Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I believe in traditional biblical marriage

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 12:42:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
One man and his sister
One man and his dead brother's wife
One man and one woman and her servants
One man and his rape victim
One man and many women
One man and 700 women and 300 concubines
One man and one woman and her slaves
One soldier and his virgin prisoners

Just not one man and one man. THAT would be immoral.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 1:08:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 12:42:21 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
One man and his sister
One man and his dead brother's wife
One man and one woman and her servants
One man and his rape victim
One man and many women
One man and 700 women and 300 concubines
One man and one woman and her slaves
One soldier and his virgin prisoners

Just not one man and one man. THAT would be immoral.
after some of those it would be a relief when I got to hell.
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 1:45:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let's take bets on what the first rationalisation will be:

1) "Old Testament so that doesn't count any more, unless it's the Ten Commandments or that one bit in Leviticus that says don't be a homo"

2) "The whole bible is literally true, but you're not supposed to take everything in the bible LITERALLY. Unless it's the Ten Commandments or that one bit in Leviticus that says don't be a homo"

3) "You don't understand the bible. You need to look at those verses in the historical context they were written in and blah blah blah don't be a homo"
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 1:48:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 1:45:33 AM, Drayson wrote:
Let's take bets on what the first rationalisation will be:

1) "Old Testament so that doesn't count any more, unless it's the Ten Commandments or that one bit in Leviticus that says don't be a homo"

2) "The whole bible is literally true, but you're not supposed to take everything in the bible LITERALLY. Unless it's the Ten Commandments or that one bit in Leviticus that says don't be a homo"

3) "You don't understand the bible. You need to look at those verses in the historical context they were written in and blah blah blah don't be a homo"

You win the Internet for today. Good job, human.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 1:48:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 1:47:43 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Jimmies remain unrustled.

Well, you're particularly unfucktarded.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
thg
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 3:27:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 1:45:33 AM, Drayson wrote:
Let's take bets on what the first rationalisation will be:

1) "Old Testament so that doesn't count any more, unless it's the Ten Commandments or that one bit in Leviticus that says don't be a homo"

2) "The whole bible is literally true, but you're not supposed to take everything in the bible LITERALLY. Unless it's the Ten Commandments or that one bit in Leviticus that says don't be a homo"

3) "You don't understand the bible. You need to look at those verses in the historical context they were written in and blah blah blah don't be a homo"

Drayson... I know some Christians can be annoying, but this sarcasm...coming from you? You know good and well the instigator of this thread has no clue about what the Bible teaches on sexual morality. Come on, man. I know you from other threads. You're better than this!

As for the instigator of this thread, WallStreetAtheist, all I can say is, nice try, but no cigar. If you want to really debate something that has any serious relevance to biblically-based morality or biblical interpretation, as Val Kilmer said, playing Doc Holliday in Tombstone, when challenged to a gun draw by the ranting Johnny Ringo, "I'm your huckleberry....that's just my game." Anytime, bro. Bring it on.
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 3:47:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 3:27:20 AM, thg wrote:
At 8/16/2013 1:45:33 AM, Drayson wrote:
Let's take bets on what the first rationalisation will be:

1) "Old Testament so that doesn't count any more, unless it's the Ten Commandments or that one bit in Leviticus that says don't be a homo"

2) "The whole bible is literally true, but you're not supposed to take everything in the bible LITERALLY. Unless it's the Ten Commandments or that one bit in Leviticus that says don't be a homo"

3) "You don't understand the bible. You need to look at those verses in the historical context they were written in and blah blah blah don't be a homo"

Drayson... I know some Christians can be annoying, but this sarcasm...coming from you? You know good and well the instigator of this thread has no clue about what the Bible teaches on sexual morality. Come on, man. I know you from other threads. You're better than this!

As for the instigator of this thread, WallStreetAtheist, all I can say is, nice try, but no cigar. If you want to really debate something that has any serious relevance to biblically-based morality or biblical interpretation, as Val Kilmer said, playing Doc Holliday in Tombstone, when challenged to a gun draw by the ranting Johnny Ringo, "I'm your huckleberry....that's just my game." Anytime, bro. Bring it on.

