constantly harass folk. if somebody complains about the bullshit pledge, or the bullshit on the coin, it reminds them about the reality and finality of death, and they can’t handle it.

    plus it’s convenient. you can be a racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and a dumbass and say it’s all in the bible. everybody else is a liberal atheist.

  4. on 28 Oct 2012 at 1:18 am 4.The messenger said …

    Catholics and Hebrews do not force their religion on anyone, we only present it to people and hope that they realize God’s teachings are true and that they should believe in God.

    We do not force our religion on anyone.

  5. on 28 Oct 2012 at 11:10 pm 5.TheJesusFreak said …

    @alex
    Deep down, I consider the Bible to be nothing less than pure and absolute truth. And yes I agree, Christians often tend to use the Bible for their own selfish means which is sad really. Fact of the matter, all that stuff isn’t actually in the Bible, in any sort of conclusive way. I would ask you to not look at Christians as role models or examples, and instead look at Christ as such.

  6. on 29 Oct 2012 at 2:29 am 6.The messenger said …

    5.TheJesusFreak well said my friend.

  7. on 01 Nov 2012 at 3:32 am 7.inbtwn said …

    Atheism’s goal is to ridicule God and ppl who believe in Him. Atheists r on their mission to spread a satanic gospel. Should we listen them when they show their earthling view on their simple and plain “interface” of life? I think atheists can shut the hell up and leave religious ppl alone. There definitely is not a single good reason, why they must try to prove God doesn’t exist. Atheists r lonely and sad ppl, who afraid of the moment of death, bcs death means “total nothing” after they r gone.

  8. on 01 Nov 2012 at 8:31 am 8.tony said …

    Inbtwn, what part of atheist don’t you understand? Spreading a satanic gospel, you moron? We don’t believe in your man made religion, including satan. Every other week I am harrassed on my doorstep by creepy people who believe in magic. You know immediately what they are trying to sell because of the dazed look they all have.

  9. on 01 Nov 2012 at 1:08 pm 9.Anonymous said …

    Inbtwn, you are confused and misinformed. Atheists are not “trying” to prove that (your) good doesn’t exist. One of the things we are pointing out, is that it is YOUR responsibility to prove that your god exists. The fact is, though, that you can’t prove it. Why? Because your god is imaginary. Rather obvious really.

    As for the rest of your immature screed. Yeah, whatever. Projection at its finest.

  10. on 01 Nov 2012 at 4:06 pm 10.Lou(DFW) said …

    5.TheJesusFreak said …

    “I would ask you to not look at Christians as role models or examples, and instead look at Christ as such.”

    Xtians are real, and they are real examples of xtianity.

    Jesus is not real.

  11. on 01 Nov 2012 at 4:08 pm 11.Lou(DFW) said …

    7.inbtwn said …

    “Atheism’s goal is to ridicule God and ppl who believe in Him.”

    The goal of atheists, not “atheism,” is to prevent theist nuts such as yourself from foisting your delusion upon us.

  12. on 01 Nov 2012 at 4:10 pm 12.Lou(DFW) said …

    1.Asshole said …

    “More tax dollars being wasted on atheist stupidity.”

    Liar – show us.

  13. on 01 Nov 2012 at 4:12 pm 13.Lou(DFW) said …

    1.Asher said …

    “OK, two questions for Thomas.
    1. Who forces anyone to say those words? One can remains silent.”

    Show us where Thomas made such a claim.

    “2. What religion is being forced on others with “under God”?

    Duh! All religions that believe in “God.”

  14. on 01 Nov 2012 at 7:36 pm 14.The messenger said …

    on 28 Oct 2012 at 1:18 am 4.The messenger said …
    Catholics and Hebrews do not force their religion on anyone, we only present it to people and hope that they realize God’s teachings are true and that they should believe in God.
    We do not force our religion on anyone.

  15. on 08 Nov 2012 at 6:00 am 15.SmartGirl said …

    The love of God can’t be taught, it must be caught! Lighten up and pray…you never know when God is going to do a work in your life! I certainly didn’t know it was coming in my own when it did! He works in miraculous ways, and I never understood Him until He met me halfway :) There are people of faith who push their faith on you, and then there are people of faith who just love you…those are the people God is using to touch people’s lives!

  16. on 08 Nov 2012 at 6:03 am 16.SmartGirl said …

    Our nation was founded on faith in God. We are a Christian nation, and I can guarantee you that in a Muslim world they would not alter their beliefs or daily rituals to suit others… Why in America are we not allowed to stand up for what we believe?

  17. on 08 Nov 2012 at 1:09 pm 17.Lou(DFW) said …

    16.SmartGirl said …

    “Our nation was founded on faith in God. We are a Christian nation”

    It’s not, but let’s assume that it. So what?

    “Why in America are we not allowed to stand up for what we believe?”

    You are, moron. What do you think you’re doing now?

  18. on 08 Nov 2012 at 2:07 pm 18.Lou(DFW) said …

    16.SmartGirl said …

    “Our nation was founded on faith in God. We are a Christian nation”

    You are either sadly informed or a liar. Please show us in the Constitution or in the Declaration Of Independence even one mention of Jesus or xtianity.

    If you can’t, then tell us if you are simply misinformed or a liar. Which is it?

  19. on 09 Nov 2012 at 7:15 am 19.none said …

    poor poor athiest to say there is nothing higher than yourself then you yourself are declaring you are god. you state that goddosnt exist with 100% conviction you therefore are declaring you are all knowing and all seeing so i have one question if you are a god then when will your mom or loved one die you should know this seeing how you are all knowing. also i amnot christian or mainstream religion i believe in something higer than myself until one of your kind can stand up and tell us all you are god and know everything on live tv then ill believe you are right but that day will never comefor your people

  20. on 09 Nov 2012 at 11:30 am 20.Lou(DFW) said …

    19.none said …

    “also i amnot christian or mainstream religion i believe in something higer than myself”

    Who gives a shit what you believe? We only care about the evidence you have for this “higher” being. Where is it?

  21. on 09 Nov 2012 at 1:03 pm 21.Anonymous said …

    “also i amnot christian or mainstream religion i believe in something higer than myself”

    Like someone who can use punctuation and capital letters perhaps?

  22. on 24 Dec 2012 at 2:35 pm 22.greg said …

    I DO AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THE HEINOUS ATROCITIES THAT HAPPENED. I AM TOTALLY APPALLED BY THESE TYPE OF THINGS. I AM 100% AGAINST ANY TYPE OF AGGRESSION , POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS OR ANY OTHER. BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RELIGION NOW.

  23. on 24 Dec 2012 at 2:35 pm 23.Severin said …

    26 RC
    “If not. You are liar.”
    “Nobody remembers the Inquisitions they were 1000 yrs ago.”

    The last auto-da-fé took place in 1826 in Valencia. About 35,000 people were burned in Spain from 1481 to 1808.
    1000 years ago? Who did you say was a liar?

    Those people burning other people alive TODAY are RELIGIOUS people, not atheists:

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0aa_1319664670

    “Nobody remembers the Inquisitions they were 1000 yrs ago. We do remember the gulags, Mao and Red China.”
    EVERYBODY remembers that.
    Yet, none of these crimes, including Hitler’s crimes (who declared himself a Christian) was done in name of atheism, even not Hitler’s ones, to be honest.
    Those crimes were done in name of criminal ideology.

    It is interesting how theists always forget that there were almost absolutely no atheists in those countries (Russia, Germany, China, …) in times when “atheist regimes” took power!

    How did those regimes get power?
    In one case (Hitler), Christian nation (not atheist, because there were NO ateists to “overvote” Christians!) VOTED for him in legal elections!
    In other cases (Stalin, Mao), deluded Christian masses (or other highly riligious people, in case of China), supported revolutions by thier lives, and DIED for them to bring them to power.

    RELIGIOUS MASSES brought “atheist regimes” to power, one way or another. So called “atheists” were such an extreme minority in their countries, at that time, that thay could only brake winds and dissapear if they didn’t have support from religious masses.
    Yes, they were criminals, but poor, uneducated and deluded Christians did not recognize the fact before it was too late!

    That much about lying and about “atheist crimes”.

  24. on 24 Dec 2012 at 2:44 pm 24.greg said …

    ONCE YOU TELL ME YOU DON’T WANT SOMETHING I’M TRYING TO PERSUADE YOU TO ACCEPT I WILL NEVER DO IT AGAIN, NEVER!!!!! PERSUADE: TO CAUSE TO DO OR BELIEVE BY MEANS OF REASONING, ARGUMENT, OR ENTREATY.

  25. on 24 Dec 2012 at 2:52 pm 25.Severin said …

    Miracle! God exists!

    I’ve just C/P a few words from a post from some RC (see #23) as the base for my comment, and when I clicked “Submit comment”, it (post from RC, under #26) dissapeared.

    What are those people from WWGHA doing? Playing god?

  26. on 24 Dec 2012 at 5:37 pm 26.Lou(DFW) said …

    24.greg said …

    “ONCE YOU TELL ME YOU DON’T WANT SOMETHING I’M TRYING TO PERSUADE YOU TO ACCEPT I WILL NEVER DO IT AGAIN, NEVER!!!!! PERSUADE: TO CAUSE TO DO OR BELIEVE BY MEANS OF REASONING, ARGUMENT, OR ENTREATY.”

    If there was evidence for your imaginary god, then you wouldn’t have to persuade anybody of his existence. Your reasoning, argument, or entreaty is irrelevant.

  27. on 25 Dec 2012 at 12:23 am 27.greg said …

    VERY TRUE, THANK YOU.

  28. on 25 Mar 2013 at 11:02 pm 28.jessie said …

    we live in a mexican Trailer park in Alvin Texas called pine colony and if your not a christian ,your harassed to death. Day and night to the point that you want to pull your hair out.If that pile of shit jesus was real , I would like to go back in time and make sure that son of a bitch wasnt born. So vast were the military and logistical resources ordered to be deployed to this “Great Inquisition” from Rome from 1939 to 1945 that it played a major part to the eventual downfall of the Nazi Third Reich. The effort to efficiently sacrifice the largest number of non-Catholics in 24 x 7 purpose-built ovens [24 hours a day, 7 days a week] was a massive logistical effort- not the least of which required the complete genealogy analysis of most of Europe.

    If not for the genius of fledgling American technology companies such as Innovative Business Machines, who created the first computers for the task of confirming who were to be saved and who were to be slaughtered, if not for the hundreds of millions of dollars in research by pharmacetical companies into advance nerve agents to render people unconscious in “gas” chambers for easy transport to the ovens, then the plan would have been impossible.

    But most of all, if not for the willing and complicit support by Allied leaders not to interfere with the Vatican project, the Nazis managed to kill more innocent people by fire in 1944 and 1945 than all the other years combined

  29. on 26 Mar 2013 at 1:03 am 29.alex said …

    28.jessie said …

    what in the fuck are you talking about? my simple mind cannot understand your shit.

    i’ve been so busy battling the twin fuckheads, s0l & mess, that my comprehension abilities have been compromised. try again?

  30. on 25 Aug 2014 at 11:13 am 30.JONATHAN said …

    TO BEGIN WITH, PREACHING IS NEVER FORCING SOMEONE TO COME TO YOUR RELIGION. IT IS SIMPLE A WAY OF SELLING WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN. GOD HAD HEALED ALL FORMS OF DISEASES AND HE IS STILL DOING IT.
    FOR YOUR INFORMATION, THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF AMERICA WERE THE ONES WHO PUT THE PHRASE “IN GOD WE TRUST” BECAUSE GOD IS THE ONE WHO HELPED THEM TO MAKE AMERICA A REALITY. I AM AFRAID THAT YOU ARE A GENERATION THAT SEEK TO REMOVE THE “ANCIENT LAND MARK” PLACED BY YOUR PREDECESSOR. GOD IS THE REASON WHY EVERY HUMAN EXIST INCLUDING THE ATHEISTS. BUT IF YOU SAY THERE IS NOT GOD THEN WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF CERTAIN THINGS? IF YOU HAVE NO CREATOR THEN YOU MUST HAVE CREATED YOURSELF AND WILL FEAR NO ONE CAUSE IF YOU ARE DESTROYED YOU CAN RECREATE YOURSELF AGAIN! BUT YOU ARE AFRAID OF DEATH BECAUSE YOU HAVE ONLY ONE LIFE GIVEN TO YOU WHICH YOU MUST GUARD.
    WHERE EVER YOU ARE NOW, YOU ARE LIVING BECAUSE GOD PUTS THE LIFE IN YOU AND HE CAN TAKE IT AT ANYTIME. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT YOU WOULD HAVE FALLEN DEATH BECAUSE THERE WAS INSTANT JUDGMENT FROM GOD TO THOSE WHO TREATED GOD WITH CONTEMPT. BUT NOW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, GOD CHOSE TO RESERVE ALL REBELLION AGAINST HIM UNTIL A TIME APPOINTED FOR JUDGMENT.
    YOU CAN REPENT AND BE FORGIVEN NOW.

  31. on 25 Aug 2014 at 11:15 am 31.alex said …

    “PREACHING IS NEVER FORCING SOMEONE TO COME TO YOUR RELIGION.”

    then bow your head to the great “ambi”, ya bitch motherfucker. preach that.

  32. on 25 Aug 2014 at 2:07 pm 32.TruthNProof said …

    I have knocked you atheists a lot in the past as I believe in the creator, the God, the absolute, the prime mover.

    But I have been knocked by religions in the world left right and centre for my maverick ways.

    Lately the Pope Francis called Ideological Christianity a sickness.

    I am realising this to be true.

    It is a bit of circular logic but there must be a non contingent fact or reality on which all other facts stand.

    The bible the Koran and other scriptural books can deepen the open mind.

    But to accept them word for word and on face value is to play into the hands of someone who was just having a laugh.

    Can you imagine the Jews are in the middle east killing and oppressing every day because a book said that a plot of land belonged to them.

    If we give them the land what are they going to demand next. That the heathen be given into their hands for them to break them into pieces. Move over supreme court, move over UN a book says the land is ours a book says we can break the Arabs in pieces a book says that the other nations have to bring their strength into our land. We don’t need to work for it and our nation is blessed above theirs and they are basically inferior to us

    That is major league bull shit.

    Who says that Hitler did not have a sense of effective activity?

    Give the jews the land they are going to sit and their fat asses and demand from the other nations every blessing a book written by a group of creative writers and poets who were having a laugh wrote.

  33. on 25 Aug 2014 at 2:12 pm 33.TruthNProof said …

    What do you guys have to say to that?

    Both Athiest and Christians.

  34. on 25 Aug 2014 at 2:15 pm 34.TruthNProof said …

    And my God, my Absolute, my Prime Mover, My Creator is your God,Absolute, Prime Mover and Creator it doesn’t matter if you are atheist. We are all in this thing together..

    We need to be wise though.

    I was a big bible basher for what it is worth.

    But I have to admit that I am agnostic, I simply don’t know for sure that God exist.

    But only a fool goes to war with out his weapons and to work with out his tools.

    And so I keep an open mind for the prexistent, and realise that life might be an amoral affair and that God may not necessarily be prejudiced against any of us regardless of what we know or believe.

  35. on 25 Aug 2014 at 2:25 pm 35.alex said …

    34.TruthNProof said …

    bleh, motherfucking bleh.

    bow your head and acknowledge “Ambi”, your Ambivalent god.

    moron.

  36. on 25 Aug 2014 at 2:29 pm 36.TruthNProof said …

    What we know we know what we don’t know we don’t know.

    I am more an open minded labourer than a believer.

    I don’t know if God exist and I don’t believe I ever will.

    But I say God for want of a better word.

    And if you think thing, Yahweh, Allah, or Zeus or Rah because I say God my apologies.

    What I mean is there must be a beginning if we have a continuation…

  37. on 25 Aug 2014 at 2:33 pm 37.TruthNProof said …

    If you have a slice of cheese you must have a chunk of cheese to take that slice from. Vegan Cheese though.

    But Yahweh may be fictionary, imaginary I don’t care, Zeus may be fictional imaginary I don’t care.

    It’s all there we just need to be wise as open minded labourers.

    Living in a church for 17 odd years (literally) did not wipe my open mindedness and make me a believer.

    That fact could make me a hero for agnostics or athiest.

    But I am an open minded labourer not a believer either way.

  38. on 25 Aug 2014 at 3:18 pm 38.alex said …

    “If you have a slice of cheese you must have a chunk of cheese to take that slice from.”

    If you have a slice of creator you must have a chunk of creator to take that slice from.

    moron. bow before “Ambi”, the ambivalent god.

  39. on 25 Aug 2014 at 3:23 pm 39.TruthNProof said …

    :)

    Well that depends if you want to talk in terms of slices or not.

  40. on 25 Aug 2014 at 3:33 pm 40.Anannymust said …

    Not every religious way seeks war, or rule, or the proving of a point.

    Some religious orders seek peace, and extinguishing, the realisation that there is no point, a giving up.

  41. on 25 Aug 2014 at 3:43 pm 41.Anannymust said …

    When we see the magnitude of the universe and of its creator if there then was a creator. Why won’t we give up?

    What point is there to prove?

    Can we affect so grand a universe?

    Can we affect so grand a creator?

    Does it matter if we live or die?

    IT WOULDN’T BE US THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT IT WOULD BE THE UNIVERSE.

    IT WOULDN’T BE US THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT IT WOULD BE THE CREATOR.

    IT WOULDN’T MATTER IF WE LIVE; ONCE THE CREATOR LIVES FOR EVER – WE LIVE THROUGH THE FACT THAT HE LIVES.

    THERE IS NO POINT.

    REALLY!!!!!!!

  42. on 25 Aug 2014 at 3:44 pm 42.Anannymust said …

    …….Not trying to affect your faith

    …you do your thing…

    …but mannn!!!!!!!

  43. on 25 Aug 2014 at 5:43 pm 43.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “If we give them the land what are they going to demand next”

    Um, Annany the Jews were also given that land after WWII legally. IT IS THEIRS. All they want is to keep what belongs to them……sort of like the US wants to keep Texas.

    You sound a little like an anti-Semite.

    Those in the middle always end up falling for everyrhing

  44. on 25 Aug 2014 at 8:06 pm 44.Anonymous said …

    The Jews are a bunch of fat, lazy, deceitful, greedy, thieving, bigoted, self-serving sorcerers.

    And those who fall under their spell are a bunch of Jack-asses.

  45. on 25 Aug 2014 at 10:13 pm 45.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    F&M a hateful bigot or better described antisemite. Are any of us surprised by atheist hate spurred by insecurity and low self-esteem? No, not at all.