It maybe sarcasm, but still....it's an effective rhetorical device for getting a point across. Whatever the case, those things listed are condoned within biblical text, or at the very least not problematic for the author(s) or whatever deity they may be channeling.

And that's just on the topic of marital relationships....there are far worse things endorsed by the bible.
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
thg
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 4:12:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 3:47:04 AM, Drayson wrote:
At 8/16/2013 3:27:20 AM, thg wrote:
At 8/16/2013 1:45:33 AM, Drayson wrote:
Let's take bets on what the first rationalisation will be:

1) "Old Testament so that doesn't count any more, unless it's the Ten Commandments or that one bit in Leviticus that says don't be a homo"

2) "The whole bible is literally true, but you're not supposed to take everything in the bible LITERALLY. Unless it's the Ten Commandments or that one bit in Leviticus that says don't be a homo"

3) "You don't understand the bible. You need to look at those verses in the historical context they were written in and blah blah blah don't be a homo"

Drayson... I know some Christians can be annoying, but this sarcasm...coming from you? You know good and well the instigator of this thread has no clue about what the Bible teaches on sexual morality. Come on, man. I know you from other threads. You're better than this!

As for the instigator of this thread, WallStreetAtheist, all I can say is, nice try, but no cigar. If you want to really debate something that has any serious relevance to biblically-based morality or biblical interpretation, as Val Kilmer said, playing Doc Holliday in Tombstone, when challenged to a gun draw by the ranting Johnny Ringo, "I'm your huckleberry....that's just my game." Anytime, bro. Bring it on.

It maybe sarcasm, but still....it's an effective rhetorical device for getting a point across. Whatever the case, those things listed are condoned within biblical text, or at the very least not problematic for the author(s) or whatever deity they may be channeling.

And that's just on the topic of marital relationships....there are far worse things endorsed by the bible.

Hmm. I'm surprised at your opinion. I took you to be more clever. Could you reference exactly where you presume the Bible actually endorses some of these so-called terrible behaviors, and your explanation for why it appears to do so? Let's take polygamy, for example. The Bible mentions that Solomon had hundreds of wives and concubines. But a few verses later, we read that God was not pleased with this construct. While I believe we should apply all manner of sound biblical interpretation to lots of passages, this one really doesn't call for anything that intense at all. We can easily see that this is not an endorsement of polygamy. What say you? (I'm not just up for a fight. You know me. I'm actually seriously interested in your thoughts).
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 4:19:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 4:12:30 AM, thg wrote:
At 8/16/2013 3:47:04 AM, Drayson wrote:
At 8/16/2013 3:27:20 AM, thg wrote:
At 8/16/2013 1:45:33 AM, Drayson wrote:
Let's take bets on what the first rationalisation will be:

1) "Old Testament so that doesn't count any more, unless it's the Ten Commandments or that one bit in Leviticus that says don't be a homo"

2) "The whole bible is literally true, but you're not supposed to take everything in the bible LITERALLY. Unless it's the Ten Commandments or that one bit in Leviticus that says don't be a homo"

3) "You don't understand the bible. You need to look at those verses in the historical context they were written in and blah blah blah don't be a homo"

Drayson... I know some Christians can be annoying, but this sarcasm...coming from you? You know good and well the instigator of this thread has no clue about what the Bible teaches on sexual morality. Come on, man. I know you from other threads. You're better than this!

As for the instigator of this thread, WallStreetAtheist, all I can say is, nice try, but no cigar. If you want to really debate something that has any serious relevance to biblically-based morality or biblical interpretation, as Val Kilmer said, playing Doc Holliday in Tombstone, when challenged to a gun draw by the ranting Johnny Ringo, "I'm your huckleberry....that's just my game." Anytime, bro. Bring it on.

It maybe sarcasm, but still....it's an effective rhetorical device for getting a point across. Whatever the case, those things listed are condoned within biblical text, or at the very least not problematic for the author(s) or whatever deity they may be channeling.

And that's just on the topic of marital relationships....there are far worse things endorsed by the bible.

Hmm. I'm surprised at your opinion. I took you to be more clever. Could you reference exactly where you presume the Bible actually endorses some of these so-called terrible behaviors, and your explanation for why it appears to do so? Let's take polygamy, for example. The Bible mentions that Solomon had hundreds of wives and concubines. But a few verses later, we read that God was not pleased with this construct. While I believe we should apply all manner of sound biblical interpretation to lots of passages, this one really doesn't call for anything that intense at all. We can easily see that this is not an endorsement of polygamy. What say you? (I'm not just up for a fight. You know me. I'm actually seriously interested in your thoughts).

Well, just as an example -

Deut 22:28
If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
thg
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 4:27:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 4:19:31 AM, Drayson wrote:
At 8/16/2013 4:12:30 AM, thg wrote:
At 8/16/2013 3:47:04 AM, Drayson wrote:
At 8/16/2013 3:27:20 AM, thg wrote:
At 8/16/2013 1:45:33 AM, Drayson wrote:
Let's take bets on what the first rationalisation will be:

1) "Old Testament so that doesn't count any more, unless it's the Ten Commandments or that one bit in Leviticus that says don't be a homo"

2) "The whole bible is literally true, but you're not supposed to take everything in the bible LITERALLY. Unless it's the Ten Commandments or that one bit in Leviticus that says don't be a homo"

3) "You don't understand the bible. You need to look at those verses in the historical context they were written in and blah blah blah don't be a homo"

Drayson... I know some Christians can be annoying, but this sarcasm...coming from you? You know good and well the instigator of this thread has no clue about what the Bible teaches on sexual morality. Come on, man. I know you from other threads. You're better than this!

As for the instigator of this thread, WallStreetAtheist, all I can say is, nice try, but no cigar. If you want to really debate something that has any serious relevance to biblically-based morality or biblical interpretation, as Val Kilmer said, playing Doc Holliday in Tombstone, when challenged to a gun draw by the ranting Johnny Ringo, "I'm your huckleberry....that's just my game." Anytime, bro. Bring it on.

It maybe sarcasm, but still....it's an effective rhetorical device for getting a point across. Whatever the case, those things listed are condoned within biblical text, or at the very least not problematic for the author(s) or whatever deity they may be channeling.

And that's just on the topic of marital relationships....there are far worse things endorsed by the bible.

Hmm. I'm surprised at your opinion. I took you to be more clever. Could you reference exactly where you presume the Bible actually endorses some of these so-called terrible behaviors, and your explanation for why it appears to do so? Let's take polygamy, for example. The Bible mentions that Solomon had hundreds of wives and concubines. But a few verses later, we read that God was not pleased with this construct. While I believe we should apply all manner of sound biblical interpretation to lots of passages, this one really doesn't call for anything that intense at all. We can easily see that this is not an endorsement of polygamy. What say you? (I'm not just up for a fight. You know me. I'm actually seriously interested in your thoughts).

Well, just as an example -

Deut 22:28
If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days

OK....so....what exactly is your interpretation of this passage? What do you suppose it meant then? What was its purpose? How should we apply it today? You obviously wouldn't insist that we apply the fifty shekels part legalistically and literally...as the AMOUNT of money surely would not be applicable today, right? So surely you agree that some parts of this passage are not relevant for moral instruction. But which parts do you find offensive, and why? I am curious, because I believe this passage was intended to show that random sexual encounter was to be discouraged...that a woman was not just a piece of meat to be "had" on a whim...and, yes, for it's time period and cultural milieu, such a notion was quite extraordinary.
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 4:39:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 3:27:20 AM, thg wrote:
At 8/16/2013 1:45:33 AM, Drayson wrote:
Let's take bets on what the first rationalisation will be:

1) "Old Testament so that doesn't count any more, unless it's the Ten Commandments or that one bit in Leviticus that says don't be a homo"

2) "The whole bible is literally true, but you're not supposed to take everything in the bible LITERALLY. Unless it's the Ten Commandments or that one bit in Leviticus that says don't be a homo"

3) "You don't understand the bible. You need to look at those verses in the historical context they were written in and blah blah blah don't be a homo"

Drayson... I know some Christians can be annoying, but this sarcasm...coming from you? You know good and well the instigator of this thread has no clue about what the Bible teaches on sexual morality. Come on, man. I know you from other threads. You're better than this!