    They are all formed in the mold of s Communist-Nazi worldview. It cannot be hid very long and is only paralleled by the hate of Muslims. Just two peas on a pod.

    I thought atheists did not believe in sorcery and spells?
    lol!!!!!!!!!!

  46. on 28 Aug 2014 at 11:54 am 46.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    This is a childish blog,

  47. on 28 Aug 2014 at 5:34 pm 47.Anonymous said …

    The fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom.

    That means foolish is the body that does not respect its head or brain.

    Your hand may belong to the same body as your brain but your brain can decide to push your hand into a pot of boiling water or fire and your hand would be powerless to stop it.

    God is the source, the prime mover, the origin, the creator, the head, the leader, the ruler, the beginning, the oversight, the decider of destiny.

    That is all.

    It doesn’t matter if you call him Allah, God, Jesus, Rah, Putah, Brhama etc.

    There was a beginning of the creation of God it is your guess as well as mine who that was exactly but we know how to condition our hearts so that in the evil day and in the day of judgement we will not be found wanting.

    I find jesus life to be excellent preparation for this does not mean that I care if jesus is actually god. It means if you let jesus into your life God becomes favour towards you rather than a combination.

    There was no greater open example of Agape love given in the scriptures.

  48. on 28 Aug 2014 at 5:34 pm 48.Anonymous said …

    It means if you let jesus into your life God becomes favour towards you rather than a condemnation sorry.

  49. on 28 Aug 2014 at 5:46 pm 49.Anonymous said …

    I don’t believe that God necessarily wants to make him self known to man nor do I believe that the scriptures available to man are scriptures that will point to him directly or that he would have wanted this.

    What I know is that there was once one.

    One person.

    Then there became One person and One thing then One Person and some things.

    Then there became One person, some things and another person and by this the creation of God began and continued.

    The Universe we see has undoubtely been created not accidentally made.

    Yet it is possible that you can have an awesome accident if the source of that accident is a totally rich sourse.

    Think the vial of the chief wizard falls breaks on the ground and because it was full of spells it creates an intelligent alien race.

    An accident but a superior being and a lucrative prime movement

    I don’t need to know that the creator was jesus, allah, yaweh, bramah

    It probably wasn’t any of them…

    …but Jesus said I have not spoken to you except in a parable.

    The unintelligent make no use of parables

    The fool makes no use of salvation

  50. on 28 Aug 2014 at 5:54 pm 50.Anonymous said …

    I am also quite comfortable with the idea of infinite regress as well.

    The bible teaches that Our High Priest goings forth were from everlasting.

    Yet the infinite regress does not seek to find the original thing.

    But teaches that God is best know through understanding the spirit of origination or through the spirit of eternal giving.

  51. on 28 Aug 2014 at 6:48 pm 51.alex said …

    “It doesn’t matter if you call him Allah, God, Jesus, Rah, Putah, Brhama etc.”

    then it doesn’t matter if you call him “Ambi”, the ambivalent god that acts like he doesn’t exist, yes?

  52. on 28 Aug 2014 at 7:06 pm 52.Anonymous said …

    God is interested in the heart. Have you ever heard of the Master that left a servant who was getting married soon $1,000,000 to build a house in the best quality and design that he could.

    The servant took the opportunity to construct the house in a very cheap way and pocketed the rest of the million pounds.

    Later the master congratulated the servant on his return and take the keys young man the house is yours.

    The young man was immediately sorrow full because he had botched the job which turned out to be his wedding gift.

    Each of us needs to search and to make sure that we are doing a good job with the talents that the creator places in us.

    We are not serving god for his sake god doesn’t need us.

    We were given our lives as a mercy and salvation benifits us more than it benefits god.

    God knows if you are serious or making a mockery etc.

  53. on 28 Aug 2014 at 7:14 pm 53.alex said …

    52.Anonymous said …

    blathering testimonial, pontificating. is that all you got?

    Ambi doesn’t give a fuck about you. now go lead a good life and shut the fuck up.

  54. on 28 Aug 2014 at 7:19 pm 54.Anonymous said …

    No some one made us. we may not know what he thinks of us but we know that our lives are in his hands.

    No one is good who does not offer the sacrifice of praise worship and devotion to their creator in the best way they can.

  55. on 28 Aug 2014 at 7:28 pm 55.alex said …

    “No some one made us.”

    fine. “Ambi” made us. This bullshit claim is just as valid as yours.

    “No one is good who does not offer the sacrifice of praise worship and devotion to their creator in the best way they can.”

    bullsheeyat.

  56. on 29 Aug 2014 at 6:49 am 56.Anonymous said …

    It is not the name that is important. I once had a vision of God’s name and it was not a 5 or 7 letter word.

    It was a word that had trillions of characters attached to it and it seemed as though it was a running name like another letter was attached every second.

    That is what I call a name.

    But the main thing is the condition of our hearts and I think Jesus’ ‘Agape Love Training School’ is best for that.

    Get your sins covered.

    As the great universe will uplift you if you are covered. But the great universe and the great god will be nothing but a condemnation for you if you are not covered.

    This is not religion this is common sense is there anything in the world that says that dangers and possibly eternal dangers don’t exist?

    Get Covered Mann!!!

  57. on 29 Aug 2014 at 11:24 am 57.alex said …

    “Get your sins covered.”

    in other words. a free pass. look we all try to do good, but i don’t need no theist card to redeem my bads, so go fuck yourself.

    “This is not religion this is common sense is there anything in the world that says that dangers and possibly eternal dangers don’t exist?”

    you’re a dumb motherfucker. you say common sense and then you follow it up with the nonsensical eternal danger? life isn’t enough for your ass? you have to have eternal? this is the source of all your bullshit. with the promise of eternal life, you make up all kinds of bullshit.

    you said you don’t need a name, but of course, this doesn’t stop your ass from blathering the jesus shit. you think you’re shit is original? read the motherfucking blog, you dumbass.

  58. on 29 Aug 2014 at 2:43 pm 58.Anonymous said …

    You have lost when you try to bad mouth me this is not about me.

    I am pushing on to where I need to be. Life is a mystery we all stand alone.

    You stand alone.

    If you were born once who is to say you can’t be born twice.

    If you live for 80 yrs in one life time there is nothing ruling out living for ever its not that hard really.

    Shame on us if we deny the age old wisdom and mess it up mess up our own destiny.

    Who cares about the fellow that doesn’t care I am seeking coverage I am heading on to where I need to be.

    It really isn’t funny it isn’t a joke it is as serious as eternal damnation really:(

  59. on 30 Aug 2014 at 6:45 am 59.Anonymous said …

    It is not surprising that some of my ideas are not new. I have visited this sight before but I always forget my previous names not sock-puppetting though.

    I guess I bow to ambi but in the name of Jesus.

    Yet God in the Bible is pretty secret to those who don’t know him.

    Romans 11:33

    O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God? How unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out?
    FOR WHO HATH KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD? OR WHO HATH BEEN HIS COUNSELLOR.

    Psalms 145:3 Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised; and his greatnesss is unsearchable.

    2Thessalonians 1 11-13 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, bretheren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth?

  60. on 30 Aug 2014 at 1:07 pm 60.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    Alex:

    But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

    Jesus iiisssssss the final settlement.

    Who are you? Are you God to tell us who we should worship?

    What chance do we have of making it with Ambi better than we have with Jesus?

    What chance do we have of making it with any God rather than with Jesus?

    If we are throwing our lives away following Jesus???????

    Then Let Us….

    On the penalty of sounding negative>>>

    For though there may be something else there is nothing more convicting nor is there anything better //(*_*)\\

  61. on 31 Aug 2014 at 2:19 pm 61.alex said …

    “What chance do we have of making it with Ambi better than we have with Jesus?”

    that’s why you’re a dumbfuck. didn’t you see where i said ambi acts like a nonexistant god? he doesn’t give two shits about you.

    but it all boils down to your fucked up testimonials doesn’t it? you xtian morons think you have this god given right to paste your shit everywhere? for every bible righteous shit you quote, i can post some fucked up shit right out of your book. hows about deuteronomy 25:11-12? if your wife saves your motherfucking ass by grabbing your attacker’s nuts, you must cut off her hands.

    you like that shit?

  62. on 01 Sep 2014 at 12:10 pm 62.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    Alex what a person doesn’t don’t know can kill them.

    Alex what YOU don’t know is making YOU look stupid.

  63. on 01 Sep 2014 at 11:01 pm 63.alex said …

    “Alex what a person doesn’t don’t know can kill them.”

    i don’t know how the stonehenge rocks got there. is it going to kill me? i don’t know the thousands of gods that motherfuckers like you stupidly worship. are all those gods going to kill me? did the saxon god put those rocks there?

    how are these things making me look stoopid? is it because you say so? what exactly do you bring to the table? another helping of the bullshit?

    you want me to publish your own personal bullshit collection? just like your heroes: messenger, tj, and hor? keep posting, bitch ass, motherfucker.

    i suspect you’re the dumbass messenger. this looks and smells like something the bitch would write: “doesn’t don’t know”.

  64. on 02 Sep 2014 at 1:00 am 64.TJ said …

    Alex said…

    “i can post some fucked up shit right out of your book. hows about deuteronomy 25:11-12? if your wife saves your motherfucking ass by grabbing your attacker’s nuts, you must cut off her hands.”

    Do you view deuteronomy 25:11-12 in a modern day context?

    Or in the context of which it is written?

    And yes it does matter. Context provides meaning and understanding of who things are written for and why.

  65. on 02 Sep 2014 at 1:14 am 65.alex said …

    “Context provides meaning and understanding of who things are written for and why.”

    in other words, motherfuckers like you, messenger and the rest, get to make up shit on how the fucked up bible is supposed to be interpreted?

    explains why you fuckers can’t agree whether the earth is supposed to be 10,000 years old, ain’t it?

    any xtians you know buying messenger’s rape shit?

    you ain’t got shit so go ahead with your self righteousness and post your testimonials like it means anything. sorto like muslims posting their nonsense ain’t it?

  66. on 04 Sep 2014 at 11:00 pm 66.TJ said …

    So Alex,

    You think this is bullshit?

    “Context provides meaning and understanding of who things are written for and why.”

    And explains…

    “explains why you fuckers can’t agree whether the earth is supposed to be 10,000 years old, ain’t it?”

    C’mon, really? You believe this? This is logic to you?

  67. on 04 Sep 2014 at 11:04 pm 67.TJ said …

    To Alex,

    If I asked you in what context would the US constitution hold any meaning for a Chinese peasant, how would your logic deal with that?

  68. on 05 Sep 2014 at 10:58 am 68.alex said …

    “If I asked you in what context…”

    that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. your homie posted some bible shit and when i posted from the same source, you tried to make up silly ass predictable context bullshit. chinese diversion dismissed, you asshole.

    go ahead the, you dumbass. context the fucking deuteronomy 25:11-12 and then explain why your translation is better than anybody else. maybe, you’re a messenger wannabe self appointed xtian spokesman?

    dumbass.

  69. on 05 Sep 2014 at 11:00 am 69.alex said …

    btw, that’s “joan rivers dead”. not joan rivers passed away or joan rivers is in a better place. unless of course you got some shit you wanna present?

  70. on 05 Sep 2014 at 11:51 am 70.alex said …

    “Context provides meaning and understanding of who things are written for and why.”

    you want further proof that bible context is bullsheet?

    “Lakewood Church co-pastor Victoria Osteen received backlash from the Christian community…”

    contextual bullshit is xtian double talk. period. dumbass motherfucker.

  71. on 05 Sep 2014 at 1:19 pm 71.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Yeah TJ don’t you know reading in context is just BS?

    lol!!!!!!

    Oh Alexander I love you buddy. You bring a smile whenever I take the time to read your comic strip.

  72. on 05 Sep 2014 at 1:45 pm 72.alex said …

    “Yeah TJ don’t you know reading in context is just bs”

    ironic ain’t it? i’m talking about translating the bible passage in some bullshit made up contexts and you run with it and blatantly lie and say that i’m saying that all “reading in context” is bs.

    of course, given your history, lying is your modus operandi. see: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    still smiling? run away bitch.

  73. on 05 Sep 2014 at 9:30 pm 73.DPK said …

    Hey TJ… no one is claiming things should not be taken in context, so here is your chance… explain to us in exactly what “context” the almighty and all merciful creator of the universe would command this:

    “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.” (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

    “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.” (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

    “However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.” (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

    Of course, I could go on and on and on and on… but you get the point. So show us the context in which slavery is ok. When you’re done making excuses for your god’s obvious love of slavery, we can tackle other things,like capital punishment for trivial offenses…
    “Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.” (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

    As Ricky Ricardo used to say, “You got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do……….”

  74. on 05 Sep 2014 at 9:34 pm 74.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “ironic ain’t it?”

    No, not at all. Irony is just another word you fail to recognize the meaning of, Alexander!

    lol!!!!

    I luv ya alexander. So cute.

  75. on 05 Sep 2014 at 11:47 pm 75.alex said …

    “Irony is just another word you fail to recognize the meaning of…”

    ok. i don’t know anything. you happy? guess what, ya bitch motherfucker. your forgetful, omnipotent, all knowing god is and always will be a contradictory bullshit. yes?

    oh look, the camaro, the dna programmer, the ape, the ocean, the TOE….http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  76. on 06 Sep 2014 at 11:38 am 76.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “ok. i don’t know anything. you happy?”

    Well, yes, quite happy, but that is not dependent on your self-deprivation Alexander. You are attempting a connection that just does not exist. ????

    But since you don’t know anything, we can disregard all past, present and future comments as the babblings of one who knows nothing?

    lol!!!!

  77. on 06 Sep 2014 at 12:34 pm 77.alex said …

    “But since you don’t know anything, we can disregard all past, present and future comments as the babblings of one who knows nothing?”

    sure thing, but i’ll do better. poof!, i’m hereby disregarded and even better, poof!, all atheists non-xtians are gone!

    guess what, ya bitch motherfucker? your xtian god is still bullshit and this cannot be disregarded. and all the whiny, stupid, bitch ass comments you’ve uttered cannot be disregarded.

    remember your “China is selling fetuses as a delicacy”?

    you posted as martin and then wrote “Martin,
    Good one!”

    and all the other bullshits you posted as science guy, biff, xenon, little ‘A’, Sweetness, boz, RL Wooten, ‘Everyone’…….can’t be disregarded.

    and no matter how much you pray to your bullshit god, you just can’t disregard your pile of shit: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    lol, indeed, ya bitch, motherfucker.

  78. on 06 Sep 2014 at 5:59 pm 78.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “sure thing”

    Great we agree! Your comments are disregarded. I can give you a link if you don’t know the meaning….:)

    I still love ya alexander! You are what every little boy hopes and dreams they can become. :)

    See ya buddy!

  79. on 06 Sep 2014 at 9:42 pm 79.alex said …

    “Your comments are disregarded.”

    how do you get others like tj, to disregard the bible bullshit? 10,000 year old earth, anyone? back to your wife grabbing your attacker’s nuts while defending your ass. do you cut off her hands, per deuteronomy 25:11-12? or do you just disregard that too? do you disregard messenger’s biblical interpretation that you don’t have to believe in god to go to heaven? do you believe messenger’s biblical interpretation about rapists marrying their victims? how do you disregard isis beheadings? snap your fingers? dumbass, motherfucker.

    disregard all you want, bitch motherfucker. your god bullshit smells and you can’t do anything about it. i told you before, you can get rid of all the atheists, but your god is still bullshit.

    “You are what every little boy hopes and dreams they can become.”

    sticks and stones, bitch motherfucker. you on the other hand, is the admitted, convicted, lying piece of shit that has been outted many times, posting as different assholes. the question is, what will you become next? in case you’ve forgotten who you are, here’s a reminder: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    did i say you’re a bitch motherfucker?

  80. on 08 Sep 2014 at 12:06 am 80.TJ said …

    If god is bullshit Alex, how do you explain where we come from, our origins?

    This is the original question I asked you. You claim I distract you… from what?

    How come you won’t answer?

    Are you afraid we will make fun of you?

  81. on 08 Sep 2014 at 1:01 am 81.TJ said …

    DPK said…

    “Hey TJ… no one is claiming things should not be taken in context, so here is your chance… explain to us in exactly what “context” the almighty and all merciful creator of the universe would command this:”

    Well for a start I don’t start from a point of view that God is imaginary. Nor do I trivially dismiss the claims of the bible or any other ancient text. I do not consider from a point of view that limits an omnipotent God from creating a situation were free will exists.

    I look at what we think we know about ancient BC civilisations. I realise how today many western cultures rules and laws are base on concepts like…

    - treat others as you would want to be treated
    - love thy neighbour
    - all men are equal
    ie. Christen values

    I look at how western cultures and non western cultures are often at odds with each other and how they contrast against one another. Arabic society vs American displays great contrast.

    I read through the bible with an expectation that it is to be interpreted literally… as any other ancient text regarded as scripture. Surly the writers believed what they wrote and expected their readers to as well.

    Do we say that ancient Hindu scripture, the Bible, Koran, Eastern, Egyptian, Greece, Aztec, Mayan or any other ancient writings were not believed by those cultures that wrote them?

    I do not say all ancient writings are true. Simply that those who wrote them believed them to be. As much as our current science books are believed to be accurate.

    In the Bible quotes you mention and even those that we don’t have room to list, because as you say there are many. If we put them up against our western cultural system for comparison, they seem quite bizarre.

    Today we value individualism and have many laws to protect the rights of individuals.

    If we look at what we believe to have been going on in the world prior to BC. We see nations enslaving each other, worship of many strange Gods, human sacrifice, prostitution based temple practices, sorcery, witchcraft, ancestor worship, seers and all sorts of other strange belief systems.

    Having come from this background and having been a people in bondage and as strangers in a strange land is it no wonder that God would need to separate his people from the world and re-educate them.

    God gives instruction on marital conduct, finance, battlefield hygiene, treatment of servants including those taking into bondage and almost every other aspect of life.

    If these God given instructions are compared to the practices of the nations that surrounded them, how would they compare.

    Remember that God claims to have chosen the Israelites not because they were the best or strongest, but because they were the among the most wretched. God claims to have chosen them to be his instrument of destruction against those nations he had judged to be blotted from existence for their sins.

    His instructions are part of his plan to clear a path for the messiah by raising the Israelite nation into a great and powerful nation.

    Alex points to deuteronomy 25:11-12.

    And yes it means what it says, that there is no just reason for a woman to destroy the reproductive ability of an Israelite male.

    God has a zero tolerance policy in regard to this. Consider that one of the few instructions given to Adam and Eve was to be “fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth”.

    Again when Noah steps off the ark he is again instructed to be “fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth”

    Gods will is that the Israelites become a great and powerful nation greatly multiplied in number and morals as representative of his glory. His instructions reflect this.

    The Bible also makes it clear that the Israelites struggle with the expectations of these instructions and consistently fall short.

  82. on 08 Sep 2014 at 11:51 am 82.alex said …

    “how do you explain where we come from, our origins?”

    that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. i already said many times, ya bitch motherfucker. i don’t know. you seem to know, so why don’t you prove it? how is your claim any better than the aborigines, the navajos, the muslims and the hindus?

  83. on 08 Sep 2014 at 2:46 pm 83.DPK said …

    “Well for a start I don’t start from a point of view that God is imaginary.”
    Neither do you start from the point of view of being open to the possibility either. Everything is colored for you by what you want to believe. But, you are unable to offer any actual evidence to suggest your god is actually real. But let’s assume, for the discussion, that he is.

    Nor do I trivially dismiss the claims of the bible or any other ancient text.”

    Neither do I. That is why the writings contained within them must be considered from the perspective of coming directly from the mind of an infinitely intelligent, eternal, perfect being.

    “I do not consider from a point of view that limits an omnipotent God from creating a situation were free will exists.”

    This is another topic, but let’s deal with it… again. This notion has been clearly and definitely shown, over and over again, to be impossible. You have not even attempted to explain how a god can be both omnipotent and omniscient, which is impossible, and how you can possibly reconcile that with the notion of free will. You refuse to answer the question posed, “If an omniscient god knows that tomorrow I will do X, is there any scenario that exists where I will not do X?”
    Your refusal to answer is very telling.
    Is “A” is the set of all possible events, and “B” is the subset of things a perfect omniscient god knows will occur, or have occurred, then “A – B” is the set of things that CANNOT occur. Since there exists a set of things that cannot occur, how can you say this god in omnipotent? There exists an entire set of things he cannot do without violating his own omniscience.

    “I read through the bible with an expectation that it is to be interpreted literally… as any other ancient text regarded as scripture. Surly the writers believed what they wrote and expected their readers to as well.”

    Then you must conclude that the will of god was for people to own other humans as property, sell their children as sex slaves, etc… it is pretty clearly outlined in the bible, no?

    “If these God given instructions are compared to the practices of the nations that surrounded them, how would they compare.”

    Why should it matter? If they are god given, they are perfect and according to the will of god. Are you saying that the often touted, but never produced “absolute code of morality” handed down to us from the infinitely loving and intelligent creator of the cosmos “depends” on where you live and what other people do? In other words, there is nothing “absolute” about it at all?

    “I do not say all ancient writings are true. Simply that those who wrote them believed them to be.”

    Make up your mind. Is the bible the word of god, or not? You seem to indicate it is, then seem to say perhaps it isn’t. How do we know which parts are true, and which parts are just the writings of ancient sheepherders?

    “If we put them up against our western cultural system for comparison, they seem quite bizarre.”

    If you look at them as historical documents reflecting the culture of the time, they do not seem bizarre, simply barbaric, ignorant, and primitive. If you look at them as the instructions of a perfect omniscient being, then yes, you are right, bizarre doesn’t even begin to describe it.

    “His instructions are part of his plan to clear a path for the messiah by raising the Israelite nation into a great and powerful nation…”

    Why would he need to endorse slavery, animal and human sacrifice, genocide, and all the other countless moral atrocities to do that? And how did that plan work out??

    “Gods will is that the Israelites become a great and powerful nation greatly multiplied in number and morals as representative of his glory. His instructions reflect this.”

    The fact that you can reconcile that in your mind is a true testament to how powerful your delusion affects your ability to reason clearly.

  84. on 08 Sep 2014 at 7:55 pm 84.DPK said …

    “80.TJ said …
    If god is bullshit Alex, how do you explain where we come from, our origins?”

    Not Alex, but this has been asked and answered many times.
    We don’t know… AND NEITHER DO YOU. Stop pretending like you know, or like any gap in human knowledge automatically defaults to “god did it.” It doesn’t.

    If you are gong to claim to know how life originated, you need to provide evidence to support your claim. Otherwise you are simply pretending you have knowledge you do not have. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly, but you still flog the dead horse.

  85. on 08 Sep 2014 at 11:04 pm 85.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Lets look at Dippitys claims for grins and giggles shall we?

    “Neither do you start from the point of view of being open to the possibility either.”

    Atheist here are not here to learn. Case closed. Pot meet kettle…lol!!!

    “You have not even attempted to explain how a god can be both omnipotent and omniscient”

    Quite simple really, a deity who can create a universe is certainly not limited as a human…lol!!!!
    You have free will and the deity knows your choice. Since the deity is the only one who knows future events, this is mo problem….:)

    “Then you must conclude that the will of god was for people to own other humans as property”

    what??? Lol!!!!!!! Another blunder from the Atheist school of theology. They cannot think past 20th century cultural context….lol!!!!

    “If they are god given, they are perfect and according to the will of god”

    Anyone know if Dippity realizes humans are not perfect? They cannot keep even human laws? Lol!!!!

    “If you look at them as historical documents reflecting the culture of the time, they do not seem bizarre, simply barbaric, ignorant, and primitive”

    Is Dippity referring to legalized abortion in our modern cuture or is he judging others???? Nothing better than an atheist, who admits to no moral absolutes, passing judgment on God!!

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I’ll just stop there! That’s is just too good!

  86. on 09 Sep 2014 at 2:32 am 86.alex said …

    “Quite simple really, a deity who can create a universe is certainly not limited as a human..”

    that’s why you’re a dumbass, motherfucker. you attached these mutually exclusive attributes to your god and when called out on it, you desperately blurt out that the same god is not limited to such. sound like a circle god with four corners?

    “You have free will and the deity knows your choice.”.

    this shit is unbelievable. your god knows you’re going to die and you pray? your god knows you’re going to hell and you’re still fucking with this blog? how’s that a choice, you dumb, motherfucker?

    did i say you’re a dumb motherfucker? you constantly whine about atheists wrongly interpreting the bible, but you sure have no problem with the dipshit messenger with his interpretations, do ya, you dumb motherfucker? and the other dipshit, tj, with with 10,000 year old earth, you don’t have a problem with that either, don’t ya?

    need more proof? see martin, hor, et all at: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  87. on 09 Sep 2014 at 2:47 am 87.alex said …

    for those that missed it. courtesy of the king dipshit, motherfucker hor, aka, martin, rl, etc.

    “You have free will and the deity knows your choice.”

  88. on 09 Sep 2014 at 11:08 am 88.freddies_dead said …

    85.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Lets look at Dippitys claims for grins and giggles shall we?

    Oh, this should be fun…

    “Neither do you start from the point of view of being open to the possibility either.”

    Atheist here are not here to learn.

    I note the lying prick offers no evidence for this baseless assertion. Despite repeated attempts from the atheists on this blog the theists still fail to bring any education to the table. For e.g. where is A’s argument demonstrating the existence of his God? All we’ve had is some half arsed claim of intelligent design followed by his inability to show how he can even discern design in the first place. How can we distinguish his God from something he may merely be imagining? He never lets on.

    Case closed. Pot meet kettle…lol!!!

    Translation: I have no way of proving my claim so I’ll attempt to end the conversation right here. Perhaps no-one will notice the complete lack of supporting content.

    “You have not even attempted to explain how a god can be both omnipotent and omniscient”

    Quite simple really, a deity who can create a universe is certainly not limited as a human…lol!!!!

    Of course A fails to show how his deity can overcome the inbuilt limitations provided by the competing attributes given to his God. Obviously the cognitive dissonance caused by thinking about it leads him to not think about it all.

    You have free will and the deity knows your choice. Since the deity is the only one who knows future events, this is mo problem….:)

    This is breathtakingly stupid, but it’s what we’ve come to expect from the lying prick. He consistently avoids answering the question: “If an omniscient god knows that tomorrow I will do X, is there any scenario that exists where I will not do X?” and simply re-asserts that his deity is omniscient and we have free will. If it truly was possible he’d answer that question instead of desperately dodging it.

    “Then you must conclude that the will of god was for people to own other humans as property”

    what??? Lol!!!!!!! Another blunder from the Atheist school of theology.

    Does the lying prick deny that the Bible offers instructions for owning slaves? Or has he simply failed to read his Bible? Maybe he has decided, like messy, that certain words mean only what he wants them to mean, so when the Bible talks of slaves it’s really describing something else?

    They cannot think past 20th century cultural context….lol!!!!

    So morality is dependent on cultural context now? What the Bible actually says, i.e. that you can own other humans, isn’t important? So much for the theistic claim of absolute morality.

    “If they are god given, they are perfect and according to the will of god”

    Anyone know if Dippity realizes humans are not perfect? They cannot keep even human laws? Lol!!!!

    A neglects to mention how the fallibility of humans excuses his God from condoning the immoral activity of owning other humans. If only we humans could have failed to keep that divine law a bit more, maybe so many millions wouldn’t have suffered under the yoke of slavery.

    “If you look at them as historical documents reflecting the culture of the time, they do not seem bizarre, simply barbaric, ignorant, and primitive”

    Is Dippity referring to legalized abortion in our modern cuture or is he judging others????

    I’m sure the lying prick knows very well that DPK was referring to the barbaric, ignorant and primitive morality espoused by the Bible. The condoning of slavery, genocide and the subjugation of women to the extent that they are even forced to marry their rapists or stoned to death for not shouting loudly enough when being raped.

    Nothing better than an atheist, who admits to no moral absolutes, passing judgment on God!!

    The hypocrisy here is brilliant. Earlier A chides DPK for ignoring “cultural context” when judging that the Bible’s view that slavery was perfectly OK is wrong. Now he attempts to chide A for his alleged failure to adhere to moral absolutes. Is it absolutely moral for someone to own someone else? Or does “cultural context” mean it was OK once but it’s not OK any more? Once again the lying prick resorts to Humpty Dumptyism in order to have moral absolutes that aren’t actually absolute never mind moral.

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I’ll just stop there! That’s is just too good!

    Oh please don’t, I’m loving watching the lying prick contradict himself at every turn.

  89. on 09 Sep 2014 at 4:05 pm 89.DPK said …

    “Atheist here are not here to learn. Case closed. Pot meet kettle…lol!!!”

    Nothing like making a broad generalization to make your point look ridiculous. TJ has said on several occasions that he will not consider any possibility that god is imaginary. I, on the other hand, and many others here, have repeatedly said we will believe if you give us evidence that your claims are true. So, once again, that make you a liar. No surprise there. Next.

    “Quite simple really, a deity who can create a universe is certainly not limited as a human…lol!!!!”

    So, you answer the the problem that if a god knows what will occur with certainty, then it cannot “not occur”, and the problem of god being unable to change anything he already knows will happen is “because he’s god.” 2nd grade logic. “My dad can do anything.” Not to worry, we expect no less. LOL!!!!!

    “Then you must conclude that the will of god was for people to own other humans as property”
    what??? Lol!!!!!!! Another blunder from the Atheist school of theology. They cannot think past 20th century cultural context….lol!!!!”

    So, are you going to explain how god’s instructions on how to enslave people, subjugate women, and all the rest is actually NOT his will because of the context in which it was given? No, didn’t think so. Glib comments do not make for much of an argument. LOL… perhaps TJ will give it a try though. He has to do better than you LOL!!!!

    “If you look at them as historical documents reflecting the culture of the time, they do not seem bizarre, simply barbaric, ignorant, and primitive”
    Is Dippity referring to legalized abortion in our modern cuture…”

    Actually, no he wasn’t.. but your attempt at throwing a rd herring into the net is duly noted and ridiculed. If you can’t actually respond to the argument, change the subject. LOL…. Hor, you are just so predictable and pathetic. … and oh yeah, once again LOL!!!!

    How about it TJ? A the prick has not only failed miserably to address the problems, but has made your position look even more ridiculous by asserting lies, straw men and red herrings, coupled with the circular logic of “god can do anything because god can do anything…” Care to take a crack at it?

  90. on 10 Sep 2014 at 12:17 am 90.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Dippity Dew!!

    OK, Lets break this down.

    “I, on the other hand, and many others here, have repeatedly said we will believe”

    Yeah? Obama claims he would cut our deficit in half as well….lol!!!! Words mean nothing Dippity. evidence is everywhere and abundant and your refusal to accept means you remain ignorant.

    I, on the other hand stated I would convert when given some good reasons. Still waiting…….

    “god being unable to change anything he already knows will happen is “because he’s god.”

    LOL!!! How did that come from God is not human and not limited as a human? So God knowing the future but giving man free will is more problematic for you than creating this universe? huh? lol!!!!!

    “explain how god’s instructions on how to enslave people, subjugate women, and all the rest is actually NOT his will”

    Couple of things to help you become educated. How do you define a slave? Second, where did God claim it is his will? Third, and most important…..assume God wants us all to be slaves…….tell us why it is wrong and make his existence unlikely……Good Luck! lol!!!!!!

    “Actually, no he wasn’t.. but your attempt at throwing a rd herring into the net”

    Dippity likes to use Red Herring in order not to be confronted with his hypocrisy. Dippity judges God but refuses to give us his guidelines for judging God. You know, God wants to enslave all humans…..

    Let see if he comes through with his criteria. This will be good!!

    Popcorn popping……..

  91. on 10 Sep 2014 at 10:46 am 91.alex said …

    “Obama claims he would cut our deficit…”

    back to your pathetic diversionary, eh? even though obama is a xtian and messenger is obviously a dumbfuck, you just have to keep bring up the potus, ya?

    that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. your god knew all atheists are going to hell and yet you insist on fucking with this blog, ya righteous ass. your perfect god is not, you dumbass. your all knowing god is incapable of handing out free will, you dumbshit. your good god is bad, you dumb motherfucker. the same bible you assholes wave about is the proof of all this.

    “I, on the other hand stated I would convert when given some good reasons.”

    bullshit. even if zeus showed up and shoved a thunderbolt up your ass, it still won’t be a good reason, so what would be a reason for you to convert?

    dumbass, motherfucker. oh, look, your pile of shit grows: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  92. on 10 Sep 2014 at 11:26 am 92.freddies_dead said …

    90.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Dippity Dew!!

    OK, Lets break this down.

    Oh goody, the lying prick has decided to make himself look stupid again…

    “I, on the other hand, and many others here, have repeatedly said we will believe”

    Yeah? Obama claims he would cut our deficit in half as well….lol!!!!

    So he starts with a nice fat red herring … class.

    Words mean nothing Dippity.

    Oh, the irony…

    evidence is everywhere and abundant and your refusal to accept means you remain ignorant.

    To what evidence is A referring to here? Despite repeated requests he’s singularly failed to offer any way we can distinguish his God from what he may be imagining. I’ve shown that his intelligent design argument is self defeating and the rest is just baseless assertions he has refused to give any argument for.

    I, on the other hand stated I would convert when given some good reasons. Still waiting…….

    Because showing how his God is logically impossible isn’t a good enough reason. Obviously “good reasons” mean something else in the lying prick’s world.

    “god being unable to change anything he already knows will happen is “because he’s god.”

    LOL!!! How did that come from God is not human and not limited as a human?

    DPK’s original statement was “You have not even attempted to explain how a god can be both omnipotent and omniscient” to which A responded “Quite simple really, a deity who can create a universe is certainly not limited as a human…lol!!!!”. I have to say that DPK is slightly off here. A hasn’t claimed that his God is ‘unable to change anything he already knows will happen … “because he’s god”‘. No, it’s better than that. A the lying prick has simply waved the problem away, i.e. he’s implying that his God is able to change anything he already knows will happen … because he’s God. He’s pretending that the omniscient/omnipotent problem simply doesn’t exist. Of course he doesn’t offer any reason as to how this might be so.

    So God knowing the future but giving man free will is more problematic for you than creating this universe? huh? lol!!!!!

    On the contrary, the problem here is all A’s, but he has no way to show how free will can exist given an omniscient deity so he attempts mockery instead. Of course the joke is all on him.

    “explain how god’s instructions on how to enslave people, subjugate women, and all the rest is actually NOT his will”

    Couple of things to help you become educated. How do you define a slave?

    Humpty Dumpty makes another appearance… It’s especially stupid as DPK has already stated that he sees the owning of other people – as if they were property – as slavery.

    Second, where did God claim it is his will?

    So the Bible isn’t the word of God now? It wasn’t divinely inspired? So the instructions on slavery etc.. weren’t written by people under the direction of God? It’s great how the Bible both is and isn’t absolute depending on how the believer wishes to cherry pick it.

    Third, and most important…..assume God wants us all to be slaves…….

    Of course A doesn’t say why we should assume this. In fact he’s the one arguing that God grants us free will. If God wanted slaves why would He even do that? It makes no sense, but then very little A says makes any sense so it’s something we’ve come to expect.

    tell us why it is wrong and make his existence unlikely……Good Luck! lol!!!!!!

    Of course we don’t need to show why slavery is wrong in order to demonstrate that God’s existence is unlikely, simple logic already does that. We also don’t need any luck.

    However, we can easily show why slavery is wrong – indeed other people have already done the legwork on this.

    From the BBC page on ethics and slavery:
    Slavery increases total human unhappiness.
    The slave-owner treats the slaves as the means to achieve the slave-owner’s ends, not as an end in themselves.
    Slavery exploits and degrades human beings.
    Slavery violates human rights: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly forbids slavery and many of the practices associated with slavery.
    Slavery uses force or the threat of force on other human beings.
    Slavery leaves a legacy of discrimination and disadvantage.
    Slavery is both the result and the fuel of racism, in that many cultures show clear racism in their choice of people to enslave.
    Slavery is both the result and the fuel of gender discrimination.
    Slavery perpetuates the abuse of children.

    Now God is – at least according to the Bible – all good (omnibenevolent) as well as omnipotent. Why would an omnibenevolent God allow the existence of slavery? His alleged omnipotence means He could find a way to achieve His own glory without the suffering of countless millions of humans under slavery. Slavery is part of the problem of evil that makes a God – at least one alleged to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent as the Christian God is – highly unlikely.

    “Actually, no he wasn’t.. but your attempt at throwing a rd herring into the net”

    Dippity likes to use Red Herring in order not to be confronted with his hypocrisy.

    The hypocrisy of the lying prick accusing others of hypocrisy is delicious.