As for the instigator of this thread, WallStreetAtheist, all I can say is, nice try, but no cigar. If you want to really debate something that has any serious relevance to biblically-based morality or biblical interpretation, as Val Kilmer said, playing Doc Holliday in Tombstone, when challenged to a gun draw by the ranting Johnny Ringo, "I'm your huckleberry....that's just my game." Anytime, bro. Bring it on.

I'm not much for the term. But LOL.

Us blasted Atheists always using scripture.

We don't know what it really means, only you religious know what it actually means, only the religious have the right to interpret it and tell us heathens what the true interpretation is.

Well given that religious interpretation has led to a series of horrible events in the last 2000 years, I'm going to put a stake in the ground and say I interpret it as a book written by prime mate males half a chromosome away from a chimpanzee.

We'd be better off getting our morals from Game of Thrones. And who knows, maybe in 2000 years some folk might pick up a copy.

Best Regards,
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
thg
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 4:45:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 4:39:06 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 3:27:20 AM, thg wrote:
At 8/16/2013 1:45:33 AM, Drayson wrote:
Let's take bets on what the first rationalisation will be:

1) "Old Testament so that doesn't count any more, unless it's the Ten Commandments or that one bit in Leviticus that says don't be a homo"

2) "The whole bible is literally true, but you're not supposed to take everything in the bible LITERALLY. Unless it's the Ten Commandments or that one bit in Leviticus that says don't be a homo"

3) "You don't understand the bible. You need to look at those verses in the historical context they were written in and blah blah blah don't be a homo"

Drayson... I know some Christians can be annoying, but this sarcasm...coming from you? You know good and well the instigator of this thread has no clue about what the Bible teaches on sexual morality. Come on, man. I know you from other threads. You're better than this!

As for the instigator of this thread, WallStreetAtheist, all I can say is, nice try, but no cigar. If you want to really debate something that has any serious relevance to biblically-based morality or biblical interpretation, as Val Kilmer said, playing Doc Holliday in Tombstone, when challenged to a gun draw by the ranting Johnny Ringo, "I'm your huckleberry....that's just my game." Anytime, bro. Bring it on.

I'm not much for the term. But LOL.

Us blasted Atheists always using scripture.

We don't know what it really means, only you religious know what it actually means, only the religious have the right to interpret it and tell us heathens what the true interpretation is.

Well given that religious interpretation has led to a series of horrible events in the last 2000 years, I'm going to put a stake in the ground and say I interpret it as a book written by prime mate males half a chromosome away from a chimpanzee.

We'd be better off getting our morals from Game of Thrones. And who knows, maybe in 2000 years some folk might pick up a copy.


Best Regards,
Ben

Wow. Thanks for that erudite dismissal of the Bible, all Christians, and all Christendom. Now maybe Drayson and I can get back to our discussion. At least he is respectful enough to actually engage in thoughtful conversation. You are welcome to join, by the way. No one's stopping you. And, as for who has the "right" to interpret this or that, it appears Christians don't have a monopoly on claiming they are right. But I'm happy to debate you on this or any related topic. Just say when (to quote Val Kilmer again).
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 4:51:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 4:45:03 AM, thg wrote:
At 8/16/2013 4:39:06 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 3:27:20 AM, thg wrote:
At 8/16/2013 1:45:33 AM, Drayson wrote:
Let's take bets on what the first rationalisation will be:

1) "Old Testament so that doesn't count any more, unless it's the Ten Commandments or that one bit in Leviticus that says don't be a homo"

2) "The whole bible is literally true, but you're not supposed to take everything in the bible LITERALLY. Unless it's the Ten Commandments or that one bit in Leviticus that says don't be a homo"

3) "You don't understand the bible. You need to look at those verses in the historical context they were written in and blah blah blah don't be a homo"

Drayson... I know some Christians can be annoying, but this sarcasm...coming from you? You know good and well the instigator of this thread has no clue about what the Bible teaches on sexual morality. Come on, man. I know you from other threads. You're better than this!

As for the instigator of this thread, WallStreetAtheist, all I can say is, nice try, but no cigar. If you want to really debate something that has any serious relevance to biblically-based morality or biblical interpretation, as Val Kilmer said, playing Doc Holliday in Tombstone, when challenged to a gun draw by the ranting Johnny Ringo, "I'm your huckleberry....that's just my game." Anytime, bro. Bring it on.

I'm not much for the term. But LOL.

Us blasted Atheists always using scripture.

We don't know what it really means, only you religious know what it actually means, only the religious have the right to interpret it and tell us heathens what the true interpretation is.

Well given that religious interpretation has led to a series of horrible events in the last 2000 years, I'm going to put a stake in the ground and say I interpret it as a book written by prime mate males half a chromosome away from a chimpanzee.

We'd be better off getting our morals from Game of Thrones. And who knows, maybe in 2000 years some folk might pick up a copy.


Best Regards,
Ben

Wow. Thanks for that erudite dismissal of the Bible, all Christians, and all Christendom. Now maybe Drayson and I can get back to our discussion. At least he is respectful enough to actually engage in thoughtful conversation. You are welcome to join, by the way. No one's stopping you. And, as for who has the "right" to interpret this or that, it appears Christians don't have a monopoly on claiming they are right. But I'm happy to debate you on this or any related topic. Just say when (to quote Val Kilmer again).

Sir,

An erudite dismissal of the bible began some time ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

As for quoting Val Kilmer, I don't get it at all, but it may be a cultural thing.

If you feel I have disrespected you personally then I genuinely apologize, if however I have disrespected Christianity, then that is kind of the point.

Best Regards,
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
leonardlewis4
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 4:57:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's pretty simple, really... Bible/God haters love to issue this claim, as you saw, to instigate some kind of heated exchange.

The simple refutation of their illogical analysis of Scripture is this: They simply don't distinguish between the "descriptive" and the "prescriptive" in Scripture. And why don't they? Well, either they have no critical thinking skills and they just parrot what they've heard from other Bible/God haters; or they've just never taken the time to actually read what the Bible says in context.

By the instigator's logic (and that of his like-minded futile thinkers), Schindler's List proves that Stephen Spielberg is a Nazi. Of course, that would be absurd: It is obvious to any clear thinking person that Schindler's List is "descriptive" of the Nazi atrocities, and that it is not "prescribing" (advocating) that kind of behavior. The movie does have moral implications, but they wouldn't be meaningful (or even necessarily obvious) without the back-story of the atrocities in contrast.

Once again, the Bible/God haters put on display the willful ignorance and futile thinking of their angry intolerable snobbery.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 5:01:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 12:42:21 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
One man and his sister
One man and his dead brother's wife
One man and one woman and her servants
One man and his rape victim
One man and many women
One man and 700 women and 300 concubines
One man and one woman and her slaves
One soldier and his virgin prisoners

Just not one man and one man. THAT would be immoral.

Hmmm...Cute. You'd do very well to observe those examples. See how they all turned out. Every single person that went outside of God's design for marriage in the Bible ended up in disaster. Abraham sent his son away and disrupted his house. Jacob's house was a mess. Solomon got carried off into idolatry. David's house was cursed.

Here's your biblical example of marriage if you're truly interested:

Matthew 19:
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.


Even divorce, which was lawful, is frowned against and must be done correctly. It doesn't alleviate the covenant before God. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should, a lesson reinforced by Paul when he said all things are lawful, not all things are expedient.
thg
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 5:29:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago

Wow. Thanks for that erudite dismissal of the Bible, all Christians, and all Christendom. Now maybe Drayson and I can get back to our discussion. At least he is respectful enough to actually engage in thoughtful conversation. You are welcome to join, by the way. No one's stopping you. And, as for who has the "right" to interpret this or that, it appears Christians don't have a monopoly on claiming they are right. But I'm happy to debate you on this or any related topic. Just say when (to quote Val Kilmer again).

Sir,

An erudite dismissal of the bible began some time ago.

Ummm....and your point is.... ?


http://en.wikipedia.org...

As for quoting Val Kilmer, I don't get it at all, but it may be a cultural thing.

He played Doc Holliday in TOMBSTONE and delivered some great lines against impulsive wannabe gunfighters. Don't worry about it. You had to be there.

If you feel I have disrespected you personally then I genuinely apologize, if however I have disrespected Christianity, then that is kind of the point.

I would not be "offended" even if I thought you were disrespecting me personally. What I'm interested in are accusations against the Bible and Cny. The more intelligent the accusation, the more I'm interested. I'm all for debating and discussing stuff seriously (even if we might lighten things up with Val Kilmer every now and then). General dismissals of Cny don't impress me (or anyone with any modicum of intelligence...including atheists). If you have a problem with the Bible or Cny, I'm genuinely interested, but I beg you to be specific so we can discuss it intelligently. Who knows, we might agree...

Let's do it. (That's another line from.... --er--forget it...)
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 6:01:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 3:27:20 AM, thg wrote:
At 8/16/2013 1:45:33 AM, Drayson wrote:
Let's take bets on what the first rationalisation will be:

1) "Old Testament so that doesn't count any more, unless it's the Ten Commandments or that one bit in Leviticus that says don't be a homo"

2) "The whole bible is literally true, but you're not supposed to take everything in the bible LITERALLY. Unless it's the Ten Commandments or that one bit in Leviticus that says don't be a homo"

3) "You don't understand the bible. You need to look at those verses in the historical context they were written in and blah blah blah don't be a homo"

Drayson... I know some Christians can be annoying, but this sarcasm...coming from you? You know good and well the instigator of this thread has no clue about what the Bible teaches on sexual morality. Come on, man. I know you from other threads. You're better than this!

As for the instigator of this thread, WallStreetAtheist, all I can say is, nice try, but no cigar. If you want to really debate something that has any serious relevance to biblically-based morality or biblical interpretation, as Val Kilmer said, playing Doc Holliday in Tombstone, when challenged to a gun draw by the ranting Johnny Ringo, "I'm your huckleberry....that's just my game." Anytime, bro. Bring it on.

Wait, nobody told me the bible had morals in it. Are you talking about the rape, infanticide and genocide. Here's a quiet in your shell like, none of that stuff is moral
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 6:23:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 5:29:07 AM, thg wrote:

Wow. Thanks for that erudite dismissal of the Bible, all Christians, and all Christendom. Now maybe Drayson and I can get back to our discussion. At least he is respectful enough to actually engage in thoughtful conversation. You are welcome to join, by the way. No one's stopping you. And, as for who has the "right" to interpret this or that, it appears Christians don't have a monopoly on claiming they are right. But I'm happy to debate you on this or any related topic. Just say when (to quote Val Kilmer again).

Sir,

An erudite dismissal of the bible began some time ago.

Ummm....and your point is.... ?


http://en.wikipedia.org...

As for quoting Val Kilmer, I don't get it at all, but it may be a cultural thing.

He played Doc Holliday in TOMBSTONE and delivered some great lines against impulsive wannabe gunfighters. Don't worry about it. You had to be there.


If you feel I have disrespected you personally then I genuinely apologize, if however I have disrespected Christianity, then that is kind of the point.

I would not be "offended" even if I thought you were disrespecting me personally. What I'm interested in are accusations against the Bible and Cny. The more intelligent the accusation, the more I'm interested. I'm all for debating and discussing stuff seriously (even if we might lighten things up with Val Kilmer every now and then). General dismissals of Cny don't impress me (or anyone with any modicum of intelligence...including atheists). If you have a problem with the Bible or Cny, I'm genuinely interested, but I beg you to be specific so we can discuss it intelligently. Who knows, we might agree...

Let's do it. (That's another line from.... --er--forget it...)

Sir,

Don't forget us Atheists are due to spend eternity in hell, would you deny us a few quips and sarcastic witticisms before we go?

OK let us be about it, my issue with the bible is.

If Jesus existed, it does not concur that he was the son of God (many great teachers have come and gone)

If he was born of a virgin, again no proof his pa was divine (pregnancy can occur without intercourse, or a Jewish minx told a lie)

If he was resurrected, again, no proof he was divine (given medical standards at the time it could have been virtually any condition that made him appear dead - not to mention the apparent frequency of resurrection at the time)

If he performed miracles, no proof of divinity there (Magician)

What I am saying, is I do not see the corollary that says.

Jesus was born of a Virgin/miracle performer/resurrected/all of the above, ergo he was the son of the one true God and all of his teachings are therefore going to save us.

I picked a big topic because Jesus goes to the heart of Christianity.

Best Regards,
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
leonardlewis4
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 6:26:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 6:01:57 AM, bulproof wrote:

Wait, nobody told me the bible had morals in it. Are you talking about the rape, infanticide and genocide. Here's a quiet in your shell like, none of that stuff is moral

Again, with the angry, intolerable snobbery of the anti-Christian worldview...

Bible/God hater: "I'm so intelligent and morally superior that I can cast baseless accusations and slanders against the most well-preserved, beloved work of antiquity the world has ever known--and still take myself seriously!"

Seriously, that's how you people come off when you instigate this sort of thing with no other purpose than deriding people with beliefs that differ from your own.

Do you understand the difference between describing something and advocating or condoning it? Or are your critical thinking skills really that dull?
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 6:41:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 6:26:54 AM, leonardlewis4 wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:01:57 AM, bulproof wrote:

Wait, nobody told me the bible had morals in it. Are you talking about the rape, infanticide and genocide. Here's a quiet in your shell like, none of that stuff is moral

Again, with the angry, intolerable snobbery of the anti-Christian worldview...

Bible/God hater: "I'm so intelligent and morally superior that I can cast baseless accusations and slanders against the most well-preserved, beloved work of antiquity the world has ever known--and still take myself seriously!"

Seriously, that's how you people come off when you instigate this sort of thing with no other purpose than deriding people with beliefs that differ from your own.

Do you understand the difference between describing something and advocating or condoning it? Or are your critical thinking skills really that dull?

Oh I see god was only describing and justifying why he slaughtered the first born (infanticide + mass murder) he wasn't advocating it, he was just doing it. So you'd be happy if I came around and slaughtered your family but didn't tell you to join in the fun? Ya just gotta love the "morality" cough of the bible especially if you're a mass murderer. It makes you as moral as god.
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 6:44:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 6:26:54 AM, leonardlewis4 wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:01:57 AM, bulproof wrote:

Wait, nobody told me the bible had morals in it. Are you talking about the rape, infanticide and genocide. Here's a quiet in your shell like, none of that stuff is moral

Again, with the angry, intolerable snobbery of the anti-Christian worldview...

Bible/God hater: "I'm so intelligent and morally superior that I can cast baseless accusations and slanders against the most well-preserved, beloved work of antiquity the world has ever known--and still take myself seriously!"

Seriously, that's how you people come off when you instigate this sort of thing with no other purpose than deriding people with beliefs that differ from your own.

Do you understand the difference between describing something and advocating or condoning it? Or are your critical thinking skills really that dull?

Want to try that again without the Libel.
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 6:53:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 6:44:15 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:26:54 AM, leonardlewis4 wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:01:57 AM, bulproof wrote:

Wait, nobody told me the bible had morals in it. Are you talking about the rape, infanticide and genocide. Here's a quiet in your shell like, none of that stuff is moral

Again, with the angry, intolerable snobbery of the anti-Christian worldview...

Bible/God hater: "I'm so intelligent and morally superior that I can cast baseless accusations and slanders against the most well-preserved, beloved work of antiquity the world has ever known--and still take myself seriously!"

Seriously, that's how you people come off when you instigate this sort of thing with no other purpose than deriding people with beliefs that differ from your own.

Do you understand the difference between describing something and advocating or condoning it? Or are your critical thinking skills really that dull?

Want to try that again without the Libel.
It's OK Mr Sapien, I have learned over these many decades that "you can tell a theist anything, you just can't make them understand anything"
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:11:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 6:53:32 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:44:15 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:26:54 AM, leonardlewis4 wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:01:57 AM, bulproof wrote:

Wait, nobody told me the bible had morals in it. Are you talking about the rape, infanticide and genocide. Here's a quiet in your shell like, none of that stuff is moral

Again, with the angry, intolerable snobbery of the anti-Christian worldview...

Bible/God hater: "I'm so intelligent and morally superior that I can cast baseless accusations and slanders against the most well-preserved, beloved work of antiquity the world has ever known--and still take myself seriously!"

Seriously, that's how you people come off when you instigate this sort of thing with no other purpose than deriding people with beliefs that differ from your own.

Do you understand the difference between describing something and advocating or condoning it? Or are your critical thinking skills really that dull?

Want to try that again without the Libel.
It's OK Mr Sapien, I have learned over these many decades that "you can tell a theist anything, you just can't make them understand anything"

I agree to a degree.

Don't do it for them, do it for the people reading.

Hope you're well Mr Proof,

Thanks,
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
leonardlewis4
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:46:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 6:44:15 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:26:54 AM, leonardlewis4 wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:01:57 AM, bulproof wrote:

Wait, nobody told me the bible had morals in it. Are you talking about the rape, infanticide and genocide. Here's a quiet in your shell like, none of that stuff is moral

Again, with the angry, intolerable snobbery of the anti-Christian worldview...

Bible/God hater: "I'm so intelligent and morally superior that I can cast baseless accusations and slanders against the most well-preserved, beloved work of antiquity the world has ever known--and still take myself seriously!"

Seriously, that's how you people come off when you instigate this sort of thing with no other purpose than deriding people with beliefs that differ from your own.

Do you understand the difference between describing something and advocating or condoning it? Or are your critical thinking skills really that dull?

Want to try that again without the Libel.

No libel from this side... I'm just attempting to illustrate to the anti-Christian element how they come-off when they spew their baseless libel against Christians and their rule of faith. As for the rhetorical question, "Are your critical thinking skills really that dull?" I don't expect anyone would answer "yes"... And I doubt that is the case myself... To the point, it is obviously more a matter of disdain than dull reasoning.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:48:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm not sure why one has to be a "bible/God hater" in order to point out that a lot of Christians are very inconsistent when it comes to this point. And the whole "descriptive/prescritve distinction might help you in a few places but in others it seems like these marriages are divinely sanctioned. I say "seems" because I don't believe a perfectly goodd God would sanction them, but then again, I'm not an inerrantist. Whatever other alue these passages have, it can't be that they accurately describe what God actually sanctions. Inerrantists have a much harder time with these type of things.

*shrug*
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:01:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:46:18 AM, leonardlewis4 wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:44:15 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:26:54 AM, leonardlewis4 wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:01:57 AM, bulproof wrote:

Wait, nobody told me the bible had morals in it. Are you talking about the rape, infanticide and genocide. Here's a quiet in your shell like, none of that stuff is moral

Again, with the angry, intolerable snobbery of the anti-Christian worldview...

Bible/God hater: "I'm so intelligent and morally superior that I can cast baseless accusations and slanders against the most well-preserved, beloved work of antiquity the world has ever known--and still take myself seriously!"

Seriously, that's how you people come off when you instigate this sort of thing with no other purpose than deriding people with beliefs that differ from your own.

Do you understand the difference between describing something and advocating or condoning it? Or are your critical thinking skills really that dull?

Want to try that again without the Libel.

No libel from this side... I'm just attempting to illustrate to the anti-Christian element how they come-off when they spew their baseless libel against Christians and their rule of faith. As for the rhetorical question, "Are your critical thinking skills really that dull?" I don't expect anyone would answer "yes"... And I doubt that is the case myself... To the point, it is obviously more a matter of disdain than dull reasoning.

Hello leonardlewis4

Some of us have come to this decision by rational thought and reasoned discussion, we are not all God haters for the sake of it.

Some of us don't like to be spoken to in a tone that suggests we are going to hell for eternity either, I know you haven't done this, but can you understand just how serious a threat this is to us?

Our anger comes from the fact the religious disregard our voice so readily, we have a voice, and we want it to be heard objectivly without the hatred that we have put up with for a long time. The faithful and non are capable of rational reasonable discussion, both sides give and get a lot of unnecesary abuse and both ways it's not right.

I have once been told that my thoughts and views do not matter, because I am without faith, that it doesn't matter what people do to me because it's nothing compared to the pain I will suffer in hell.

To be honest I'm a lucky one, in many countries outspoken Athiests get murdered.

Maybe one day we might even be able to come to place of understanding and compassion, you should be able to practice your faith so while I don't agree with what you believe, I will defend to the death your right to believe it.

I just hope that is reciprocated,

Best Regards,
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."