    Dippity judges God but refuses to give us his guidelines for judging God.

    Of course A has also judged his God – and found Him to be good – but doesn’t give us the guidelines for how he came to that conclusion. Pot calling the kettle black indeed.

    You know, God wants to enslave all humans…..

    Where has A gotten this idea from? It wasn’t part of anything DPK said, either explicitly or implied. It’s just another red herring A is using to avoid showing how we can distinguish his God from something he may just be imagining.

    Let see if he comes through with his criteria. This will be good!!

    I’ll leave DPK to provide his criteria but note that, unless A also supplies his criteria, then there will be no way to determine which is the better way to judge God’s actions.

    Popcorn popping……..

    Nope, that’s the sound of the bubble wrap surrounding the lying prick’s absurd worldview being popped by logic and reason. At some point it’ll offer no protection at all. Will A embrace the logic and reason or simply bring out more bubble wrap to try and make the cognitive dissonance go away? My money is on the latter.

  93. on 11 Sep 2014 at 4:04 pm 93.DPK said …

    Yeah? Obama claims he would cut our deficit in half as well….lol!!!!

    Obama again huh? LOL… forget to take your ADD meds again, Hor.

    Words mean nothing Dippity. evidence is everywhere and abundant and your refusal to accept means you remain ignorant.

    You keep claiming this, yet you fail to provide any other than “you can’t explain ______ therefore god exists by default.

    I, on the other hand stated I would convert when given some good reasons. Still waiting…….

    Well, the comment was directed at TJ who specifically stated he would NOT consider any position or argument that involved his god being imaginary. I suspect you actually are of the same mindset, although you have stated you could be convinced. TJ has stated his mind is closed, and nothing will change it, so my point is valid.

    “god being unable to change anything he already knows will happen is “because he’s god.”
    LOL!!! How did that come from God is not human and not limited as a human?

    Well, god being “not human and not limited” is certainly equivalent to being god, no? So how is that conclusion wrong. You’re saying that your answer to the problem is not “because he is god, but rather “because he is not human.” What’s the distinction? You still fail to explain…

    So God knowing the future but giving man free will is more problematic for you than creating this universe? huh? lol!!!!!

    “More” problematic? It’s not problematic , it is not possible. It is a contradiction in terms. If it is “known” what will occur, it cannot be changed… if it can be changed, it cannot be known. Period.

    “explain how god’s instructions on how to enslave people, subjugate women, and all the rest is actually NOT his will”
    Couple of things to help you become educated. How do you define a slave?

    A slave is a human who is owned by another person as property… LOL How do YOU define a slave??

    Second, where did God claim it is his will?

    Well, since you claim the bible is the word of god, and in it god give specific instruction on the acquiring, buying and selling, and treatment of slaves, how could you conclude anything else? Your squirming is getting uncomfortable.

    Third, and most important…..assume God wants us all to be slaves…….tell us why it is wrong and make his existence unlikely……Good Luck! lol!!!!!!

    Who said god wants us ALL to be slaves? Clearly, god wants only some of us to be enslaved and others of us to be slave owners. Why is this wrong? LOL.. you have no idea? LOL

    So, A the prick seems to have admitted that god actually has no problem with slavery, but his excuse seems to be that if god is ok with slavery, then who are we to judge him, and on what basis?

    Ok… can’t argue with that…. if god is indeed real, then we should all be owning slaves and beating them strictly according to gods instructions. We should also be killing homosexuals, and people that work on the Sabbath, and forcing women to marry their rapists and killing them if they are not virgins on their wedding day. Who are we to judge this divine instructions to be immoral, and by what authority. Indeed, if one is to conclude that these kinds of acts are in fact, immoral and wrong, then one must conclude that the god of the bible is either immoral, or perhaps, completely imaginary… just like all the other gods now residing on the dungheap of imaginary gods and mythical beings.
    And certainly, any rational person can see why we need to make sure that lunatics that think that way are kept at bay.

  94. on 11 Sep 2014 at 7:26 pm 94.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Dippity Dew!!!

    “Obama again huh?”

    Lol!!!! Funny how 3 of you latched on to the one line failing to see the actual point…..Talk is Cheap! lol!!!! You guys had a lot of fun when Bush was in office, what happened? No sense of humor left? Your offense and disappointment in the Great Hype is duly noted! lol!!!!

    “he would NOT consider any position or argument that involved his god being imaginary.”

    I’m sure he would as well, but you guys offer nothing. Even now your outrage at God’s actions provide no evidence of his non-existence. Get cracking babe! lol!!!

    ““not human and not limited” is certainly equivalent to being god, no?”

    Yeeesssss, which is why the laws which man must adhere to is not laws God must adhere to. For instance, GRAVITY! It is the reason we call the diety GOD……lol!!!

    “acquiring, buying and selling, and treatment of slaves, how could you conclude anything else?”

    Other than you cultural misunderstanding of slaves in the Hebrew culture, God also made a provision for divorce in the Mosiac law, he did not condone divorce but due to the “Hardness of the Hebrews hearts” he provided guidelines to protect the woman.
    There ya go…….provision without condoning.

    And I have not forgotten the most important question you again dodge Dippity.

    Why is slavery wrong? How can you judge God on this issue unless you have a moral basis for doing so. Until then, we can not entertain any objections. You claimed there are NO moral absolutes…..so why is it wrong Dip?

    To the audience: Watch as dippity and the rest AGAIN fail to answer this most important question. Until they can provide their ethical paradigm for the judgment, their words are meaningless.

  95. on 12 Sep 2014 at 12:17 am 95.alex said …

    “Why is slavery wrong? How can you judge God on this issue unless you have a moral basis for doing so.”

    this is why you’re a dumbass motherfucker. reasonable folk know slavery is wrong and you don’t need no damn divine guidance. you don’t see slavery today because it’s wrong, period, you dumbass.

    you don’t stone sunday workers because it’s wrong, you dumb motherfucker.

    despite messenger’s fantasies, you don’t allow rapists to marry their victim because it’s wrong.

    “You claimed there are NO moral absolutes…..so why is it wrong…”

    another m.o. of yours, eh? the wild goose chase? are you going to ask if it’s wrong to cut off your wife’s hands when she grabs your attacker’s testicles?

    would you ask why it’s wrong to kill people that curse their parents? why is it wrong to silence women in church? and on and on…

    did i mention that you’re a dumbass, motherfucker?

    here’s your magical shitpile http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  96. on 12 Sep 2014 at 12:28 am 96.TJ said …

    “Well, the comment was directed at TJ who specifically stated he would NOT consider any position or argument that involved his god being imaginary. I suspect you actually are of the same mindset, although you have stated you could be convinced. TJ has stated his mind is closed, and nothing will change it, so my point is valid.”

    You guys been busy since I was on last.

    Yes I am bias and closed minded in my belief.

    However I do consider and analyse the alternatives. Alex calls me a dumb-ass mother-fucker nearly everytime I do.

    When confronted with…

    “You have not even attempted to explain how a god can be both omnipotent and omniscient, which is impossible, and how you can possibly reconcile that with the notion of free will.”

    I clearly showed that the commonly held definition of omniscient is inconsistent with the actual meaning. Omniscient means a full knowledge of laws that govern natural phenomenon. Not a knowledge of the future.

    The God of the Bible, the one I read about… not imagined by me, but recorded about long before any of us where born. This is how you know it is not a God I simply imagined and can be easily checked by reading the bible for yourself.

    This well documented God, claims to have perfect knowledge of all things knowable. The word “omniscient” used to describe an “omniscient God” in it’s original meaning defines this. And NOT a God that knows the future as you guys claim.

    We discussed “is the future knowable”, I was in agreement that intention is not the same as knowledge. I also agree that if God declarers his intention, has the knowledge, authority and power to ensure it, and it comes to pass. than it could be considered the same as knowing. Intention and knowing, I believe both concepts can co-exist. But I remain in the “I don’t know for sure” as far as “is the future knowable”.

    Further more, you guys claim that God controls or directs the actions of man. Again this is in direct contrast with what the God of the bible claims. God claims man has free will independent of Gods and that man is accountable for his choices and the related consequences. God also claims to judge each individual based on their choices and choose those worthy to reside with him for all eternity. He also offer a free pass on judgement.

    “You have not even attempted to explain how a god can be both omnipotent and omniscient, which is impossible, and how you can possibly reconcile that with the notion of free will.”

    Statement like “You have free will and the deity knows your choice.” are based on misconceptions.

    I offered this to Alex earlier on…

    “Just as a video game coder can predict the events and their order of flow within his created game. In turn does not take away the game players ability to play to their own style within the limitations/laws of the coding that governs the video game.
    Who would enjoy a game that required you to press the green button at exactly 15sec after starting followed by left, right, up, red button etc. And that being the only possible way to play with no other options available.
    Surely this logic is such that even a child can follow.”

    How much more complex and dynamic is the universe compared to a video game?

    The essence of the questions you guys ask are as follows…

    How can a God who knows the future, knows all your actions in advance, controls all your choices claim that you have a free will?

    To top it off you guys state that God is imaginary, God is bullshit or that matter gave rise to conscience and God is again an imaginary construct of the mind which is the result of matter, time and chance.

    “If an omniscient god knows that tomorrow I will do X, is there any scenario that exists where I will not do X?”

    Alex once asked me if I expect wisdom from the bible. I replied “yes I would.”

    Proverbs 26:4
    “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him. 5Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes”

    Why would I address any of your questions based on your presuppositions? I would be a fool to do so.

    Instead I point out the contrast between your and my stand points as to why your questions are often loaded with falsehoods and pre-defined conclusions.

    Anything beyond this point in discussion, either from me or any of you guys will be contextually based on our existing presuppositions. I am fully aware of this and claimed my bias from the very beginning.

    Do you guys agree that you too are bias in your beliefs?

    Do you still feel I’ve dodged your questions?

  97. on 15 Sep 2014 at 3:35 pm 97.freddies_dead said …

    94.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Dippity Dew!!!

    “Obama again huh?”

    Lol!!!! Funny how 3 of you latched on to the one line failing to see the actual point…..Talk is Cheap! lol!!!! You guys had a lot of fun when Bush was in office, what happened? No sense of humor left? Your offense and disappointment in the Great Hype is duly noted! lol!!!!

    Despite A’s claim I’m neither offended by nor disappointed in Obama, he’s not even my president. A talks a lot about how “Talk is Cheap!” – the irony is not lost on me.

    “he would NOT consider any position or argument that involved his god being imaginary.”

    I’m sure he would as well, but you guys offer nothing.

    This is a lie. I have already shown how God is logically impossible given the reality we experience. That leaves us with no option but to imagine God and that leaves us with a God that is purely imaginary. If A had an actual argument which shows how we can distinguish between his God and something he may merely be imagining why hasn’t he presented it? Instead he simply asserts that his God exists over and over as if the repetition would magically make it come true.

    Even now your outrage at God’s actions provide no evidence of his non-existence. Get cracking babe! lol!!!

    Of course, pointing out how God’s actions contradict the moral standard He supposedly embodies isn’t at all “outrage”. Instead it’s a demonstration of the stupidity shown by theists when they claim their God is an absolute source of morality and then have to back pedal when shown that God’s own actions go against those so called absolute morals. If they’re suggesting that morality is only possible if their God exists then it doesn’t bode well for that claim when their God cannot conform to His own moral commands.

    ““not human and not limited” is certainly equivalent to being god, no?”

    Yeeesssss, which is why the laws which man must adhere to is not laws God must adhere to. For instance, GRAVITY!

    And logic too. How can you possibly expect a deity said to be responsible for logic to actually conform to that logic? I mean why shouldn’t a God know what’s going to happen and then someone go ahead and do something different to what that God knows will happen? Makes perfect sense … not.

    It is the reason we call the diety GOD……lol!!!

    Well, A has to call his illogical, imaginary friend something I guess.

    “acquiring, buying and selling, and treatment of slaves, how could you conclude anything else?”

    Other than you cultural misunderstanding of slaves in the Hebrew culture,

    Ah, another Humpty Dumptyism. Slavery is exactly what A says it is, no more and no less. He’s referring to the claim that Biblical slavery was more like indentured servitude i.e. they were owned for a set time, after which they were set free. However, it should be noted that the non-Hebrew slaves were treated far more harshly i.e. much more like the slaves of modern history.

    God also made a provision for divorce in the Mosiac law, he did not condone divorce but due to the “Hardness of the Hebrews hearts” he provided guidelines to protect the woman.
    There ya go…….provision without condoning.

    Quite simply, the ownership of another human being as property is wrong. Giving guidelines on how to treat said slaves doesn’t change that. The “provisioning doesn’t equal condoning” argument might hold water if God had no choice but to accept the things He didn’t like, however, He’s supposed to be omnipotent. Why not cover slavery in a commandment if you don’t want it to happen? Why offer instructions on how to do it instead? Once more A’s claim makes no sense.

    And I have not forgotten the most important question you again dodge Dippity.

    Why is slavery wrong? How can you judge God on this issue unless you have a moral basis for doing so. Until then, we can not entertain any objections. You claimed there are NO moral absolutes…..so why is it wrong Dip?

    The hypocrisy again. Accusing DPK of dodging the question while he himself dodges the fact that I supplied an answer to this question.

    To the audience: Watch as dippity and the rest AGAIN fail to answer this most important question. Until they can provide their ethical paradigm for the judgment, their words are meaningless.

    I’m fairly sure the audience will notice that this is a lie. I have already given reasons why slavery is wrong. A is yet to deal with them.

  98. on 15 Sep 2014 at 6:28 pm 98.DPK said …

    “And I have not forgotten the most important question you again dodge Dippity.
    Why is slavery wrong?”

    Silly A. Slavery is wrong because it increases human suffering and subjugates the freedom of one class of people to the will of others.

    But the bigger question that YOU refuse to answer, is that since you claim their ARE moral absolutes handed to us by an omnicient and omnipotent being… one who clearly has no problem with slavery at all, how is it that YOU determine that slavery is wrong? Is there a missing commandment that says “Thou shalt not own slaves?” Even gentle Jesus, meek and mild, instructed slaves to be obedient to their masters. He could have easily said, “Masters, set free your slaves and do not enslave others… it is wrong.” But he didn’t.

  99. on 15 Sep 2014 at 10:57 pm 99.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Ohhhh!! This is so juicy! We have another claim!

    “I’m neither offended by nor disappointed in Obama, he’s not even my president.”

    Then don’t use Barrack as your red herring. lol!!!

    “Of course, pointing out how God’s actions contradict the moral standard”

    Nope, God never does…..of you refer to the “murder” claim. Nope, God gives life which is why taking is his prerogative. Argument destroyed again!

    “the ownership of another human being as property is wrong”

    Why F&M? Who gets to make the call? Suppose a person decides to sell themselves into slavery as happened in the Hebrew culture? Are they both wrong.

    But alas, we have ANOTHER moral claim by F&M but refuses to provide more than…..OPINION>>>>lol!!!!!!!

    “I supplied an answer to this question.”

    You mean this pain? Suffering as Dippity cut & paste? So if something is painful it is immoral? Is that your moral absolute. I need to know so we can explore further. Lets see if he answers……lol!!!

    No, you made a claim but since moral absolutes do not exist in the atheist fairyland, it cannot be immoral….RIGHT?!!!!!!! I love this!

  100. on 16 Sep 2014 at 2:01 am 100.DPK said …

    Why F&M? Who gets to make the call? Suppose a person decides to sell themselves into slavery as happened in the Hebrew culture?

    So, are you saying that slavery is not immoral, or it is immoral in some circumstances, and not others? What is the absolute moral code that determines this?

    No, you made a claim but since moral absolutes do not exist in the atheist fairyland, it cannot be immoral….RIGHT?!!!!!!

    Once agai, you demonstrate that you are either a liar or a total imbecile. The only person who ever claimed nothing is immoral is you. The FACT that morality is relative does not mean nothing is immoral. That’s only your bible addled brain trying to rationalize your beliefs which are incompatible with reality. Lol too funny though.
    Here’s a hint, when you dig yourself into a hole, step one is to stop digging! Rotflol.

  101. on 16 Sep 2014 at 2:53 am 101.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “So, are you saying that slavery is not immoral, or it is immoral in some circumstances, and not others?”

    Oh Dippity Dew! Let me say it again, maybe you can go to Wiki again and do a cut & paste…lol!!!

    “Why F&M? Who gets to make the call? Suppose a person decides to sell themselves into slavery as happened in the Hebrew culture? Are they both wrong.”

    So Dippity, why is it wrong?

    “The only person who ever claimed nothing is immoral is you.”

    Again you are a sorry liar! ROTFL!!!!!!

    But great, since you NOW claim things are immoral (You atheists should talk) tell us, how is immoral differentiated from moral?

    If you plan on judging God (ROTFL!!!) you should at least provide your guidelines, yes?

  102. on 16 Sep 2014 at 2:53 am 102.the messenger said …

    Catholics and Jews do not force their religion on anyone, we only present it to people and hope that they realize God’s teachings are true and that they should believe in God.

    We do not force our religion on anyone.

    You atheists on the other hand try to force your atheism on us, by terrorizing us and murdering us like Hitler and Stalin did.

    Stalin and Hitler’s actions are the true face of atheism.

  103. on 16 Sep 2014 at 3:02 am 103.the messenger said …

    Catholics and Jews do not start terrorizing people simply because we disagree with them.

    Anyone who hates anyone in GOD name has no connection to GOD whatsoever.

    Jesus(and many other rabbis) have taught the Christians and Jews to love one another and to respect and except the views of others, unless those view are evil like the views of the Nazis, ISIS, Hammas, Iran, the dictator of north Korea, the Taliban, Jihads, the black panthers, the klu klux klan, and the soviet union.

  104. on 16 Sep 2014 at 3:17 am 104.the messenger said …

    100.DPK, you keep trying to argue with outdated information. Yes, slavery was allowed in the old covenant, but not in the new covenant.

    The new covenant teaches that we are all brothers and sisters spiritually under GOD, and are not allowed to hurt our brothers and sisters. Slavery hurts our brothers and sisters, which strongly implies that we are not suppose to enslave them.

    Also slavery has never been a big thing in Jewish culture, and if you study Jewish teachings you will see that slavery was only allowed in the most desperate times(like when a person was injured and could not provide for himself and would starve unless he got someone to work for him for free until he could recover) , and then the slave would be released after a seven year period. In modern times, slavery is all but extinguished from Jewish life.

  105. on 16 Sep 2014 at 3:19 am 105.the messenger said …

    100.DPK, you keep trying to argue with outdated information. Yes, slavery was allowed in the old covenant, but not in the new covenant.

    The new covenant teaches that we are all brothers and sisters spiritually under GOD, and are not allowed to hurt our brothers and sisters(except in self defense, or in a sport (like a martial arts, where the wounds are mostly nonfatal). Slavery hurts our brothers and sisters, which strongly implies that we are not suppose to enslave them.

    Also slavery has never been a big thing in Jewish culture, and if you study Jewish teachings you will see that slavery was only allowed in the most desperate times(like when a person was injured and could not provide for himself and would starve unless he got someone to work for him for free until he could recover) , and then the slave would be released after a seven year period. In modern times, slavery is all but extinguished from Jewish life.

  106. on 16 Sep 2014 at 2:16 pm 106.DPK said …

    “100.DPK, you keep trying to argue with outdated information. Yes, slavery was allowed in the old covenant, but not in the new covenant.”

    Well, first… what changed? You have said repeatedly that the moral code directed by god is perfect and absolute. How is it that slavery was ok once, and now it is not?

    Second, where in the New Testament does it say not to own slaves? Even St. Paul sent a runaway slave back to his master, rather than help him escape.

    Messenger, let me state the obvious. You are full of shit. LOL

  107. on 16 Sep 2014 at 2:21 pm 107.DPK said …

    “Suppose a person decides to sell themselves into slavery as happened in the Hebrew culture? Are they both wrong.”

    Yes, a person cannot sell themselves or another as property, and a person cannot own another human as property.

    So Dippity, why is it wrong?

    Asked and answered.
    Most certainly, it cannot be considered wrong because it is forbiden in the bible!!! LOL.

    Now, answer the question… do you think slavery is either NOT immoral, or the instructions about slavery in the bible are wrong? It has to be one or the other! LOL

  108. on 16 Sep 2014 at 3:01 pm 108.freddies_dead said …

    99.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Ohhhh!! This is so juicy! We have another claim!

    It’s a statement of fact, I’m English, I live in England, I get to be offended and disappointed by my own government instead.

    “I’m neither offended by nor disappointed in Obama, he’s not even my president.”

    Then don’t use Barrack as your red herring. lol!!!

    A must have the memory of a goldfish as it was he that bought up Obama in the first place (back in post 90) in an effort to divert the conversation away from his failed claim that atheists aren’t here to learn.

    “Of course, pointing out how God’s actions contradict the moral standard”

    Nope, God never does…..

    So when God orders the genocide of the Canaanites he’s not contradicting His command to not murder? Once again A attempts to redefine the meanings of words to absolve his God of breaking the allegedly absolute laws He gave us.

    of you refer to the “murder” claim. Nope, God gives life which is why taking is his prerogative.

    And once again we see that the absolute laws given to us by God aren’t actually absolute as they don’t pertain to God Himself. Might makes right and we can see how Christianity actually espouses moral relativism.

    Argument destroyed again!

    Calling A’s claims an argument would be generous and inaccurate. However, those claims have, once more, been destroyed, as A himself notes.

    “the ownership of another human being as property is wrong”

    Why F&M?

    Why is the lying prick asking again? I gave several reasons as to why slavery is wrong back in post 92.

    Who gets to make the call?

    Who says anyone gets to make the call? Once you allow someone to dictate what is right and wrong you are left with arbitrary moral dictates which are a) subject to the whims of the one who is dictating them and b) relativistic when they don’t apply to the morality giver. For example, the Christian God commanded people not to kill each other but then insisted that his people slaughter the Canaanites. The commandment changed due to the whim of God. Then there are examples of God killing people Himself (see: everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah). People like A give their God a free pass. It’s his “prerogative” to ignore His own moral commandments whenever He sees fit. It’s moral relativism plain and simple.

    Suppose a person decides to sell themselves into slavery as happened in the Hebrew culture?

    This is a dodge. The idea that those people who “sold themselves” had a choice is disingenuous at best. The choice was to “sell themselves” into slavery to pay off debts or be forced into slavery through defaulting on those debts. The only difference was the possibility of freedom once the debt was repaid. However, there was no defined period of repayment which meant the debt could pass from generation to generation – essentially slavery in all but name only.

    Are they both wrong.

    Despite A’s dodges and red herrings, yes, slavery is still wrong.

    But alas, we have ANOTHER moral claim by F&M but refuses to provide more than…..OPINION>>>>lol!!!!!!!

    Of course A doesn’t explain how my claim that slavery is wrong along with the reasons I gave is just my opinion. In fact he didn’t respond to any of the reasons I presented as to why slavery is wrong. Instead he posts his opinion that my moral stance is an opinion. Rank hypocrisy as usual.

    “I supplied an answer to this question.”

    You mean this pain? Suffering as Dippity cut & paste?

    I have literally no idea what this is supposed to mean.

    So if something is painful it is immoral? Is that your moral absolute.

    Where on earth is A getting this from? Most likely his fertile imagination. The moral absolute is that slavery is wrong. Some reasons for that were outlined back in post 92.

    I need to know so we can explore further. Lets see if he answers……lol!!!

    Well, based on previous interactions with the lying prick, this is merely another dodge. He asks questions, insisting he needs the answers before we can move on, only to ignore the answers before trying to divert the conversation elsewhere.

    No, you made a claim but since moral absolutes do not exist in the atheist fairyland, it cannot be immoral….RIGHT?!!!!!!!

    I love this!

    I have to note that A makes no effort to back up his claim that “moral absolutes do not exist in the atheist fairyland”. I, on the other hand, have already shown how Christianity devolves to relativism – God’s commandments are subject to whim and don’t apply to God Himself – now we’ll see if A can do the same regarding Objectivism specifically (my worldview) … or even atheism in general.

    Then he can explain how, as DPK noted in post 98, he can say that slavery is immoral when nowhere in the Bible does his God condemn it.

  109. on 16 Sep 2014 at 4:41 pm 109.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Dippity Dew doubles down on a claim and STILL refuses to back his claim……sigh…..nothing new.

    “a person cannot sell themselves or another as property, and a person cannot own another human as property.”

    Why? It’s their body, so why do YOU get to tell them to do with his/her body? Dip, we need more than your authority to set a moral absolute. Get back to us, maybe a cut & paste is due…lol!!!

  110. on 16 Sep 2014 at 4:55 pm 110.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    And then F&M graces us with this:

    “it was he that bought up Obama in the first place (back in post 90)”

    Yes, I did as an example (ignoring the real point) that none of you could leave alone, swing-ana-miss for you. Obsession with our messiah?

    “So when God orders the genocide of the Canaanites he’s not contradicting His command to not murder?”

    LOL!!!, sigh……again for the ones with low IQs, God creates life and takes it whenever He desires. So, NO, life belongs to God and He takes them everyday.

    “Despite A’s dodges and red herrings, yes, slavery is still wrong.”

    Why is it wrong? Dodge what? Your no answer? or some British study?….lol!!!!!! No, we can’t take you word for it we need real authority, Its their body so why do you get to tell them what to do with their body? lol!!!!!

    PS, better check that time reference you made. A little more googling might help :)

    “Where on earth is A getting this from? Most likely his fertile imagination.”

    LOL!!!!! from Dippity Dew’s post silly. Read much? I guess your moral code and his just don’t line up…..ROTFL!!!!!

    “only to ignore the answers before trying to divert the conversation elsewhere”

    Sorry, A British study is not a sufficient source for a moral absolute. Got anything else?

    “A makes no effort to back up his claim that “moral absolutes”

    Another Red Herring, the readers can note you and Dippity claim God is immoral AND Hebrew slavery is immoral but cannot show why your moral judgment is superior to other moral judgments. Now you are telling others what to do with their own bodies!!!

    Still waiting……….and waiting……and waiting……

  111. on 16 Sep 2014 at 5:20 pm 111.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    Alex and Friends.

    A question when you have a personal problem that is solved how many people benefit?

    When an actual solution not a number of possible solutions an actual solution is realised how many solutions are there. How many people can solve any one of your problems at any one time.

    ere fore why is it difficult to believe that there is only one author of salvation. You atheistic vision is darkened.

  112. on 16 Sep 2014 at 5:48 pm 112.alex said …

    “..why is it difficult to believe that there is only one author of salvation….”

    because your bullshit xtian god claim ain’t no different that all the other bs gods. why don’t you ask yourself a similar question: why is it so difficult to believe in a non-interventionist god? a non meddling god is kinda hard to shoot down, ain’t it? go head, give it a try.

    since a non-interventionist god doesn’t give a fuck, you think this changes the atheists’ position?

    stupid, motherfucker.

  113. on 16 Sep 2014 at 6:03 pm 113.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    Do I think it changes the positions of those who are eventually going to burn in the lake of fire? No I don’t.

  114. on 16 Sep 2014 at 7:21 pm 114.alex said …

    “Do I think it changes the positions of those who are eventually going to burn in the lake of fire?”

    bullshit premise. would you like to prove that people are going to hell? why is your hell premise any more valid than the hindu endless reincarnation?

    what do i think happens when you die? i don’t know and i don’t care. what? not good enough for your ass?

    dumb, motherfucker.

  115. on 16 Sep 2014 at 7:56 pm 115.the messenger said …

    106.DPK, true, the new testament does not specifically say that slavery is not allowed, but it strongly hints it.

    Though it is true that Paul sent the slave “Onesimus” back to his master “Philemon”, he later tells “Philemon” the following statement that strongly hints that “Philemon” should set “Onesimus” free and treat him as a “beloved brother”.

    Philemon 1:15-16New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)

    15 Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back forever, 16 no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother—especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

  116. on 16 Sep 2014 at 7:58 pm 116.the messenger said …

    106.DPK, true, the new testament does not specifically say that slavery is not allowed, but it strongly hints it.

    Though it is true that Paul sent the slave “Onesimus” back to his master “Philemon”, he later tells “Philemon” the following statement that strongly hints that “Philemon” should set “Onesimus” free and treat him as a “beloved brother”.

    Philemon 1:15-16New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)

    15 Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back forever, 16 NOLONGER AS A SLAVE but more than a slave, a BELOVED BROTHER—especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

  117. on 16 Sep 2014 at 8:07 pm 117.the messenger said …

    106.DPK, you fail to understand that GOD gave humans only a fraction of the moral code in the old covenant.

    But GOD gave us the rest of it in the new covenant.

    Romans 10:4 states this. Christ the end of the law, as in the last piece of the law. Sort of like the end chapter of a book.

  118. on 17 Sep 2014 at 12:17 am 118.DPK said …

    “sigh……again for the ones with low IQs, God creates life and takes it whenever He desires. So, NO, life belongs to God and He takes them everyday.”

    and curiously, “god told me to kill him” is not an acceptable defense in any court in any civilized nation on earth. LOL… why is that?

    “Why is it wrong? Dodge what? Your no answer? or some British study?….lol!!!!!! ”

    Despite your outright lies, both Freddie and I have told you EXACTLY why we feel slavery is wrong. The only one who HASN’T told us how he concludes slavery is wrong is YOU! harharhar…. that’s because you can’t point to your bible, because it clearly and without question condones slavery. So where is the absolute moral code handed down by god that leads you to conclude slavery is ok… or do you agree with Messy that it ok to own another human as proper and force him to work for you, but only if you really need it. LOL! You deluded imbeciles are just so funny. You all insist you know the answers to everything you don’t know and you can’t even agree with one another.
    Now stop.. I’m laughing too hard!

  119. on 17 Sep 2014 at 2:03 am 119.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “both Freddie and I have told you EXACTLY why we feel slavery is wrong.”

    I know! It’s just your opinions. You also want to tell others what to do with their own body! No surprise there. Atheist do like control of the masses.

    Sigh…..great! Stalin had opinions, ISIS has opinions and then there was Hitler, Mao, and many other opinions, but what makes your opinion the moral holy grail Dippity Dew?

    What’s that? More deflection? More Red Herrings?

    Lol!!!! You really should quit because you have no answer that works there Dip!

  120. on 17 Sep 2014 at 2:59 pm 120.DPK said …

    Well, I am an individual, so anything I say is naturally an opinion.
    Your belief in a supernatural moral god who instructs us to own slaves and provides detailed instructions on the proper way to sell your daughters as sex slaves, is just an OPINION… LOL. The only thing more astounding that your hypocrisy is your stupidity, Mr. ASStrophysicist.

    But, don’t think we haven’t noticed that you have once again dodged the question:
    In your opinion, do you think Messy is correct in his assertion that it is ok to own another human and force him to work for you as long as your circumstances are dire enough that you need that to survive, or do you think that slavery is in fact immoral?
    IF your opinion is that slavery is immoral, what are YOU basing this opinion on?

    harharhar Watch him change the subject… what’s it going to be this time, Benghazi?

  121. on 17 Sep 2014 at 3:39 pm 121.freddies_dead said …

    110.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    And then F&M graces us with this:

    “it was he that bought up Obama in the first place (back in post 90)”

    Yes, I did as an example (ignoring the real point) that none of you could leave alone, swing-ana-miss for you.

    Nope, the lying prick is lying again. He bought up Obama to try and divert the conversation away from his inability to back up his claim the atheists weren’t here to learn. It’s still not working.

    Obsession with our messiah?

    To what messiah is A referring to here? He hasn’t actually demonstrated that one exists for us to be obsessed with. Just how can we distinguish between his messiah and something he may merely be imagining?

    “So when God orders the genocide of the Canaanites he’s not contradicting His command to not murder?”

    LOL!!!, sigh……again for the ones with low IQs,

    So A is talking to himself…

    God creates life and takes it whenever He desires. So, NO, life belongs to God and He takes them everyday.

    Yup, proving my point that the so-called absolute laws are anything but as they don’t apply to his God. Quite simply, might makes right. A truly poor moral standpoint.

    “Despite A’s dodges and red herrings, yes, slavery is still wrong.”

    Why is it wrong?

    Asked and answered.

    Dodge what? Your no answer? or some British study?….lol!!!!!!

    They were actual reasons why slavery is wrong but of course A is entirely incapable of dealing with them so he’s blatantly dodging the issue.

    No, we can’t take you word for it we need real authority, Its their body so why do you get to tell them what to do with their body? lol!!!!!

    Of course I’m not actually telling anyone what they can or can’t do with their body, merely pointing out that slavery is wrong and giving reasons why, so this is nothing more than another red herring from the lying prick.

    PS, better check that time reference you made. A little more googling might help :)

    Having re-read my previous post I don’t see what “time reference” A might possibly be referring to.

    “Where on earth is A getting this from? Most likely his fertile imagination.”

    LOL!!!!! from Dippity Dew’s post silly.

    Once more the lying prick makes no sense. Firstly, I’ve gone back and can’t see anything in DPK’s posts that suggest he subscribes to “if something is painful it is immoral” so he’s not getting it from there and secondly, even if DPK thought like that, why would that mean I’d have to feel the same? While we’re both atheists the only thing that says about us is that we don’t believe in God(s). It says nothing about what system of ethics we subscribe to.

    Read much? I guess your moral code and his just don’t line up…..ROTFL!!!!!

    So. Close.

    “only to ignore the answers before trying to divert the conversation elsewhere”

    Sorry, A British study is not a sufficient source for a moral absolute.

    Notice that A gives no indication what he means by “a sufficient source” here. I suspect the only source he’s willing to consider sufficient is his God, even though any moral dictate handed down by his God is, by definition, non-absolute as it a) is subject to his God’s whim and b) doesn’t necessarily apply to his God.

    Got anything else?

    Well the reasons I gave were all objective – i.e. independent of what anyone may think, wish, want etc…, not subject to whim and applicable to all – and as such they are sufficient reasons to call slavery immoral. Of course A will deny this although he won’t even attempt to back up his denial with a reasoned argument.

    “A makes no effort to back up his claim that “moral absolutes”

    Another Red Herring,

    Not in the slightest. The lying prick made the claim that “moral absolutes do not exist in the atheist fairyland”. Nowhere does he give us any reason to accept this statement. Just where is his argument showing how, in principle, atheism rules out moral absolutes? I say he won’t provide it because he can’t.

    the readers can note you and Dippity claim God is immoral AND Hebrew slavery is immoral but cannot show why your moral judgment is superior to other moral judgments.

    Correction: “all” slavery is wrong. A’s attempt to blur the distinction is yet another red herring. Once you judge an action to be immoral, lets say killing someone (number 6 in the protestant list of commandments), then logically anyone who carries out that act is immoral. Well, there are numerous instances of God killing people in the Bible which makes God immoral. Of course A will simply keep on giving his God a free pass – might makes right in his worldview after all – all the while undermining his own claim to moral absolutes into the bargain.

    Now you are telling others what to do with their own bodies!!!

    This is simply a lie. Pointing out slavery is wrong does not stop anyone from enslaving (or being enslaved), just like pointing out murder is wrong doesn’t stop anyone from murdering (or being murdered).

    Still waiting……….and waiting……and waiting……

    Why yes, yes we are. We’re waiting for A to explain how slavery is wrong given his Bible doesn’t condemn it. We’re waiting for him to show how his worldview accounts for “absolute morals”. We’re waiting for him to show how atheism makes absolute morals impossible and of course we’re waiting for him to show how we can distinguish his God from something he may merely be imagining. As usual I advise that no-one holds their breath during the wait.

  122. on 18 Sep 2014 at 1:41 am 122.the messenger said …

    120.DPK, you are such a liar.

    When you stated “god who instructs us to own slaves and provides detailed instructions on the proper way to sell your daughters as sex slaves” you were lying.

    GOD did not instruct us to own slaves, and GOD never commanded anyone to sell anyone as a sex slave.

    Once again I state that the new covenant does not allow slavery(for proof of that, look at some of my past comments).

    Although the old covenant did not condemn slavery, it did not command or instruct us to have slaves. But it does set rules on how to treat them. But you forget that the old covenant is no longer in power, due to the fact that it only contained a part of the moral code and thus did not condemn slavery. But the new covenant contains the full moral code, and thus does condemn slavery( as shown when Paul tries to convince a slave owner to set his slave free and treat him as a brother(Philemon 1:15-16New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)15 Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back forever, 16 NOLONGER AS A SLAVE but more than a slave, a BELOVED BROTHER—especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
    )).

    Tell me, in front of all that are present on this site, where in the bible does it command us to own slaves?

  123. on 18 Sep 2014 at 3:21 am 123.DPK said …

    Meesh, for someone who supposes to come here and preach the bible and tell us what god “really” means… You’d do well you actually read it sometime.

    “… for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.”

    I’ll await your appology, but I’ll bet you will tell us that’s not literal, or needs to be taken ” in context” lol

  124. on 18 Sep 2014 at 11:41 am 124.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “I’ll await your appology, but I’ll bet you will tell us that’s not literal, or needs to be taken ””

    Apologize for what? You keep this claim that your moral OPINION is superior to God. Why? What makes you special? Lol!!!! Maybe you mom told you that you were special……but I just don’t see it.

    SO, to have a discussion about ethics and morality we need to know why your opinion is superior to Stalin Lenin, Mao and yes God. For arguments sake, lets assume God condones slavery and murder. You may begin.

    Please no cut&paste, think for yourself.

    Lol!!!!

  125. on 18 Sep 2014 at 2:44 pm 125.DPK said …

    “Apologize for what?”

    I know you suffer from a severe inability to follow topics, but the apology is due for calling me a liar for stating that according the the bible, the biblical god condones slavery and instructs people on how to acquire, own, and even beat their slaves, and instructs Hebrews on the proper way to not only acquire slaves, but to sell their own daughters as sex slaves to others. It’s all there.

    “122.the messenger said …
    120.DPK, you are such a liar.
    When you stated “god who instructs us to own slaves and provides detailed instructions on the proper way to sell your daughters as sex slaves” you were lying.”

    Now, Messy contention is that while slavery used to be ok, but god changed his mind between the old and the new testament doesn’t sit well with your contention of an absolute moral code, because absolutes can’t change, can they?

    Now try and stay focused… and don’t forget, we are all still waiting for your response:

    “do you think Messy is correct in his assertion that it is ok to own another human and force him to work for you as long as your circumstances are dire enough that you need that to survive, or do you think that slavery is in fact immoral?
    IF your opinion IS that slavery is immoral, what are YOU basing this opinion on?”

    Very curious that you won’t answer. I guess this is what earned you the moniker of “A the lying prick” LOL!

  126. on 18 Sep 2014 at 4:39 pm 126.alex said …

    “You keep this claim that your moral OPINION is superior to God.”

    that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. you’ve yet to produce these god given absolute morals, but you insist that these same non existent absolute morals are clearly superior.

    if i claim i can kick your nonexistent, bullshit god’s ass, why would you ask me why i think my jiu-jitsu is superior to Stalin Lenin, Mao and yes the bullshit God?

    dumbass motherfucker.

  127. on 18 Sep 2014 at 6:38 pm 127.DPK said …

    You keep this claim that your moral OPINION is superior to God. Why?

    Where did I say my opinion is superior to your imaginary god? I said slavery is wrong. Your god clearly thinks its ok. So, our opinions are different. Naturally I think my opinion is correct… that’s why is is my opinion and not yours. You really are dense, aren’t you.

    “lets assume God condones slavery and murder. You may begin.”

    Ok… god condones slavery and murder, and you apparently are just fine with that. OK. That is very telling about the difference between you and me. Nothing more needs to be said here. LOL So, if you have no moral problem with slavery and murder, than you should have no problem accepting the idea of a perfect god who endorses them, along with many other horrific acts and practices.

    But, anyone who is of the opinion that slavery, murder, and even selling your own daughters as sex slaves is immoral, has to have doubts about the reality of your omnipotent and omniscient god.

    BTW, notice that A the lying prick has again dodged the direct question asked of him, what, 4 or 5 time now..

    “do you think Messy is correct in his assertion that it is ok to own another human and force him to work for you as long as your circumstances are dire enough that you need that to survive, or do you think that slavery is in fact immoral?
    IF your opinion IS that slavery is immoral, what are YOU basing this opinion on?”

    My guess is that A either has no answer that makes any sense at all, or A is actually quite ok with the idea of humans being bought, sold, owned, exploited, and beaten as property. I’d hate to be his dog… LOL that poor guy must get some abuse!

  128. on 18 Sep 2014 at 7:33 pm 128.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Where did I say my opinion is superior to your imaginary god?

    I never claimed that…..however

    OH!!! OK, your opinion. Opinions are like butt holes, everyone has one. Remember, you are the one always hollering for proof! Lol!!!
    We can decide if we should listen to your opinion about God, the Bible and Hebrew culture OR we can listen to God and the scholars on Hebrew culture.

    Hmmmm, let me think this one over.

    Lol!!!! You can’t even make a case why we should listen to you over Mao!

    Lol!!!!!!!!

  129. on 18 Sep 2014 at 7:38 pm 129.the messenger said …

    123.DPK, once again you quote the old covenant in your attempt to convince us that slavery is allowed, according to the bible. But I already explained that the old covenant is no longer in power and that new covenant(which we live in now) condemns slavery, as shown when Paul tries to convince a slave owner to set his slave free and treat him as a brother(Philemon 1:15-16New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE).

  130. on 18 Sep 2014 at 8:06 pm 130.alex said …

    “…once again you quote the old covenant in your attempt to convince us…”

    he may be quoting, but you’re the dumbass, self appointed, translator motherfucker that said:

    “I have concluded that evolution did occur after God created the original animals and after Noah’s flood. Due to the early time period at which the first animals were made, I have concluded that my theory contained within comment 221 is correct. Even though the bible does not state that God created the ansestors of the animals of 2013, it is logical to say that he did infact create the ansestors of the modern day animals, and those animals that God created in the beginning did infact evolve into the modern animals that we know today.”

    what does that make you? and going from the rest of your bullshit, it makes you, the resident dumbass. no? check it here, beeyatch: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

  131. on 18 Sep 2014 at 8:14 pm 131.alex said …

    “You can’t even make a case why we should listen to you over Mao!”

    then, don’t, ya bitch, motherfucker. how does that prove your bullshit god? who the fuck cares about mao? your diversions are old. you need new material. the bears, motherfucker. fuck up them youths, ya bald motherfucker.

  132. on 18 Sep 2014 at 8:56 pm 132.DPK said …

    “A the lying pick says:
    “Where did I say my opinion is superior to your imaginary god?
    I never claimed that…..however…

    Yet in post 124.The Prickly Science Guy said …
    “You keep this claim that your moral OPINION is superior to God. Why? What makes you special? Lol!!!! Maybe you mom told you that you were special……but I just don’t see it.”

    So you can’t even go two consecutive posts without telling outright lies. LOL…

    “We can decide if we should listen to your opinion about God, the Bible and Hebrew culture OR we can listen to God and the scholars on Hebrew culture….”

    Well of course you can. Where does god say “Do not own slaves?” I have quoted you many direct quotes from your own holy book where god quite specifically directs us to capture, buy, sell, beat, and sometimes free slaves, and repetedly refers to them as property. Your opinion is that this is not what he “really” meant… but you offer no evidence to support it other than your own opinion, which are indeed, like assholes… everyone’s got one, but some stink a lot worse than other… har har har.
    Still no answer huh?
    “do you think Messy is correct in his assertion that it is ok to own another human and force him to work for you as long as your circumstances are dire enough that you need that to survive, or do you think that slavery is in fact immoral?
    IF your opinion IS that slavery is immoral, what are YOU basing this opinion on?”
    Love watching you squirm btw………

  133. on 18 Sep 2014 at 9:03 pm 133.DPK said …

    129.the messenger said …
    “123.DPK, once again you quote the old covenant in your attempt to convince us that slavery is allowed, according to the bible. But I already explained that the old covenant is no longer in power and that new covenant…”

    Yeah Messy, you have a long history of trying to tell us what god “really means when he says this and that, which parts of the bible are literal and which are not, and which parts actually happened (like Noah’s Ark) and which part are just stories, (also like Noah’s Ark.. whoops.. seems you claimed that one was both real and make believe… how embarrassing.)
    Ok, well, I’m glad to hear your god doesn’t approve of slavery any longer (based on one obscure passage and despite the fact that Jesus himself told slaves to be obedient to their masters and serve them without question…hmmm) So, that begs the question… in the OT god was ok with slavery, but in the NT he changed his mind… is that right? Just to make sure I understand it. It used to be moral, now it isn’t. Just like stoning homosexuals and women who weren’t virgins on their wedding night to death used to be ok, but now it isn’t ok. Is that correct? Just trying to understand.

  134. on 18 Sep 2014 at 9:41 pm 134.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Yet in post 124.The Prickly Science Guy said …”

    You are a liar again. I never used the word imaginary….you did.

    I expect an apology :). Lol!!!!

    So you can’t even go two consecutive posts without telling outright lies.

    “but you offer no evidence to support it other than your own opinion,?

    Lol!!!!!! I need to offer evidence to contradict your opinion? I don’t think do. Now if you provide an informed opinion might carry on a theological debate with an atheist. Would you like some resources to get you up to speed? Be glad to provide a few.

    Prediction: He will not because Dippity Dew Da has no interest in actual learning. He only goes to atheist blogs to cut&paste naughty Bible verses… Lol!!!!!!!!…….so predictable

  135. on 18 Sep 2014 at 11:38 pm 135.alex said …

    “You are a liar again.”

    you dumb motherfucker. call everybody a liar, but it doesn’t do a damn thing for your god, does it?

    you otoh, are the king of lying. your fucked up collection you can’t duck, can’t you? here it is again: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    presenting: Hor, martin, science guy, biff, xenon, little ‘A’, Sweetness, boz, RL Wooten, ‘Everyone’, and of course Horatio.

    his favorite diversions and the number of times used:
    TOE:126
    macro:130
    soup:52
    programmer:14
    obsess:32
    chevy:18
    moral:277

    he’s posted 1055 times and because his all knowing god knows he’s supposed to post 10,695 times, the stupid motherfucker can’t help himself. free will what?

    cheer up folks, 9640 more times he has to post. dumbass.

  136. on 19 Sep 2014 at 2:50 am 136.the messenger said …

    130.alex, dude, I already told you that when I stated “I have concluded that evolution did occur after God created the original animals and after …….” I was simply trying to show some of the corrupt protestant beliefs regarding the “adam, noah, and eve” story.

    I further stated that the catholic church and many Jewish groups has never interpreted that story as literal.

    That is not my own personal interpretation, unless you think that I was the one that wrote it thousands of years ago. In which case you are crazy and need medical help as soon as possible(no joke).

  137. on 19 Sep 2014 at 3:06 am 137.the messenger said …

    133.DPK, every time that I claim that something in the bible is a metaphor I prove my claim with either TEXT EVIDENCE or THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED LIKE THAT FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

    Furthermore there is nothing “obscure” about “Philemon 1:15-16New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)”, it is a very clear passage.

    The verse “Ephesians 6:5″ that you spoke of actually goes along with “Philemon 1:15-16″ because in “Philemon 1:15-16″ Paul wants the slave owner to free his slave and treat him as a brother. “Ephesians 6:5″ is not a support of slavery, rather it shows that GOD does not want the slave to free himself, he wants the slave owner to do the right thing and free the slave himself, as shown in “Philemon 1:15-16″.

  138. on 19 Sep 2014 at 4:36 pm 138.DPK said …

    and I’ve shown you many passages where god endorses slavery and other horrific acts.. like forcing rape victims to marry their rapists and murdering people for working on the Sabbath or being disrespectful to their parents… so? What are you saying?? You can support almost any claim you want depending on which verses you cherry pick and which ones you selectively ignore? I wouldn’t disagree.

    BTW.. you failed to answer the direct question:
    ” So, that begs the question… in the OT god was ok with slavery, but in the NT he changed his mind… is that right? Just to make sure I understand it. It used to be moral, now it isn’t. Just like stoning homosexuals and women who weren’t virgins on their wedding night to death used to be ok, but now it isn’t ok. Is that correct? Just trying to understand.”

    You seem to be taking a page from A the lying picks’s playbook and refusing to answer questions that make you uncomfortable…. Did god change his mind about slavery and the other things, like ripping open the bellies of pregnant women and smashing their babies on rocks? Yup, that’s in your bible too…………LOL

  139. on 19 Sep 2014 at 7:11 pm 139.DPK said …

    In post 124.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “You keep this claim that your moral OPINION is superior to God. Why?

    to which I replied:

    “Where did I say my opinion is superior to your imaginary god?

    and A the lying pricks lies:

    “I never claimed that…..however…”

    and A the lying prick’s answer to being caught in an outright lie is… wait for it……….

    “I never used the word imaginary….you did.”

    tada!!! Brilliant…. that is honesty in the eyes of a theist… LOL!! What a sack of feces….

  140. on 19 Sep 2014 at 10:19 pm 140.the messenger said …

    138.DPK, I already proved that the stoning(and other execution teachings) verses are metaphorical, when I presented John 8:1-11.

    John 8:1-11 shows that we humans do not have the authority to execute anyone, due to the fact that we are all sinners(except Jesus).

    It is clear that the stoning verses cannot possibly be literal, due to the fact that we do not have the authority to execute others according to John 8:1-11.

    Lastly, you presented evidence from the old covenant, which is not in power anymore. I presented you with clear evidence from the new covenant that shows GOD’s disapproval of sin.

    You attempted to use Ephesians 6:5 to support your claim, but I proved that “Ephesians 6:5? is not a support of slavery, rather it shows that GOD does not want the slave to free himself, he wants the slave owner to do the right thing and free the slave, as shown in “Philemon 1:15-16?.

  141. on 19 Sep 2014 at 10:21 pm 141.the messenger said …

    138.DPK, I already proved that the stoning(and other execution teachings) verses are metaphorical, when I presented John 8:1-11.

    John 8:1-11 shows that we humans do not have the authority to execute anyone, due to the fact that we are all sinners(except Jesus).

    It is clear that the stoning verses cannot possibly be literal, due to the fact that we do not have the authority to execute others according to John 8:1-11.

    Lastly, you presented evidence from the old covenant, which is not in power anymore. I presented you with clear evidence from the new covenant that shows GOD’s disapproval of sin.

    You attempted to use Ephesians 6:5 to support your claim, but I proved that “Ephesians 6:5? is not a support of slavery, rather it shows that GOD does not want the slave to free himself, he wants the slave owner to do the right thing and free the slave, as shown in Philemon 1:15-16.

  142. on 19 Sep 2014 at 11:57 pm 142.DPK said …

    138.DPK, I already proved that the stoning(and other execution teachings) verses are metaphorical, when I presented John 8:1-11.

    Really? That’s what you think you did huh? LOL think again Messy…. So when god specifically said “They are to be stoned at the village gates… until they are DEAD” you are presumptuous enough to claim that that is not what god meant? How exactly do you stone someone to DEATH metaphorically again? hahahaha… you and A should have adjoining rooms in the loony bin with your nonsensical rantings. LOL

  143. on 20 Sep 2014 at 4:36 am 143.the messenger said …

    142.DPK, tell me, where does in the bible does it state that the stoning verses are not metaphorical?

    I presented clear evidence(John 8:1-11) that proves that humans do not have the authority to punish sinners by the death penalty, due to the fact that we are all sinners(except Jesus).

    Due to the fact that Jesus(aka GOD) told us that humans do not have the authority to sentence other humans to death, it proves that the stoning verses are not literal.

    The stone could represent a hard punishment, and the death could be referring to the death of evil within a person. Or the execution metaphors could be similar to the “kicked the can metaphor”(which is a metaphor for someone dying) and have absolutely no similarity to it’s meaning.

  144. on 20 Sep 2014 at 4:42 am 144.the messenger said …

    142.DPK, tell me, where in the bible does it state that the stoning verses are not metaphorical?

    I presented clear evidence(John 8:1-11) that proves that humans do not have the authority to punish sinners by the death penalty, due to the fact that we are all sinners(except Jesus).

    Due to the fact that Jesus(aka GOD) told us that humans do not have the authority to sentence other humans to death, it proves that the stoning verses are not literal.

    The stone could represent a hard punishment, and the death could be referring to the death of evil within a person. Or the execution metaphors could be similar to the “kicked the can metaphor”(which is a metaphor for someone dying) and have absolutely no similarity to it’s meaning.

  145. on 21 Sep 2014 at 1:03 am 145.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “DPK, tell me, where does in the bible does it state that the stoning verses are not metaphorical??

    lol!!!!! I Just what to know why it is wrong outside of Dippity Dew Da’s opinion? Dippity seems to see his opinions as superior and all humanity should follow the moral teachings of the Dip!

    Of course, he will offer no explanations…..sigh…..:)

  146. on 21 Sep 2014 at 2:08 am 146.DPK said …

    The fact is, if A the lying prick does not see anything wrong with stoning people to death, then his problems go way beyond believing an invisible man is his best friend. Lol

    Btw, how come you ever answered this:
    ““do you think Messy is correct in his assertion that it is ok to own another human and force him to work for you as long as your circumstances are dire enough that you need that to survive, or do you think that slavery is in fact immoral?
    IF your opinion IS that slavery is immoral, what are YOU basing this opinion on?”

    I told you exactly why slavery is wrong in my opinion, but you haven’t told us if you think it is right or wrong, and why, since your god clearly endorses it. I wonder why you refuse to answer.

  147. on 22 Sep 2014 at 3:06 am 147.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “does not see anything wrong with stoning people to death”

    Well then……..you should be able to tell us(outside of mete opinion why it is wrong, yes?

    Am example, suppose we have a rival opinion Dip that stoning is only survival of the fittest in action. How would you convinvince him his opinion is wrong and your opinion is correct?

    Prediction: Dippity again will not answer sonce sadly he has no answer…….sigh……

  148. on 22 Sep 2014 at 10:19 am 148.alex said …

    “you should be able to tell us(outside of mete opinion why it is wrong, yes?”

    this is why you’re a dumbass motherfucker. you keep bringing up these wild goose chases and you keep failing. now you’re asking to prove why stoning is wrong?

    youse all the dumbasses that insist that the morals handed down by your bullshit god determines what is right or wrong. when your bullshit morality claim is called out, you turn it around and try to argue that atheists need to prove why it’s wrong.

    stoning is wrong and everybody knows it and yet you plead for proof? what is the opinion?

    did i say youse a dumb motherfucker. and this proves it: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  149. on 22 Sep 2014 at 3:54 pm 149.DPK said …

    Once again the lying prick demands answers to questions already asked and answered, while he himself refuses to respond to the most basic questions.

    In simple terms, is stoning someone to death immoral? According to the absolute moral code that A claims is handed to us by the all powerful creator, the answer is clearly “No”, because it is prescribed in the bible for many offenses. But most modern believers of course have found a way to rationalize around that little problem… meaning of course that the absolute moral code is anything but absolute.
    As a realist, I can certainly conceive that there might be circumstances where stoning someone to death may be morally acceptable, but of course, that would be some extraordinary circumstances… for example to save the life or lives of an innocent where stones were the only available weapon. But the point is, the morality of such an act would depend entirely on a judgement in relation to circumstances, and yes, it may be entirely possible for 2 people of good intentions and good morality to come to different conclusions about the morality of the same act.
    Now, notice once again that A the lying prick has once again FAILED to answer the question presented to him, what 6 or 7 times now. Any reasonable person would have to wonder why this is such a problem for him.

    “do you think Messy is correct in his assertion that it is ok to own another human and force him to work for you as long as your circumstances are dire enough that you need that to survive, or do you think that slavery is in fact immoral?
    IF your opinion IS that slavery is immoral, what are YOU basing this opinion on?”

    There will be no answer… as usual.

  150. on 22 Sep 2014 at 4:20 pm 150.DPK said …

    “According to the absolute moral code that A claims is handed to us by the all powerful creator, the answer is clearly “No”, because it is prescribed in the bible for many offenses.”

    Typo.. of course that should read:
    According to the absolute moral code that A claims is handed to us by the all powerful creator, the answer is clearly “YES”, because it is prescribed in the bible for many offenses.
    duh.

  151. on 22 Sep 2014 at 10:19 pm 151.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “the morality of such an act would depend entirely on a judgement in relation to circumstances, and yes, it may be entirely possible for 2 people of good intentions and good morality to come to different conclusions about the morality of the same act.”

    And there you go folks! In Dippity Dew’s world there is no such thing as immorality but only different levels of morality. Hitler had reasons for his horrendous acts, he was cleansing the genome pool. Stalin was attempting to keep an unstable USSR together. Hey folks! They had reason so it must be OK to murder and commit genocide in Dippity’s world!

    Therefore, Dippity has no grounds on which to judge God, Messenger or anyone else for that matter! lol!!!!!

    But he will…….watch his hyporcrisy as he judges others………popcorn ready…….lol!!!!

  152. on 22 Sep 2014 at 10:28 pm 152.alex said …

    http://goo.gl/UYo1uS lies, lies and more lies.

    the world according to the resident, dumb, motherfucker hor. enough said.

    look, it magically updated itself. must be god doing it.

  153. on 23 Sep 2014 at 12:48 am 153.the messenger said …

    145.The Prickly Science Guy, sorry for taking so long to comment again. I was busy laughing my butt off.

    Once again you pull the opinion card.

  154. on 23 Sep 2014 at 1:15 am 154.alex said …

    “I was busy laughing my butt off.”

    you realize that you’re the resident laughing stock? see http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    “if you have a glass of salt water and you pour more water in(fresh water), it does not change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry”

    “Hell does not last forever.”

    “evolution did occur after God created the original animals”

    “I have also seen heaven my self and it is amazing.”

    choke on those, your own words, bitch, motherfucker.

    and lastly, your sorry, stupid ass, motherfucking comment that nobody agrees with:

    “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage)”

    what? hollerin, out of context again? here’s your entire post, bitch. http://goo.gl/FEHaJc

  155. on 23 Sep 2014 at 3:43 am 155.DPK said …

    They had reason so it must be OK to murder and commit genocide in Dippity’s world…

    That’s your conclusion? You’re even dumber than I thought! Lol

    Anyway, let’s see if you can explain for us, since you claim to have an absolute moral code:
    “do you think Messy is correct in his assertion that it is ok to own another human and force him to work for you as long as your circumstances are dire enough that you need that to survive, or do you think that slavery is in fact immoral?
    IF your opinion IS that slavery is immoral, what are YOU basing this opinion on?”

    Since you won’t answer, why should anyone accept your claim of an absolute morality given by a perfect being?

  156. on 23 Sep 2014 at 12:03 pm 156.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “The Prickly Science Guy, sorry for taking so long to comment again. I was busy laughing my butt off.

    Once again you pull the opinion card.”

    You are right on time Mess. Dippity Dew Da wants to continue a discussion on ethics, continuing to judge others while maintaining everyone has their own moral code and they are all correct as long as they justify their own reason. everyone is right! yay!!!!

    See how continues to attempt to get me to judge you? It is desperation to take the spotlight off his hypocrisy.

    LOL!!! He doesn’t even like his own rules!

  157. on 23 Sep 2014 at 1:37 pm 157.alex said …

    “martin: martin, good one!”

    hypocrisy?

  158. on 23 Sep 2014 at 2:21 pm 158.DPK said …

    “See how continues to attempt to get me to judge you?”

    Not at all. I’m simply trying to get you to explain how your absolute code of morality works. You and Messy both subscribe to the same absolute code, yet he says it’s ok for one human being to own another in certain circumstances. He also says rape victims should be forced to marry their rapists, and many other strange ideas. Now, I can see where he gets these ideas, as they are plainly written about in the bible. I just want to know your take on it. Can two people following the same absolute moral code come to different conclusions about what is moral and what is not? How does that happen… and how are we to know which one of you is right, and which one is wrong??

    Why won’t you answer a simple direct question?
    “Do you think Messy is correct in his assertion that it is ok to own another human and force him to work for you as long as your circumstances are dire enough that you need that to survive, or do you think that slavery is in fact immoral?
    IF your opinion IS that slavery is immoral, what are YOU basing this opinion on?”

    Just tell us what your absolute code of morality says, ans show us where is says it. Since you either can’t or won’t, why do you continue to blabber about it. Put up or shut up, as they say………

  159. on 23 Sep 2014 at 3:38 pm 159.alex said …

    “Now, I can see where he gets these ideas, as they are plainly written about in the bible. I just want to know your take on it.”

    the idiot hor doesn’t have a take on it. he just love to pontificate about how atheists are this and that.

    a morality test: cursing. should i? nope. no different than an xtian, eh? should i be greedy and take the last two free donuts? nope. no different, eh?

    either way, did i need the bullshit god given morals? another test. should i prevent gays from marrying? nope. oh, motherfucking no! some xtians would! now where in the fuck did they get that idea from? should the courts allow rapists to marry their vic? nope. oh, no! not again! where in the fuck did some of those moronic xtians get that idea from?

    idiot, motherfucking hor.

  160. on 23 Sep 2014 at 4:43 pm 160.TJ said …

    Doesn’t the Bible teach that all are born into sin by default, because of mankind’s fall from grace in the garden of Eden at the very beginning?

    Doesn’t this make no-one able to uphold the moral code?

    Isn’t this the reason given for why mankind is in need of salvation?

    Or can it be shown to say something else?

  161. on 23 Sep 2014 at 4:59 pm 161.alex said …

    “Doesn’t the Bible teach that all are born into sin..”

    didn’t the same bible say that the mustard seed is the smallest seed? we know this is bullshit. why don’t you tell me how i can tell biblical bullshit from all the other passages?

    jericho and the still sun? moses walking on water? jacob wrastling the angel? elisha’s bones reviving the dead?

    go head and publish your bible checklist so that we can use it to test the veracity of the bible. it doesn’t exist does it? motherfuckers like you, messenger, and the rest insist that you alone (no atheists allowed) are the sole interpreters of the bible. wonder why you motherfuckers can’t even agree?

    dumbass, motherfucker.

  162. on 23 Sep 2014 at 7:09 pm 162.DPK said …

    160.TJ said …
    “Doesn’t the Bible teach that all are born into sin by default, because of mankind’s fall from grace in the garden of Eden at the very beginning?”

    What is your definition of “sin”? Is it the failure to follow god’s laws as laid out in the bible, or something else? Because to me, if one follows god’s instructions about say, stoning adulterers and those who work on the Sabbath to death, or on how to properly acquire and punish slaves, how can you then say those acts are sinful?

    Furthermore, since god specifically created man to be sinful, and to be born into sin because of the act of his distant ancestors, how are we to blame? If an engineer designs an car so that the engine explodes when you start it, is it the car’s fault when the engine explodes, or the engineer’s?

  163. on 23 Sep 2014 at 7:28 pm 163.alex said …

    What is your definition of “sin”?

    it’s the first part of the xtian double indemnity insurance. any fucked up thing these morons do, it all points to the adam singularity, rendering the xtian motherfucker blameless. exercise the second clause and viola! all them sins are washed away!

    nice, eh? and how much is the premium? pay with your brain. empty out all logical content and fill it with the xtian, toxic, smothering anesthesia. you’ll feel better. NOT!

    fucking assholes.

  164. on 23 Sep 2014 at 9:17 pm 164.alex said …

    i’m sorry. it’s really a trifecta. after playing the redemption card, the xtian moron proclaims any/all events that unfold are his god causation.

    i got caught kissing another woman because i was born a sinner. god has forgiven me. i’m blessed to have such an understanding wife. courtesy of your boy, vance.

    priest molests a child because of his original sin. god forgives him. authorities convicts his motherfucking ass. dipshit proclaims that god wanted him to get caught so that others may learn.

    fucking shit.

  165. on 23 Sep 2014 at 9:27 pm 165.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Doesn’t this make no-one able to uphold the moral code?”

    TJ who said anything about about anyone always acting morally?

    I only point out that atheists have no ability to judge another individuals actions. Everyone is moral in atheist world because no personal opinion is more valid than another individual’s opinion.

    Sounds really good, huh? Do anything, anywhere, anytime, make up a reason and you are good to go!

    I seem to remember Srewtape mentioning such a scenario :)

  166. on 23 Sep 2014 at 9:42 pm 166.alex said …

    “Everyone is moral in atheist world…”

    this is why you’re a dumb motherfucking, liar. who said a rich atheist shoplifter is moral? your absolute morals don’t exist and your dumbass interprets this as everyone being moral? did i say you’re a dumb motherfucker?

    an atheist rapist is definitely not moral. according to the other motherfucker, messenger, a rapist (atheist or not) may marry their victim as the punishment. is this your idea of moral? it sure as hell ain’t no atheist definition.

    dumbass, motherfucker.

  167. on 23 Sep 2014 at 11:10 pm 167.DPK said …

    “Everyone is moral in atheist world because no personal opinion is more valid than another individual’s opinion.”

    You continuing to lie and espouse this kind of nonsense doesn’t make it so, anymore than you claiming that an invisible man is your best buddy and will reward you with eternal life where you get to ride rainbow ponies with Jesus after you die makes it so either.

    Now, let’s try again… we have already given you reasons why, say slavery, the act of one human owning another as property, is immoral. We want to know your take.

    “Do you think Messy is correct in his assertion that it is ok to own another human and force him to work for you as long as your circumstances are dire enough that you need that to survive, or do you think that slavery is in fact immoral?
    IF your opinion IS that slavery is immoral, what are YOU basing this opinion on?”

    It is so so funny that you steadfastly refuse to answer a question about morality as basic as slavery. Instead you avoid the question and falsely claim that “everything is moral in atheist’s world…” which is a lie. Since you claim possesion of an absolute code of morality, tell us specifically what it says about slavery… then we can address all the other problems… but tell us exactly what it says. Either it agrees with Messy or it doesn’t right?
    LOL

  168. on 24 Sep 2014 at 2:06 am 168.TJ said …

    I don’t answer for what others say or believe.

    The Bible teaches that all are condemned through the actions of one man… Adam. And all can have salvation through the sacrifice of one man… the last Adam… Christ.

    Sin by definition is disobedience to God. You are either in line with Gods instruction or you are not. There is no middle ground or fence to sit on.

    The Bible teaches that all, are already condemned. Not by choice but by circumstance. Salvation through Christ is the solution promised to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden by God.

    If you where an Israelite charged with purging the promised land, ridding it of those God had Judged for destruction. And you failed to kill all the women and children as instructed… would you consider yourself to be in line with Gods instruction?

    The Bible talks of such a scenario. What does it say?

    Today we live in an age of Grace where God has fulfilled the promise to Adam and Eve. We are not instructed to treat anyone in any harsh way, rather to treat others how we want to be treated and to love our neighbors.

    Why is it that blame falls on God for ALL things Judged as wrong by us?

    “Who says anyone gets to make the call? Once you allow someone to dictate what is right and wrong you are left with arbitrary moral dictates which are a) subject to the whims of the one who is dictating them and b) relativistic when they don’t apply to the morality giver. For example, the Christian God commanded people not to kill each other but then insisted that his people slaughter the Canaanites. The commandment changed due to the whim of God. Then there are examples of God killing people Himself (see: everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah). People like A give their God a free pass. It’s his “prerogative” to ignore His own moral commandments whenever He sees fit. It’s moral relativism plain and simple.”

    A whim? No reasons given in the Bible?

    So a computer game programmer should be subject to the same laws , settings and attributes that govern characters in a game too?

    Should God have been subject to the Laws given to Man before or after creating man?

    Should not the programmer of life have the the right to edit, delete and bug fix?

    Does God not declare the creation to be “very Good” in the beginning, and then pass the earth over to the responsibility and stewardship of Man and his free will, for whom it was created?

    Or am I just making up stuff not written in the Bible?

    When you begin to insert opinions and interpretations that are far removed from what is written, it all falls apart when logic is applied.

  169. on 29 Sep 2014 at 3:55 pm 169.freddies_dead said …

    168.TJ said …

    I don’t answer for what others say or believe.

    The Bible teaches that all are condemned through the actions of one man… Adam. And all can have salvation through the sacrifice of one man… the last Adam… Christ.

    So the only way an omnipotent God can prevent the condemnation of the entire human race over the actions of one man is for God to torture and execute Himself (in the form of Jesus – the one supposedly sinless man) and yet everyone is still born into sin so the plan failed anyway.

    Sin by definition is disobedience to God. You are either in line with Gods instruction or you are not. There is no middle ground or fence to sit on.

    The Bible also says we’re all incapable of avoiding sin (so much for free will again). Are God’s instructions moral because they conform to an objective moral standard or simply because God says they are good?

    The Bible teaches that all, are already condemned. Not by choice but by circumstance.

    And once more we see free will abrogated by the whim of God.

    Salvation through Christ is the solution promised to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden by God.

    The bit where He’s going to sacrifice Himself to Himself because His creation did exactly as He knew it would do … still makes no sense.

    If you where an Israelite charged with purging the promised land, ridding it of those God had Judged for destruction. And you failed to kill all the women and children as instructed… would you consider yourself to be in line with Gods instruction?

    The Bible talks of such a scenario. What does it say?

    This doesn’t address the problem whereby God’s instructions contradict His earlier commandments. This invalidates the notion that the moral laws handed down from God are absolute. It just proves my point about them being subject to God’s whims.

    Today we live in an age of Grace where God has fulfilled the promise to Adam and Eve. We are not instructed to treat anyone in any harsh way, rather to treat others how we want to be treated and to love our neighbors.

    A concept that predates Christianity and appears in most of the worlds major religions.

    Why is it that blame falls on God for ALL things Judged as wrong by us?

    Because if the Christian claims are true, i.e. that God exists, that He is omniscient and omnipotent and that He has a plan to bring about His own glory then everything that happens – be it considered good or bad – is attributable to God. The problem for Christians is that God is also said to be omnibenevolent (which amusingly contradicts God’s own claim to be a jealous God). Which begs the question of how evil can exist when God is said to be all good? It makes no sense, but then neither do many of the Christian claims regarding God.

    I said the following to A the lying prick who insists that God’s morality is absolute so my answers will use that as a contextual basis.

    “Who says anyone gets to make the call? Once you allow someone to dictate what is right and wrong you are left with arbitrary moral dictates which are a) subject to the whims of the one who is dictating them and b) relativistic when they don’t apply to the morality giver. For example, the Christian God commanded people not to kill each other but then insisted that his people slaughter the Canaanites. The commandment changed due to the whim of God. Then there are examples of God killing people Himself (see: everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah). People like A give their God a free pass. It’s his “prerogative” to ignore His own moral commandments whenever He sees fit. It’s moral relativism plain and simple.”

    A whim? No reasons given in the Bible?

    What have these “reasons” got to do with absolute morality? Either something is wrong or it isn’t. For morality to be absolute there can’t be excuses which suddenly make immoral acts moral. This idea that there’s a morally sufficient reason for any action, no matter how abhorrent, contradicts the claim of absolute morality.

    So a computer game programmer should be subject to the same laws , settings and attributes that govern characters in a game too?

    If you want to call those laws “absolute”, then yes.

    Should God have been subject to the Laws given to Man before or after creating man?

    Either the laws are absolute, in which case God is subject to them regardless of when He created man, or they’re simply not absolute.

    Should not the programmer of life have the the right to edit, delete and bug fix?

    As already noted, not if the morals are claimed to be “absolute”. Also, why would a perfect being need to “edit, delete and bug fix”? Especially when everything that happens is part of it’s plan?

    Does God not declare the creation to be “very Good” in the beginning, and then pass the earth over to the responsibility and stewardship of Man and his free will, for whom it was created?

    What does this have to do with morality? Ignoring the absurdity of a supposedly perfect being creating a less than perfect creation and the nonsensical claim for free will in the face of an omniscient being with a plan, there’s nothing in that question that addresses the problem of a God commanding others to commit immoral acts, or indeed, of Him committing them Himself.

    Or am I just making up stuff not written in the Bible?

    The problem lies with what is written in the Bible. The passages that show God breaking His own supposedly absolute laws.

    When you begin to insert opinions and interpretations that are far removed from what is written, it all falls apart when logic is applied.

    Hell, just applying logic to what appears in the Bible causes it’s claims to fall apart.

  170. on 29 Sep 2014 at 7:02 pm 170.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “For example, the Christian God commanded people not to kill each other but then insisted that his people slaughter the Canaanites.”

    Actually God said not to murderer which is the taking of innocent life…..you know…..like abortion. God judged the Canaanites and destroyed them which He can do because all life belongs to Him.

    “Then there are examples of God killing people Himself”

    Incorrect, all life belongs to God therefore He can take life whenever He desires. Since it belongs to Him, He cannot murder. Man murderers because life does not belong to Him. So simple alex could grasp it….:)

    lol!!!!! Where is that post about atheist knowing theology? lol!!!!!! They can’t even handle the basics…..

    Anywho…..

    Assume God did all the terrible things Freddie the Mouse claims, why are they wrong atheists……still waiting for the answer….lol!!!!

  171. on 29 Sep 2014 at 7:28 pm 171.alex said …

    “Man murderers because life does not belong to Him.”

    good one martin. one fell swoop, you’ve justified owning slaves and killing them. high fives all around. moron.

  172. on 29 Sep 2014 at 8:31 pm 172.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “you’ve justified owning slaves and killing them.”

    I did? Do tell alexander? Please share how I did this and then tell me WHY it is wrong.

    Watch this everyone………get your popcorn!

  173. on 29 Sep 2014 at 9:43 pm 173.alex said …

    “Do tell alexander? Please share how I did this and then tell me WHY it is wrong.”

    oh, look. another failed wild goose chase attempt, by the resident, dipshit, motherfucker hor, a.k.a. martin, science guy, biff, xenon, little ‘A’, Sweetness, boz, RL Wooten, ‘Everyone’.

    why don’t you look it up yourself? all 42 references from your shitpile collection at: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    popcorn? 30 motherfucking times, you mentioned it, you dumbass, motherfucker.

    so tell us again about your all knowing god giving free will? he can, because he’s god? that’s why you’re a dumbass motherfucker. it’s not murder because god owns the life? did i mention that you’re a dumbass motherfucker?

  174. on 29 Sep 2014 at 10:48 pm 174.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “why don’t you look it up yourself?”

    Lol!!!!!!!! Once again…….alexander cannot perform…….sigh…….lol!!!!!

    Luv ya Alex! See ya buddy!

  175. on 29 Sep 2014 at 10:58 pm 175.alex said …

    “alexander cannot perform”

    it’s all here bitch, motherfucker. http://goo.gl/UYo1uS. the fact that you defend the bible’s stance on slavery is implicit, you dumbass.

    go ahead and look it up in your shitpile http://goo.gl/UYo1uS. turn it in for review and ask the question: does the dipshit motherfucker believe in slavery as stated in the bible. what would the reviewers answer? did i say you’re a dumbass, motherfucker?

    what are you going to ask next? evolution? gravity?

    fucking asshole, motherfucker.

  176. on 30 Sep 2014 at 12:41 am 176.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead said,

    Man, I totally see your line of logic in relation to absolute morality. I’ve though as you do.

    Call me crazy if you will. I also see the logic in Alex’s “Possible, Creative non-interactive God”. I’ve pondered such things too.

    Logic is logical by default, but this is subjective to the individual applying their version of logic. Not necessarily correct or true. There is no proof to say I’m correct. There is no proof to say your wrong.

    As Alex points out I only have my personal testimony, which I claim to be a revelation in regard to my salvation. Beyond that I only have the same bible as everyone else to read from.

    I would not be claiming what I claim unless I believed it, I know how crazy it sounds, and I said before…

    “What we believe is determined more so by what we reject as opposed to what we can provide proof for.”

    It’s often about what we can prove via reason and logical determining to ourselves, not to others.

    Thanks for sharing.

    I respect your position. But, does it provides you with answers to those burning questions we all ask ourselves?

  177. on 30 Sep 2014 at 1:57 am 177.alex said …

    “It’s often about what we can prove via reason and logical determining to ourselves, not to others.”

    fair enough. considering the dreadful eternal damnation, many atheists arrive at their conclusion via careful and thoughtful considerations.

    you’ll find that a lot of atheists don’t really care about your beliefs. it’s the behavior that goes along with it that is hard to ignore. xtians resolve this by proclaiming that such peeps are not the real deal. similarly, muslims proclaim that other religions are bogus.

    to resolve this, tolerance is a must. secularism explains this by separating government from religion. additionally, and to be fair to others, all religions must tone it down. in your face evangelism has been demonstrated to work mostly on fools and the desperate.

    by treating all religions as equal without preference, it would be logical to extend this same treatment to non-believers.

    a step towards this equality could be achieved by accepting that certain properties attributed to gods are not. this includes morals, events, origins, and after death destinations.

  178. on 30 Sep 2014 at 2:14 am 178.the messenger said …

    169.freddies_dead, in this comment I will address your claims.

    Claim 1:”The Bible teaches that all are condemned through the actions of one man… Adam.”

    That is completely false. Original sin is not mentioned in the bible, nor is it a catholic doctrine. Also, Deuteronomy 24:16 makes it clear that we(and we alone) are responsible for our own sins. Also, the Adam and eve thing is a metaphor (as I explained and proved many times before.).

    Claim 2:”Sin by definition is disobedience to God. You are either in line with Gods instruction or you are not. There is no middle ground or fence to sit on.”

    This is correct.

    Claim 3:”The Bible also says we’re all incapable of avoiding sin (so much for free will again). Are God’s instructions moral because they conform to an objective moral standard or simply because God says they are good?”

    Sin is unavoidable just like stop signs on the road. The inevitability of sin does not remove free will, due to the fact that we can resist sin, and can choose to sin or not sin.

    Claim 4:”So the only way an omnipotent God can prevent the condemnation of the entire human race over the actions of one man is for God to torture and execute Himself (in the form of Jesus – the one supposedly sinless man) and yet everyone is still born into sin so the plan failed anyway.”

    First of all, Jesus(GOD in human form) allowed himself to be taken by the romans and crucified by them, while holding all of the sins and evil of the world on his back, because he wanted to prove to the whole world that he loves humanity enough to suffer unimaginable pain for us and to start the new covenant( a covenant that brings cleansing of sins, and that brings us to salvation and eventually moral perfection).

    Claim 5:”The Bible teaches that all, are already condemned. Not by choice but by circumstance.”

    The purpose of the new covenant is not to condemn us, but to condemn evil.

  179. on 30 Sep 2014 at 2:23 am 179.the messenger said …

    continued……

    Claim 6:”Today we live in an age of Grace where God has fulfilled the promise to Adam and Eve. We are not instructed to treat anyone in any harsh way, rather to treat others how we want to be treated and to love our neighbors.

    A concept that predates Christianity and appears in most of the worlds major religions.”

    GOD taught the golden rule to the first humans, so it makes sense that it would be passed to many later cultures and religions of the world.

    Also, Judaism(which Christianity came from) had the golden rule, and it is thousands of years older than Christianity.

  180. on 30 Sep 2014 at 2:36 am 180.alex said …

    178.the messenger said…

    bleh, bleh, motherfucking bleh. you’ve demonstrated many times that you’re a cherry picking bible idiot as seen in your past postings: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    discussing the questionable bible with you is pointless. a universal, fully agreeable, biblical translation is unachievable and you’re probably not the most qualified to do it. case in point, ridiculous marriage rape shit.

    end of story. dumbass, motherfucker.

  181. on 30 Sep 2014 at 2:43 am 181.alex said …

    “GOD taught the golden rule to the first humans, so it makes sense that it would be passed to many later cultures and religions of the world.”

    wrong AGAIN, motherfucker. there are other religions that predate xtianity and they have similar “golden rules”. this is an example of your circular, dumbass logic. you posit, without proof, that your god created the first humans and then you extend it with more crap.

    would it make sense if i were to declare that “RA”, who predates your god, taught the golden rule to the first humans, and bleh, bleh, bleh?

    no, it wouldn’t, would it? dumb, motherfucker.

  182. on 30 Sep 2014 at 5:35 am 182.TJ said …

    Alex,

    “you’ll find that a lot of atheists don’t really care about your beliefs. it’s the behavior that goes along with it that is hard to ignore.”

    Yes I agree. Many religions do play the damnation card and use the “in your face approach”.

    And yes. I have been guilty of such behavior.

    I also believe religions have been used to invoke fear and control upon individuals, groups and nations. And that most religions demonstrate actions that are in direct contrast to what they state to believe.

    I said earlier that I don’t belong to any religious group. I have often regarded religious groups as most hypercritical. The idea that you can turn up to church on Sunday and it’s all good, regardless of your activities the following week. In truth, I am not any better.

    Personally I believe that I have found salvation in Christ. The opposite of salvation is the bad news however. Just as if I saw you heading towards a fallen power line, I would try to warn you of the danger.

    I’m glad we could talk reasonably to each other. I am interested in all views, even if I don’t always portray it or agree with them.

    Personally, one of the biggest issues I consider with atheism, is the logical conclusion that at any point any country could declare that they are the most advanced, technological, populated, or just plain better than everyone else.

    The atheist world view requires no higher moral or authority by which to measure itself against. Virtually any action taken, hostile, aggressive or otherwise can be justified and explained away through logic, reason, need or requirement.

    Combined with Evolutionary logic, it all leads to the conclusion that we are all the product of accidental mutations, putting mankind as his own absolute authority. But who gets to make decisions. The fittest?

    Whatever the fittest says goes? This is a scary scenario to me, and it is well on the way with each new generation being taught that as individuals, they ultimately don’t matter.

    The implications could lead a society in any number of directions, perhaps some good, some not so.

    And yes, I know that religion has many terrible examples of what it can produce.

    Just my thoughts.

  183. on 30 Sep 2014 at 8:16 am 183.TJ said …

    To the messenger,

    Mate, your addressing freddies_dead regarding comments I made. If look at post #168 you’ll see what I mean. If you address your concerns to me I’ll happily answer.

    To freddies_dead,

    Both the messenger and The Prickly Science Guy contend that Genesis is not to be regarded as literal.

    This whole issue regarding absolute moral laws. I’m not so sure about, for a start they disregard Genesis as non literal yet proclaim it’s moral and educational value. By doing this they discredit Jesus’s claims and undo the entire Gospel message from the beginning.

    What Genesis does imply is that God is the ultimate authority. The problem begins when Adam and Eve disobey God. Plain and simple. The penalty was death. But rather than destroy them instantly, (because he loved them) God separates himself from man instead (the bible speaks of imperfection being unable to exist in the presence of God, whatever that means), and promises to restore the connection through a kinsman redeemer.

    It seems all other laws are passed to man as God sees fit. Not from the very beginning as if handed to man as a moral hand book.

    Jesus’s role is to then enter into death, being sinless, the penalty for sin does not apply and he is able to reestablish a connection back to the Father (original formless God).

    By deflating the importance of Genesis none of it makes any sense.

    But if you prefer the messengers and The Prickly Science Guy’s take on what is written, then by all means disregard me completely.

  184. on 30 Sep 2014 at 4:10 pm 184.freddies_dead said …

    170.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “For example, the Christian God commanded people not to kill each other but then insisted that his people slaughter the Canaanites.”

    Actually God said not to murderer which is the taking of innocent life…..you know…..like abortion.

    Even if we’re kind and accept A’s translation here, what he’s still ignoring is that God orders the slaughter of every Canaanite – men, women, children – innocent and guilty alike i.e. He still orders murder according to A’s own definition, which apparently is one of those laws A claim’s is absolute. As usual A is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He’s doing exactly what I’ve been saying all along – affirming that might makes right – and displaying the moral relativism Christianity actually holds to while claiming otherwise.

    God judged the Canaanites and destroyed them which He can do because all life belongs to Him.

    By this “logic” there’s absolutely nothing wrong with slave owners destroying their slaves because they belong to them. That’s some “morality” A has there.

    “Then there are examples of God killing people Himself”

    Incorrect, all life belongs to God therefore He can take life whenever He desires. Since it belongs to Him, He cannot murder.

    God gets a free pass on breaking His own rules again. Might makes right once more. So much for Christian moral absolutes.

    Man murderers because life does not belong to Him.

    And yet slavery – as condoned in the Bible – is ownership of another human being, slaves belong to their owners. As noted, according to A’s earlier “logic”, it’s not murder when a slave owner kills a slave.

    So simple alex could grasp it….:)

    And yet still too complicated for A it seems.

    lol!!!!! Where is that post about atheist knowing theology? lol!!!!!! They can’t even handle the basics…..

    I have to wonder what basics A is referring to here. I’ve simply shown that his claim of moral absolutes isn’t upheld by what we find in the Bible – instead we find might makes right moral relativism. So, it seems that by “theology” A means trying to hold 2 contradictory ideas at once. In which case I’m quite happy to be told I “can’t even handle” it.

    Anywho…..

    Assume God did all the terrible things Freddie the Mouse claims, why are they wrong atheists……still waiting for the answer….lol!!!!

    A knows this has been asked and answered. The terrible things God does are objectively harmful to humans. That makes them wrong. If he objects then he’s welcome to demonstrate how being killed is a good thing.

  185. on 30 Sep 2014 at 4:21 pm 185.freddies_dead said …

    178.the messenger said …

    169.freddies_dead, in this comment I will address your claims.

    As TJ has noted you’re actually addressing mostly his claims but I have to point out just how wrong you are from the very start.

    Claim 1:”The Bible teaches that all are condemned through the actions of one man… Adam.”

    That is completely false. Original sin is not mentioned in the bible, nor is it a catholic doctrine.

    Holy cow. It’s in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Available on the Vatican’s own website FFS.
    Your own church says you are dead wrong.

    PART ONE
    THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

    SECTION TWO
    THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

    CHAPTER ONE
    I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER

    ARTICLE I
    “I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH”

    Paragraph 7. The Fall

    Original sin – an essential truth of the faith

    388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story’s ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.261 We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to “convict the world concerning sin”,262 by revealing him who is its Redeemer.

    389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

    You’d think a self professed Catholic would have a rudimentary knowledge of what is and isn’t Catholic doctrine.

  186. on 30 Sep 2014 at 5:30 pm 186.A Prickly Science Giy said …

    “The terrible things God does are objectively harmful to humans. That makes them wrong”

    Lol!!!!!! Now we have AMOTHER definition of what is moral. Now Freddie & Mouse get to impose their own definition on us and God.

    Atheism is harmful to humans therefore Freddie is living immorally! Lol!!!!

    Oh but wait……

    Omly Freddie and his Mouse get to determine what is and is mot harmful to humans.

    I bet he has set himself up as the judge and jury……lol!!!!

    Lets see if he answers who is judge and jury on what is harmful to humans…….:)

    Based on China and the USSR, I already know the answer……..sigh…….popcorn ready

  187. on 30 Sep 2014 at 10:12 pm 187.alex said …

    “Omly Freddie and his Mouse get to determine what is and is mot harmful to humans.”

    another example why you’re a dumb motherfucker. you wrongly contend that atheists make up their own morals. you’re going to ask me to cite that? look it up, you beeyatch. it’s all here: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    atheists don’t make up their own morals, you fuckhead. you’ve been challenged to produce your god given absolute morals, which of course, you predictably failed. cite an example when an atheist committed a crime and attributed it to his own, arbitrary morals? you want me to cite an example of a criminal theist that said he did it because of god?

    your exclusive xtian god given morals are bullshit. other religions have morals and atheists have them too. your motherfucking god does not have a morals monopoly, so shut the fuck up already.

    you contend that historically, atheists committed atrocities and atheists retort the same about theist atrocities, but it doesn’t matter. prison population reflects that most crimes are committed by theists. crime rates in mostly atheist countries, like norway, sweden, and finland, are lower in comparison to religious countries. draw your own conclusion, dumbass.

    now, go fuck yourself, bitch.

  188. on 30 Sep 2014 at 11:22 pm 188.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “cite an example when an atheist committed a crime and attributed it to his own, arbitrary morals?”

    lol!!! That is WAY to easy but Sure thing:

    Madalyn Murray O’Hair murdered by atheist David Waters

    Alfred Kinsey Molested kids and fraudulent research

    Kim Jong Il – Name he has done it

    Jeff Dahmer – Killed and ate human beings.

    A short list for the sake of time.

    “atheists don’t make up their own morals”

    Well now we have ANOTHER claim by an atheist no less. OK, Alexander, my little pony, where do athesit morals come from cutie?

    Looking forward to learning…….popcorn ready……this will be exciting……..:)

    “draw your own conclusion”

    OK, I usually do but thanks for the invite. Alex is clueless! lol!!!

  189. on 30 Sep 2014 at 11:54 pm 189.alex said …

    dumbass hor failed again. did David Waters say the reason he killed was because he said he’s an atheist? did Alfred Kinsey molest because he said he’s an atheist? did Kim Jong Il say he’s doing all these things because he said he’s an atheist? and on and on. does the ebola virus kill because it says it’s an atheist? even if all these people and the ebola virus said that they did what they did, how the fuck does that prove your assertion that ONLY people with your god given morals behave morally? you going to ask me to cite this assertion? look it up, bitch. it’s right here: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    in your delusional up mind, buddhists, moslems, non-xtian people, and atheists lacking your, imagined, god given morals, behave wrongly. yeah, right, beeyatch. citation again? http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    you’re a dumbass motherfucker. you claim that atheists make up their own morals, but you can’t produce your own god given absolute morals. where did you get it then, you dumb motherfucker? no, bitch. you use judgment, just like everybody else. no? present a hypothetical situation and test a buddhist, moslem, and an atheist. do it, bitch, coward, motherfucker, and see how they all would behave. no? go fuck yourself.

  190. on 01 Oct 2014 at 12:24 am 190.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “prove your assertion that ONLY people with your god given morals behave morally?”

    UM, Never made such a claim, it is your cluelessness shining through again….lol!!!!!

    Lets review the question you are running from….lol!!!!

    OK, Alexander, my little pony, where do athesit morals come from cutie?

    Looking forward to learning…….popcorn ready……this will be exciting……..:)

  191. on 01 Oct 2014 at 12:26 am 191.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Oh, luv ya babe!!!!!

    You are what children dream of becoming…:)

  192. on 01 Oct 2014 at 12:41 am 192.alex said …

    about your assertion that only people with your god given morals behave morally….

    “Never made such a claim, it is your cluelessness shining through again….lol!!!!!”

    i knew you were going to deny it. that’s why i referenced your pile of shit at http://goo.gl/UYo1uS. submit the entire content and send it to a peer review of your choice and ask them to conclude your stance on morals.

    “where do athesit morals come from cutie?”

    i don’t know. your turn, bitch, motherfucker. present your god’s absolute morals? chirp, chirp, asshole.

  193. on 01 Oct 2014 at 12:54 am 193.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “i don’t know you turn”

    Thanks….

    I spread knew that:). Just wanted you to admit it.

    Lets let you buddies give it a shot eh? I mean it can’t be every atheist makes up what is moral and what is immoral? That would make everything possibly moral…..that’s craziness!! Lol!!!

    Luv ya buddy!!

  194. on 01 Oct 2014 at 12:59 am 194.alex said …

    “I mean it can’t be every atheist makes up what is moral and what is immoral?”

    that’s why you’re a dumbass, motherfucker. all this righteous blabbering about morals and you can’t even produce it?

    then what the fuck are you talking about? from your non production of this so called morals, one could conclude that it’s a made up, bullshit, ya?

    dumbass, motherfucker.

  195. on 01 Oct 2014 at 1:46 am 195.alex said …

    and so, the nonexistent, biblical, god given absolute morals, championed by the resident dumbass, hor, is put to sleep again.

    but, do not be fooled. when the hor motherfucker runs out of material, he will surely resurrect the shit yet again. check it for yourself: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    allahu akbar. yours truly, the atheist moslem.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply