George W. Bush is doing the Lord's will.

[1inChrist]

#1: Stopping women from killing their babies.

#2: Ridding the world of evil that threatens our freedom.

#3: Stopping faggots from marrying eachother and preserving the purity of marriage.

#4: Proven to the world that AMERICA will NOT stand for terrorism!

Those are just 4 things that this wonderful President has done. Hopefully he will be elected for 4 more years and can bring this country back to the way it should be! Truley, one nation under GOD!

Next he needs to put evolutionists and NASA out of their misery. All the answers we need are contained not in space or under a microscope, but in the Holy Bible. I am so grateful we have a President who understands His Word and is not afraid to admit to the world that he has accepted Christ as His Savior. I understand why you atheists liberals hate him. It's because he's a strong Christian who threatens your sinful ways. What's wrong? Can't kill your BABY by ripping it out of your body? TOO BAD!

[merphie]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#1: Stopping women from killing their babies.

#2: Ridding the world of evil that threatens our freedom.

#3: Stopping faggots from marrying eachother and preserving the purity of marriage.

#4: Proven to the world that AMERICA will NOT stand for terrorism!

Those are just 4 things that this wonderful President has done. Hopefully he will be elected for 4 more years and can bring this country back to the way it should be! Truley, one nation under GOD!

Next he needs to put evolutionists and NASA out of their misery. All the answers we need are contained not in space or under a microscope, but in the Holy Bible. I am so grateful we have a President who understands His Word and is not afraid to admit to the world that he has accepted Christ as His Savior. I understand why you atheists liberals hate him. It's because he's a strong Christian who threatens your sinful ways. What's wrong? Can't kill your BABY by ripping it out of your body? TOO BAD!

Name one politician who doesn't play the "God Card" . Without it he would just be expressing his opinion. Besides he has to get the law through congress which means that all the politicians on the hill have the same view. Not just the president.

[a_unique_person]

"faggots"? Isn't that a cuss word.

[Dogwood]

I assume that if Kerry is elected you'll support him, since the Bible instructs that all leaders are appointed by God.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Dogwood
I assume that if Kerry is elected you'll support him, since the Bible instructs that all leaders are appointed by God.
well, if kerry wins it must have been gods will.....

P.S. Is anyone going to claim this sock puppet?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
"faggots"? Isn't that a cuss word.

Actually I think it is a dish. Here is a recipe:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/database/faggotswithoniongrav_3899.shtml

Why this person's idea of a deity is so worried about these things marrying is anyones guess. Silly deity!!!

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#1: Stopping women from killing their babies.

#2: Ridding the world of evil that threatens our freedom.

#3: Stopping faggots from marrying eachother and preserving the purity of marriage.

#4: Proven to the world that AMERICA will NOT stand for terrorism!

Those are just 4 things that this wonderful President has done. Hopefully he will be elected for 4 more years and can bring this country back to the way it should be! Truley, one nation under GOD!

Next he needs to put evolutionists and NASA out of their misery. All the answers we need are contained not in space or under a microscope, but in the Holy Bible. I am so grateful we have a President who understands His Word and is not afraid to admit to the world that he has accepted Christ as His Savior. I understand why you atheists liberals hate him. It's because he's a strong Christian who threatens your sinful ways. What's wrong? Can't kill your BABY by ripping it out of your body? TOO BAD!

How old are you? This is the second topic that you've claimed something that makes no sense. And I hate to be the bringer of bad news, but evolution is fact and religion isn't. Take a college science class to find out why.

By the way, did Bush start following God before he was a substance abuser or after?

And speaking of God what's wrong with following Allah's will? Both Christian and Muslim radicals think killing each other is okay because it will bring a peaceful end.

[evildave]

I thought a faggot was a bundle of small sticks.

You certainly don't want bundles of sticks marrying each other. Nope.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by evildave
I thought a faggot was a bundle of small sticks.

You certainly don't want bundles of sticks marrying each other. Nope.

Yep. Imagine how many eyes could be put out when bundles of small sticks join forces and reproduce...

[evildave]

And then they might want other equal rights for sticks!

Sticks on public transportation, sticks in your schools, sticks in CONGRESS! And think of the fire hazard! A national emergency is a brewin'!

[Dogwood]

If sticks get the right to marry, next it'll be twigs! and driftwood! Then what's to stop group cordwood marraiges?

[evildave]

Next thing, it'll be kindlin'!

[Kilted_Canuck]

I don't want any of that flaming tinder anywhere near me or my family, thats for sure.

[Charlie Monoxide]

I find it hard to believe in a god who appoints as his agent on earth George W.

Charlie (or maybe W is revelation's anti-christ) Monoxide

[evildave]

Well, that's because you believe in a just/sane deity.

Believe in the Right-Wing/Christian Coalition god, and it probably makes sense.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide
I find it hard to believe in a god who appoints as his agent on earth George W.

Charlie (or maybe W is revelation's anti-christ) Monoxide

These US ians think I criticise them unfairly, but in all the US, dubya was the best man god could find for the job.

[Dorian Gray]

#1: Stopping women from killing their babies....
while allowing corporations to kill babies with unsafe and untested products and pollution.... and while allowing babies to go without health care..... and while killing babies and children in Iraq as collateral innocent civilian casualties.

#2: Ridding the world of evil that threatens our freedom...
except the freedom to criticize the president and his policies while he is campaigning..... and except when boarding an airplane.... and except for allowing millions of illegal immigrants to cross our border with Mexico while granting them legitimacy.....and except in certain areas that our military has given up on in Iraq, like the Sunni Triangle and Fallujah.

#3: Stopping faggots from marrying eachother and preserving the purity of marriage...
and the purity of divorce, custody battles and dysfunctional families.

#4: Proven to the world that AMERICA will NOT stand for terrorism....
unless Ankara threatens to stop cooperating with the US if it continues to attack certain villages that contain ethnic Turks, even if they are terrorists...... or if the terrorists are in Northern Ireland..... or Syria..... or Saudi Arabia...... or Jordan...... or Palestine...... or Chechnya.......or Pakistan.......or Afghanistan still..... or Iraq still......

[Cleon]

Ow! Ow! Ow!

Rolling my eyes that hard HURTS!!!!

[Zep]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Can't kill your BABY by ripping it out of your body? TOO BAD! And if a woman has a premature birth, stuff that little sucker right back in there until it's good and ready to come out, and not a moment sooner. Spare the rod and spoil the child, that's what Bush advocates.

[RabbiSatan]

And to believe people like 1inChrist vote...

Next he needs to put evolutionists and NASA out of their misery. All the answers we need are contained not in space or under a microscope, but in the Holy Bible.

So, you admit that you are anti-progress? Look at the period in the history books titled, "The Dark / Middle Ages". That's when religion reigned supreme. I'm sure god was jumping for joy during the spanish inquisition.

I am so grateful we have a President who understands His Word and is not afraid to admit to the world that he has accepted Christ as His Savior. I understand why you atheists liberals hate him. It's because he's a strong Christian who threatens your sinful ways.

The irony contained in this message is too strong to even start dissecting.

[TragicMonkey]

I was hoping the first post was completely sarcastic. Please?

[Chaos]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan
So, you admit that you are anti-progress? Look at the period in the history books titled, "The Dark / Middle Ages". That's when religion reigned supreme. I'm sure god was jumping for joy during the spanish inquisition.

No need to look that far. Just take a look a pre-war Afghanistan (or current Saudi Arabia, for that matter).

[Flo]

Originally posted by Chaos
No need to look that far. Just take a look a pre-war Afghanistan (or current Saudi Arabia, for that matter).


Doesn't count. You know full well they worship a false god !;)

[merphie]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
"faggots"? Isn't that a cuss word.

It's a cigarette in AU.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
By the way, did Bush start following God before he was a substance abuser or after?

From what I read he found God when he got on the waggon. He claims God helped him stop abusing drugs etc.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by merphie
It's a cigarette in AU.

And in Britain, too.

I still chuckle when I remember the first time someone said, "want to step outside for a quick fag?" My expression must've ranged from mystified to shocked to "what the----"; my British friend spent the next 30 minutes howling. :D

[Ipecac]

I've engaged in some discussions with 1inChrist on this board. He started out by engaging in conversation for a brief time but then jumped ship when things started getting tough for him. He followed up by starting new threads and doing the same thing. Now he doesn't even engage for a brief time.


I call sock puppet.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
"faggots"? Isn't that a cuss word.
:what:
No...it's English meatballs in gravy....(I think)

:dl:

[Lothian]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
[B]#1: Stopping women from killing their babies. Agreed, killing children is Gods job. Num 31:17, Deut 20:13, Psalm 137:9 & Lev 26:29
#2: Ridding the world of evil that threatens our freedom.
I missed this. How has Bush rid the word of the evils of religious bigotry ?


#3: Stopping faggots from marrying eachother and preserving the purity of marriage. Yes, the purity of marriage. How we long for the old days when marriage meant the union between one man and one women unless of course the man wanted to marry more than one woman in which case it was one man and lots of women.

#4: Proven to the world that AMERICA will NOT stand for terrorism!
Indeed Bush has followed God’s law given in Mathew
5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
These US ians think I criticise them unfairly, but in all the US, dubya was the best man god could find for the job. Ouch.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Cleon
And in Britain, too.

I still chuckle when I remember the first time someone said, "want to step outside for a quick fag?" My expression must've ranged from mystified to shocked to "what the----"; my British friend spent the next 30 minutes howling. :D My father did a consulting gig in England a while back in a facility that required you to wear clean room gear. Being a typically overweight American, they had to give him the largest size they had. They didn't fit right, so he asked if he could use suspenders. That earned him a few double-takes.

Apparently, "suspenders", in England, is what Americans refer to as "garter belts".

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#1: Stopping women from killing their babies.

#2: Ridding the world of evil that threatens our freedom.

#3: Stopping faggots from marrying eachother and preserving the purity of marriage.

#4: Proven to the world that AMERICA will NOT stand for terrorism!

Those are just 4 things that this wonderful President has done. Hopefully he will be elected for 4 more years and can bring this country back to the way it should be! Truley, one nation under GOD!

Next he needs to put evolutionists and NASA out of their misery. All the answers we need are contained not in space or under a microscope, but in the Holy Bible. I am so grateful we have a President who understands His Word and is not afraid to admit to the world that he has accepted Christ as His Savior. I understand why you atheists liberals hate him. It's because he's a strong Christian who threatens your sinful ways. What's wrong? Can't kill your BABY by ripping it out of your body? TOO BAD! You know, the irony (or one of the ironies) is that this is about as un-American as you can get, considering the founding principles of our Country. Our country was never meant to be a Christian state, nor was it meant to impose our will on the rest of the world.

I suppose one could argue that it was not above subjegating an entire portion of our population, but the blacks and women weren't really considered full citizens at the time (or citizens at all, I suppose). I don't think anyone, in this day and age, could argue that gays and lesbians aren't full citizens.

1inChrist, out of curiosity, where did you learn your American history?

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Apparently, "suspenders", in England, is what Americans refer to as "garter belts".

So what are your suspenders? What we call 'bracers', perhaps, ie. elasticated straps that clip onto your waistband and stretch over your shoulders to hold your trousers (aka 'pants') up?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
So what are your suspenders? What we call 'bracers', perhaps, ie. elasticated straps that clip onto your waistband and stretch over your shoulders to hold your trousers (aka 'pants') up?

Correct. But only clowns, Larry King, and the morbidly obese wear them.

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
So what are your suspenders? What we call 'bracers', perhaps, ie. elasticated straps that clip onto your waistband and stretch over your shoulders to hold your trousers (aka 'pants') up?
Yes.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Correct. But only clowns, Larry King, and the morbidly obese wear them.

A lot of lawyers wear them.


Whoops.. I'm sorry... You did mention "clowns."




Nevermind.....

[Tony]

Originally posted by 1inChrist


#2: Ridding the world of evil that threatens our freedom.

#3: Stopping faggots from marrying eachother and preserving the purity of marriage.


These two are contradictory. I submit that idiots like you, bin laden and jerry fallwell are of the evil that threatens our freedom. If people (in this case, faggots) can't marry who they want, we don't have freedom.

And speaking of faggots, whats with the name "1inChrist"? Strong homosexual overtones there. I think you're a closet fag.

[Upchurch]

Okay, can we please stop using the "f" word as it relates to gays. IMHO, it is right next to the infamous "n" word and, at the very least, is derogatory.

I realized I'm biased on this issue, so I'm going to recuse myself from taking any official actions. But please, it isn't necessary.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Okay, can we please stop using the "f" word as it relates to gays. IMHO, it is right next to the infamous "n" word and, at the very least, is derogatory.

I disagree, by having such a reaction, you're giving this idiot more power than he deserves.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Tony
I disagree, by having such a reaction, you're giving this idiot more power than he deserves. It's unnecessarily insulting. It's never meant to be complimentary, and as far as I know, only homophobes use it. I don't blame gays for being offended by it; I'm offended by it.

And there's nothing wrong with asking people to stop using it. I used to have a redneck acquaintance who wasn't shy about calling people "ni**ers". I finally got tired of it, and told him I knew I couldn't change his thinking, but, as a courtesy, would he please stop using the word, at least in my presence.

He did. I'm sure he still thinks "ni**er" every time he sees a black person, but he now knows there are white people who just don't want to hear it.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BPSCG
It's unnecessarily insulting. It's never meant to be complimentary, and as far as I know, only homophobes use it. I don't blame gays for being offended by it; I'm offended by it.


I use it and I'm not a homophobe, and I've never known a gay person who was offended by it.

Like I said, you're giving him more power than he deserves.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony
I use it and I'm not a homophobe, and I've never known a gay person who was offended by it.

Like I said, you're giving him more power than he deserves.

Yeah but he's admiting that he only has "1in" so maybe we should just feel sorry for him...

[c0rbin]

Anyone found the word "god" or "christ" in the US Constitution yet?

:v:

[Tony]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Anyone found the word "god" or "christ" in the US Constitution yet?


I did.


C ongress shall make no law respecting an establish ment of religion, or pr ohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abri dging the freedom of s peech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to pet ition the Government for a redress of grievances.

See, it's right there in the 1st amendment. This proves that jesus is dictator of america. Worship him, love him, and maybe, just maybe your "one" will also be "in" christ.

[TragicMonkey]

COngress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abrIdging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceabLy to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Egads!

(edited to add: damned if i'm going to fuss with more tags to make it easier to read.)

[merphie]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Okay, can we please stop using the "f" word as it relates to gays. IMHO, it is right next to the infamous "n" word and, at the very least, is derogatory.

I realized I'm biased on this issue, so I'm going to recuse myself from taking any official actions. But please, it isn't necessary.

Yeah but it appears to be alright for the target group to use the word.

So gays can use the "f word"
blacks can use the "n word"
white can use the "h word"

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by merphie
Yeah but it appears to be alright for the target group to use the word.

So gays can use the "f word"
blacks can use the "n word"
white can use the "h word" Yes, it's hypocritical. But we're trying to not be hypocritical here, aren't we? And aren't we supposed to be trying to engage in reasoned debate? We all get upset when someone makes an ad hominem attack on us. Why should we have to put up with insulting epithets as well?

[merphie]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Yes, it's hypocritical. But we're trying to not be hypocritical here, aren't we? And aren't we supposed to be trying to engage in reasoned debate? We all get upset when someone makes an ad hominem attack on us. Why should we have to put up with insulting epithets as well?

I agree with you. I just hate to be outside the status quo.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BPSCG
And aren't we supposed to be trying to engage in reasoned debate?

Getting upset over a mere word is the antithesis of reasoned (and rational) debate.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Tony
Getting upset over a mere word is the antithesis of reasoned debate.

I agree, you baby-rapist.

[thaiboxerken]

Getting upset over a mere word is the antithesis of reasoned (and rational) debate.

Turdburglar.

[Tony]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I agree, you baby-rapist.

That's two words. ;)

[Tony]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Turdburglar.

Kunt-scab.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Tony
That's two words.

Curses, foiled again.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Tony
Getting upset over a mere word is the antithesis of reasoned (and rational) debate.

But using these "mere words" in the first places gives those who´d like to derail a discussion a perfect opportunity.

How often did you already have the following happen?

Other Poster: *makes completely preposterous argument*
You: I disagree, moron! (or something to that tune)
Other Poster: Tony is calling me names! Tony is calling me names!
Yet Another Poster: Shut it, Tony!
*end of rational discussion*

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by Upchurch
You know, the irony (or one of the ironies) is that this is about as un-American as you can get, considering the founding principles of our Country. Our country was never meant to be a Christian state, nor was it meant to impose our will on the rest of the world.

I suppose one could argue that it was not above subjegating an entire portion of our population, but the blacks and women weren't really considered full citizens at the time (or citizens at all, I suppose). I don't think anyone, in this day and age, could argue that gays and lesbians aren't full citizens.

1inChrist, out of curiosity, where did you learn your American history?

Why do you heretics want to take everything away from Christians? We are PLEADING with you liberals to at least let us keep marriage! Why must you force faggots into our Christian rituals!?!!

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by Dogwood
I assume that if Kerry is elected you'll support him, since the Bible instructs that all leaders are appointed by God.

Well, this is why Kerry will lose because he is anti-God.

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
"faggots"? Isn't that a cuss word.

No, it's a word to describe homosexuals.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Why do you heretics want to take everything away from Christians? We are PLEADING with you liberals to at least let us keep marriage! Why must you force faggots into our Christian rituals!?!!

Trollbait!

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
How old are you? This is the second topic that you've claimed something that makes no sense. And I hate to be the bringer of bad news, but evolution is fact and religion isn't. Take a college science class to find out why.

By the way, did Bush start following God before he was a substance abuser or after?

And speaking of God what's wrong with following Allah's will? Both Christian and Muslim radicals think killing each other is okay because it will bring a peaceful end.

PROVE EVOLUTION! PROVE MY GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT grandmother was an ape. PROVE IT!

Allah is a false idol worshipped by people who live in nations that have forgotten God. Read your Bible.

[Tony]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
No, it's a word to describe homosexuals.

Jesus is a faggot.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Why do you heretics want to take everything away from Christians? We are PLEADING with you liberals to at least let us keep marriage! Why must you force faggots into our Christian rituals!?!!

Nobody's saying you can't get married; you're telling other people they can't get married. You're arguing for the right to impose your viewpoints on other people, while they're arguing for their right to not be imposed upon. Can you really not see the difference?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Why do you heretics want to take everything away from Christians? We are PLEADING with you liberals to at least let us keep marriage! Why must you force faggots into our Christian rituals!?!!

Nobody is trying to force your silly religion to do anything.

Many of us would like it if your religion would stop trying to harm children by denying them stable families because you think homosexualls are blechy. Why do you hate children so much?

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Tony
Jesus is a faggot.

Was. He´s been dead for 1,971 years - give or take a few.

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan
Trollbait!

First of all, your name sucks. You obviously do not understand what or who Satan is. You do not understand that Satan hates you and laughs everytime you say something anti-God. But I'm not going to get into that. I'm not going to tell you how you are going to Hell. This is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the purity of marriage.

If fags want to become a ''legal couple'' or whatever, let them do it. But leave marriage and the Church alone. Why is that so much for me to ask?

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by Chaos
Was. He´s been dead for 1,971 years - give or take a few.

Only if you presuppose naturalism.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Chaos
Was. He´s been dead for 1,971 years - give or take a few.

I stand corrected.

Jesus was a faggot.

Better? :p

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by Tony
Jesus is a faggot.

What is your problem? Trying to get a rise out of me? It won't work. Go ahead, call Jesus whatever you want but it's not me you will have to answer to, it's Him.

[Tony]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
First of all, your name sucks. You obviously do not understand what or who Satan is. You do not understand that Satan hates you and laughs everytime you say something anti-God.

No-one hated humanity more than jesus or the christian god.

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Nobody's saying you can't get married; you're telling other people they can't get married. You're arguing for the right to impose your viewpoints on other people, while they're arguing for their right to not be imposed upon. Can you really not see the difference?

Yes! I am telling gays that cannot perform in a ritual for a religion that forbids homosexuality.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Why do you heretics want to take everything away from Christians? We are PLEADING with you liberals to at least let us keep marriage! Why must you force faggots into our Christian rituals!?!! Okay... Number one: My wife and I were married in a CIVIL ceremony.
Number two: The institution of marriage predates Christianity.
Number three: Calling people "faggots" is insulting, particularly since nobody ever woke up one day in the middle of puberty and said to himself, "Hmmm - should I be gay or should I be straight? What are the advantages/disadvantages?" and then decided to be gay, any more than you decided to be straight. It's not a choice - it's the way God made you.
Number four: I might remind you that even if you believe that homosexuality is a sin, Jesus taught us to "hate the sin, love the sinner", and calling the sinners "faggots" is evidence that you hate them.
Number five: I might also remind you that when they wanted to stone the woman taken in adultry and asked Jesus if it was okay, he replied "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Sir (or madam), I am embarrassed to find myself supporting the same candidate for president as you. You give ammunition to everyone who would paint conservatives as intolerant religious wackjobs.

Now go, and sin no more.

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Nobody is trying to force your silly religion to do anything.

Many of us would like it if your religion would stop trying to harm children by denying them stable families because you think homosexualls are blechy. Why do you hate children so much?

There is nothing silly about worshipping the one True God. What's silly to me is

A: Rejecting Him.

and

B: Worshipping a trillion different fertilizer gods like hindus do.

I do not hate children. Where did I say that? I didn't! Stop lying.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Yes! I am telling gays that cannot perform in a ritual for a religion that forbids homosexuality.

Marriage is not an invention of Christians, and is practiced in many religions. It is also available to the utterly nonreligious. Christianity may have a great deal to say about marriage, but it's hardly in charge of it.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
First of all, your name sucks.

Pot, meet kettle.

You obviously do not understand what or who Satan is. You do not understand that Satan hates you and laughs everytime you say something anti-God. But I'm not going to get into that.

A character derived from a peice of ficticious literature - next!

I'm not going to tell you how you are going to Hell.

Wow, I don't believe in a ficticious God or your version of the "One-True-Religion(Tm)" - I'm so scared.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by 1inChrist

If fags want to become a ''legal couple'' or whatever, let them do it. But leave marriage and the Church alone. Why is that so much for me to ask?

No one has ever said that churches have to marry anyone they don't want to. it is only about the right to get married in a legal sense, not a religious one. If you don't like it being called marriage, blame the politicians who got government into the marriage game (with things like marriage licenses, etc.) in the first place. If government had kept its nose out of things it has no business getting into in the first place, we wouldn't be having this conversation

[Tony]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Yes! I am telling gays that cannot perform in a ritual for a religion that forbids homosexuality.

It's a good thing they don't want to. They want to perform a ritual in a country that guarantees "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Those pesky ideas that make this country great; ideas your god apparently hates.

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by Tony
No-one hated humanity more than jesus or the christian god.

What? Jesus died for everyone, including you.

[merphie]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Number two: The institution of marriage predates Christianity.


Sure but it has always been used to discriminate against people in the USA.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
There is nothing silly about worshipping the one True God. What's silly to me is

A: Rejecting Him.

and

B: Worshipping a trillion different fertilizer gods like hindus do.

We are the same. I just deny one more God than you do.


I do not hate children. Where did I say that? I didn't! Stop lying.

You must hate children if you want to deny them a stable family just because your poor reading of some old fairy tale leads you to the conclusion that homosexuality is somehow evil.

Unless you are one of those liberals that think marriage isn't needed for a decent family....

[merphie]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
There is nothing silly about worshipping the one True God. What's silly to me is

A: Rejecting Him.

and

B: Worshipping a trillion different fertilizer gods like hindus do.

I do not hate children. Where did I say that? I didn't! Stop lying.

What you call silly I call reasonable. I could never worship a god who spreads hate and intollerance.

[Tony]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
What? Jesus died for everyone, including you.

If your god loved humanity he would have killed "sin" when it first reared its head. The fact that he didn't, and continued to use "sin" for his own purposes (as a tool of fear), tells me that your god loves himself more than humanity. The whole jesus spectacle was nothing more than theater, it was designed to instill guilt in humanity. In short, your god is nothing more than a megalomaniacal tyrant.

[Chaos]

We are the same. I just deny one more God than you do.

Hey Suddenly, this one is great. Can I put it in my signature?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Chaos
Hey Suddenly, this one is great. Can I put it in my signature?

Sure. I think I stole it from somewhere though. It sounds awfully familiar... At least the idea is anyway....

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by Tony
If your god loved humanity he would have killed "sin" when it first reared its head. The fact that he didn't, and continued to use "sin" for his own purposes (as a tool of fear), tells me that your god loves himself more than humanity. The whole jesus spectacle was nothing more than theater, it was designed to instill guilt in humanity. In short, your god is nothing more than a megalomaniacal tyrant.

No. He could not kill sin because that would kill free will. Have you even read the Bible?

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by merphie
What you call silly I call reasonable. I could never worship a god who spreads hate and intollerance. \

He gave humans free will and in turn we spread the hate and intollerance.

[Tony]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
No. He could not kill sin because that would kill free will.

Then he's not omnipotent, thus he's not god, thus he's a liar.

Have you even read the Bible?

Cover to cover.

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by Suddenly
We are the same. I just deny one more God than you do.

You must hate children if you want to deny them a stable family just because your poor reading of some old fairy tale leads you to the conclusion that homosexuality is somehow evil.

Unless you are one of those liberals that think marriage isn't needed for a decent family....

No, I LOVE children that's why I am against faggots marrying and raising children. Not only does allowing faggots to raise children ensure their kids will never be saved but it also ensures that the kid will recieve savage beatings when he goes to school.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
This is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the purity of marriage.

Um, straying from your own topic, eh?

You still haven't explained why your version of Christianity's disapproval of homosexuality should keep people from getting married in a civil ceremony and enjoying the legal rights granted to other married couples.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
\

He gave humans free will and in turn we spread the hate and intollerance.

It is rational to conclude that the forseeable effects of an act are the intention of that act.

Therefore if what you say is true it does not absolve God of his responsibility, unless you are saying that God lacked the ability to appreciate the effects of his actions.

[merphie]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
\

He gave humans free will and in turn we spread the hate and intollerance.

Have you read the bible? It's full of hate! We should stone to death all unmarried non-virgins.

Free will nothing. A god that doesn't follow his own rules.

[1inChrist]

Then he's not omnipotent, thus he's not god, thus he's a liar.

********.

Cover to cover

********.

First of all, how do you conclude that God is not omnipotent because killing sin would kill free will. Second, if you did read the Bible cover to cover like you claim, you have done worse than someone who has never read the Bible. You have willingly read the Word and willingly rejected it.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by merphie
Have you read the bible? It's full of hate! We should stone to death all unmarried non-virgins.

Nonono...You misread. It said that unmarried non-virgins should get stoned. Hey, why not, He put weed here for a reason, after all. :D

(I'm enjoying this thread immensely.)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
No, I LOVE children that's why I am against faggots marrying and raising children. Not only does this ensure the kids will never be saved but it also ensures that the kid will recieve savage beatings when he goes to school.

Savage beatings because of people like you that dehumanize homosexuals. Hate is not an excuse for hate.

You may love children, but you hate homosexuals more, and when push comes to shove you choose the hate and justify your choice on that same hatred. This is as close to pure evil as it gets.

[merphie]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Second, if you did read the Bible cover to cover like you claim, you have done worse than someone who has never read the Bible. You have willingly read the Word and willingly rejected it.

I guess that includes me. Although I have read it cover to cover, I could get past the first book without laughing.

I can find similar and easy to read things in my kids books.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
First of all, how do you conclude that God is not omnipotent because killing sin would kill free will. Second, if you did read the Bible cover to cover like you claim, you have done worse than someone who has never read the Bible. You have willingly read the Word and willingly rejected it.


Originally posted by 1inChrist

This is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the purity of marriage.

Either stick to your topic, or start another Free Will thread in Religion and Philosophy.

[1inChrist]

Have you read the bible? It's full of hate! We should stone to death all unmarried non-virgins.

Show me the verse even though I'm pretty sure which one you will use. You heretics love taking the Word out of context but that's ok. Show me the verse and bring it on heretic.

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by Suddenly
It is rational to conclude that the forseeable effects of an act are the intention of that act.

Therefore if what you say is true it does not absolve God of his responsibility, unless you are saying that God lacked the ability to appreciate the effects of his actions.

No, God gave us free will, period.

[thaiboxerken]

I'm another atheist that has read the bible cover to cover. In fact, before I did, I was a Christian. I didn't realize how absurd the bible was until I actually opened it up and started reading for myself.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by merphie
I guess that includes me. Although I have read it cover to cover, I could get past the first book without laughing.

Laughing? I usually get bored. One too many "begots," if you ask me. I mean, he's God, right? Couldn't he have just used a drawing of a family tree?

[TragicMonkey]

I'm beginning to think 1inChrist can't answer the question of why a single religion's stance on homosexuality should prevent marriage in other faiths or in civil ceremonies, and why the associated legal rights should be denied.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
No, God gave us free will, period.

LOL. You speak as if this is a real being that is being talked about.

Hey, Peter Pan really did kill Captain Hook too.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I'm beginning to think 1inChrist can't answer the question of why a single religion's stance on homosexuality should prevent marriage in other faiths or in civil ceremonies, and why the associated legal rights should be denied.

Of course not, because he'd have to come to the conclusion that either his position is wrong or he's against freedom of religion. God forbid. :P

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by merphie
I guess that includes me. Although I have read it cover to cover, I could get past the first book without laughing.

I can find similar and easy to read things in my kids books.

That does include you. Also stop comparing the Bible to The Three Little Pigs. It's not the same and you know it. I hate it when you people do that. Even liberals admit the Bible is an amazing piece of literature.

[Tony]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Bulls**t.


LOL

Thanks for demonstrating that you're a moron. You don't reflect well on christianity.

First of all, how do you conclude that God is not omnipotent because killing sin would kill free will.


Well, um, if he was omnipotent he could do anything. If he can't kill sin without killing freewill, he's not omnipotent, thus, he's not god. It's pretty simple logic.

Second, if you did read the Bible cover to cover like you claim, you have done worse than someone who has never read the Bible. You have willingly read the Word and willingly rejected it.

Yep, god gave me my mind. He knew that I was going to reject "his word" 50 billion years ago with the mind he gave me. I'm sure he'll get over it; that is, if he really is the mercyful and just god you claim he is.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
No, God gave us free will, period.

Are you saying he didn't know that free will would lead to evil?

If so, he created evil. Simple as that.

[Nyarlathotep]

And I am a third atheist who has read the bible. Reading the bible is part of the reason I became an atheist. It isn't even internally consistant, much less consistiant with observable reality.

Note: I notcice that 1inChrist tends to not answer reasonable questions, nor respond to reasonable observations. I'd steal a play from CFLarsens book and compile a list but I am too darn lazy. I smell troll anyway.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Show me the verse even though I'm pretty sure which one you will use. You heretics love taking the Word out of context but that's ok. Show me the verse and bring it on heretic.

*cough* (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html)

I'm taking bets on how long 1inChrist will have a mental breakdown and start threatening us with physical violence or nasty words like Radrook and Riddick

(Hell, he's probably a sock puppet of either of those two)

[Ipecac]

Is 1inJebus melting down? I can't really tell.

I've read the bible. There is some beautiful language, some marvelous imagery, and a whole lot of outdated, supersitious, intolerant, useless ideas. The bible, in other words, sucks.

Anyone who would live their life by the teachings of a bunch of superstitious savages who lived two thousand years ago needs to have their head examined. :p

[merphie]

Originally posted by Cleon
Nonono...You misread. It said that unmarried non-virgins should get stoned. Hey, why not, He put weed here for a reason, after all. :D

(I'm enjoying this thread immensely.)


But if we stone all the unmarried non-virgins, we would be getting rid of all the women who put out.


I am curious. Why aren't men included in that? If we have to stone all the women who lost their virginity out of wed-lock, then why doesn't the same rule apply to men?

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I'm beginning to think 1inChrist can't answer the question of why a single religion's stance on homosexuality should prevent marriage in other faiths or in civil ceremonies, and why the associated legal rights should be denied.

Because Christianity has proved itself to be superior to other religions and it's the dominate religion in the United States. It's atheists like you who cover their ears and say ''No! No! Jesus does not exist!''

To other people it's obvious that Christianity is true and the Word of God is revealed in the Holy Bible.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I'm beginning to think 1inChrist can't answer the question of why a single religion's stance on homosexuality should prevent marriage in other faiths or in civil ceremonies, and why the associated legal rights should be denied.

I suspect he doesn't understand that level of nuance and thinks that the evil government is going to force churches to hold services for homosexuals.

Past that we just have his hatred.

[thaiboxerken]

That does include you. Also stop comparing the Bible to The Three Little Pigs.

You're correct, the Three Little Pigs makes more sense.

. Even liberals admit the Bible is an amazing piece of literature.

Maybe liberal Christians do. The most amazing thing about the bible is that people actually believe it to be true.

[Tony]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I'm another atheist that has read the bible cover to cover. In fact, before I did, I was a Christian. I didn't realize how absurd the bible was until I actually opened it up and started reading for myself.

You've just described my deconversion story (except for the atheist part). I didn't know how useful the bible was as toilet paper until I opened it up and read it for myself.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan
(Hell, he's probably a sock puppet of either of those two)

I suspect he's trying to cause us to crash the JREF servers by inciting us to post all at the same time, and flood the database with too many transactions at once. Certainly his presence inspires the fastest-growing threads I've seen yet!

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Because Christianity has proved itself to be superior to other religions and it's the dominate religion in the United States. It's atheists like you who cover their ears and say ''No! No! Jesus does not exist!''

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!

[1inChrist]

And I am a third atheist who has read the bible. Reading the bible is part of the reason I became an atheist. It isn't even internally consistant, much less consistiant with observable reality.

How so? Prophecies have been fulfilled and most historians accept Jesus as a real person. How is it incosistent?

I notcice that 1inChrist tends to not answer reasonable questions, nor respond to reasonable observations. I'd steal a play from CFLarsens book and compile a list but I am too darn lazy. I smell troll anyway.

I am doing the best I can! It's not easy answering all these people! I'm out of breathe from typing and clicking as it is.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Because Christianity has proved itself to be superior to other religions and it's the dominate religion in the United States. It's atheists like you who cover their ears and say ''No! No! Jesus does not exist!''

Well, of course he doesn't exist. I mean, even if he ever did exist, it's been what, 2000 years or so? Hell, there isn't even that much left of Columbus, and it's only been a few hundred years.


To other people it's obvious that Christianity is true and the Word of God is revealed in the Holy Bible.

And the word is..."amibiguous."

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
To other people it's obvious that Christianity is true and the Word of God is revealed in the Holy Bible.

Funny how the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists seem to disagree. Guess they don't count, eh? Oddly enough, they can and do perform marriages anyway.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
You heretics love taking the Word out of context but that's ok.

You people who have talked themselves into a corner love to redifine the phrase 'out of context' to mean 'anything harmful to my argument' but that's ok.

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Is 1inJebus melting down? I can't really tell.

I've read the bible. There is some beautiful language, some marvelous imagery, and a whole lot of outdated, supersitious, intolerant, useless ideas. The bible, in other words, sucks.

Anyone who would live their life by the teachings of a bunch of superstitious savages who lived two thousand years ago needs to have their head examined. :p

So you are admitting that the Bible is beautiful? You do realize you have just admitted the Word of God is beautiful. If you think His Word is beautiful, just think of how Glorious He is and what an amazing feeling it is to be Saved.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
How so? Prophecies have been fulfilled and most historians accept Jesus as a real person. How is it incosistent?


An assumption on your part. I thought as much when I was a Christian. I dropped Christianity when I learned otherwise.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Tony
You've just described my deconversion story (except for the atheist part). I didn't know how useful the bible was as toilet paper until I opened it up and read it for myself.

Toilet paper? Damn, dude, that would hurt. It's not soft enough. You'd get paper cuts n' stuff.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
How so? Prophecies have been fulfilled and most historians accept Jesus as a real person. How is it incosistent?

Awesome! Something testable at last! So....where are these prophecies that have been fullfilled so to speak...?

We're waiting....ho hum.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Funny how the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists seem to disagree. Guess they don't count, eh? Oddly enough, they can and do perform marriages anyway.

What's more, if Christian belief is necessary to create a marriage, does that mean that you don't think non-Christians should be allowed to marry?

[thaiboxerken]

Because Christianity has proved itself to be superior to other religions and it's the dominate religion in the United States.

And it is still just a religion, no closer to describing reality than any other religion. Comparing one superstition to others doesn't really do much for skeptics.

It's atheists like you who cover their ears and say ''No! No! Jesus does not exist!''

Hardly, it's Christians like you that fail to provide any valid evidence that Jesus ever existed.

To other people it's obvious that Christianity is true and the Word of God is revealed in the Holy Bible.

Yes, to believers that don't demand evidence it is evidence. It's also obvious to Muslims that Allah is real and that Christianity is a false religion.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
What's more, if Christian belief is necessary to create a marriage, does that mean that you don't think non-Christians should be allowed to marry?

Like I said...He's talked himself into a position where he has to admit he's wrong or that he's against freedom of religion.

He seems to be leaning towards the latter with the "Christianity is superior" bit, but we'll see. Anybody wanna lay some odds? :)

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
So you are admitting that the Bible is beautiful? You do realize you have just admitted the Word of God is beautiful. If you think His Word is beautiful, just think of how Glorious He is and what an amazing feeling it is to be Saved.

Learn to read. Then you'll understand what I said. Some passages in the bible are beautiful. The language has inspired writers for centuries.

Other passages in the bible are boring, some reveal ignorance, some are banal, and others just propaganda. But taken as a whole, the bible is a hateful book written not by a supreme being but by a bunch of primitive, superstitious fellows with an agenda.

[1inChrist]

I suspect he doesn't understand that level of nuance and thinks that the evil government is going to force churches to hold services for homosexuals.

They will if the liberals keep shoving their ''open mindedness'' down our throats. Also, LOL, it's funny that liberals are accepting to every lifestyle except, guess what, THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT!

Open minded my ass.

[merphie]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
That does include you. Also stop comparing the Bible to The Three Little Pigs. It's not the same and you know it. I hate it when you people do that. Even liberals admit the Bible is an amazing piece of literature.

You right. In contains more than one fairy tale. It's amazing literature in the sense that it has been translated more than the rosetta stone and still contains a few English words.

So if it isn't a kids book, then you believe that someone lived in a whale? You believe Moses got every species on one small boat? (Which he loses respect for saving ticks etc. . .)

How can any reasonable person believe such obvious lies?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
They will if the liberals keep shoving their ''open mindedness'' down our throats. Also, LOL, it's funny that liberals are accepting to every lifestyle except, guess what, THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT!

Open minded my ass.

Yeah, it means that the "religious right" can do whatever it wants, believe whatever it wants, until it decides what people who aren't part of the religious reich can and cannot do.

The rights of your first end where my nose begins.

[thaiboxerken]

How so? Prophecies have been fulfilled and most historians accept Jesus as a real person. How is it incosistent?

Name one prophecy that's been fulfilled, and don't refer to stories within the story, name one prophecy that has been fulfilled AFTER the bible was canonized. Also, show me statistics that reflect your claim that "most historians" accept Jesus as a real person. As far as inconsistency, check out this annotated bible. www.skepticsannotatedbible.com It shows alot of inconsistencies, absurdities and contradictions in your bible.

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by Cleon
Like I said...He's talked himself into a position where he has to admit he's wrong or that he's against freedom of religion.

He seems to be leaning towards the latter with the "Christianity is superior" bit, but we'll see. Anybody wanna lay some odds? :)

I'm not against freedom of religion. If you are a hindu and want to worship a trillion different ocean gods be my guest. However, do not force your pro-faggot agenda on my Church!

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Also, LOL, it's funny that liberals are accepting to every lifestyle except, guess what, THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT!

Open minded my ass.

Liberals have no objection to you believing whatever you want. They just don't like it when you believe you have the right to control other people's behavior via government edict. You're still protesting the suppression of your right to oppress other people, which is a ridiculous thing to expect to have.

[merphie]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Show me the verse even though I'm pretty sure which one you will use. You heretics love taking the Word out of context but that's ok. Show me the verse and bring it on heretic.

Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.) Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

I am sure you can think of something.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
I'm not against freedom of religion. If you are a hindu and want to worship a trillion different ocean gods be my guest. However, do not force your pro-faggot agenda on my Church!

Yes, you are. If you want your religious beliefs to dictate who can and cannot marry outside of your Church, you're against freedom of religion.

You can't have it both ways.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
I'm not against freedom of religion. If you are a hindu and want to worship a trillion different ocean gods be my guest. However, do not force your pro-faggot agenda on my Church!

We're not talking about your church, we're talking about the government. Why should the government forbid people from getting married, and deny them the same legal rights they grant to other people?

Edited to add: you may kick the homosexuals out of your church, but the government is still partly theirs.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
They will if the liberals keep shoving their ''open mindedness'' down our throats. Also, LOL, it's funny that liberals are accepting to every lifestyle except, guess what, THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT!

Open minded my ass.

Liberals are open to religion, but the religious right is akin to Naziism. The religious right are fighting to make everyone part of their religion or to conform to their religion. It's one thing to be liberal and accepting of ideas, but that doesn't mean one should be accepting of ideas that are against being liberal and accepting.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
They will if the liberals keep shoving their ''open mindedness'' down our throats. Also, LOL, it's funny that liberals are accepting to every lifestyle except, guess what, THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT!

Open minded my ass.

Wow. I called it.

So you are uninformed about pretty much everything you are babbling about then eh?

I'm tolerant of the Christians right until they start trying to make my government do their bidding. If you all want to go to church 3 times a week and waste your life worrying about the after death big rock candy mountain go right ahead. No skin off my nose.


Wish y'all would return the favor.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
I'm not against freedom of religion. If you are a hindu and want to worship a trillion different ocean gods be my guest. However, do not force your pro-faggot agenda on my Church!

No one is forcing your church to marry homosexuals, nor are they attempting to. We are trying to force government to recognize secular marriages of same-sex couples, it has nothing to do with your church.

[1inChrist]

Yeah, it means that the "religious right" can do whatever it wants, believe whatever it wants, until it decides what people who aren't part of the religious reich can and cannot do.

What? We are just asking that gay people not get MARRIED. Marriage is a religious ritual!

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
No one is forcing your church to marry homosexuals, nor are they attempting to. We are trying to force government to recognize secular marriages of same-sex couples, it has nothing to do with your church.

Ah, but we're forgetting the government belongs to Christians only, as Christianity is "obviously true".

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
What? We are just asking that gay people not get MARRIED. Marriage is a religious ritual!

If marriage is a religious ritual, then it should not be a part of government at all.

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by Cleon
Yes, you are. If you want your religious beliefs to dictate who can and cannot marry outside of your Church, you're against freedom of religion.

You can't have it both ways.

I already said fags can have something similar to marriage as long as it's not called marriage or performed in a Church.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
What? We are just asking that gay people not get MARRIED. Marriage is a religious ritual!

No it isn't. It can be entered into in a religious ritual, or a civil one. That's simply the ceremony. The marriage itself is the legal relationship started then. No religion necessary.

[Tony]

You heretics love taking the Word out of context but that's ok.

Taking scripture out of context is a staple of christian indoctrination. I know, I experienced it. In fact, taking scripture of out context, and perverting the original meanings of the scriptures is probobly the main reason christianity has been able to survive in this relatively tolerate and civilized age.

The times when society actually lived by the real meaning of "the word" were filled with persecution, murder, torture, slavery, death, and general misery. Such things are the fruits of jesus' love.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
I already said fags can have something similar to marriage as long as it's not called marriage or performed in a Church.

Isn't that up to the homosexuals and the particular church? If I have my own religion and church, why can't I let homosexuals marry in my church?

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Liberals are open to religion, but the religious right is akin to Naziism. The religious right are fighting to make everyone part of their religion or to conform to their religion. It's one thing to be liberal and accepting of ideas, but that doesn't mean one should be accepting of ideas that are against being liberal and accepting.

Now I'm a nazi?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
What? We are just asking that gay people not get MARRIED. Marriage is a religious ritual!

A) No, you're DEMANDING, not ASKING.

B) Marriage is a civic institution, independent of religion. It includes a variety of legal, tax, and other benefits. Atheists can marry, you know. You can get married without every talking to a priest, minister, rabbit, or imam.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
How so? Prophecies have been fulfilled and most historians accept Jesus as a real person. How is it incosistent?


Biblical prophecies have been fulfilled the same way that most prophecies are fulfilled. By people taking an even after the fact and fitting it to some obsurely worded passage that could mean a whole lot of things. It is more postdiction thatn prediction. No differnet than the people who claim that Nostradamus' prophecies have been fulfilled, they do the same thing.

As for Jesus, SOME historians accept him as a real person not most. And even if he were real, that does not mean all the stories in the bible that concern him are true. Vlad Dracula was real too, that doesn't mean he was a vampire.

As for the internal inconstancies I am talking about things like a god who supposedly "knows the end from the beginning" yet who is either is unable to see the consequences of letting Adam and eve have acess to knowlegde of Good and Evil or who knew full well, but set up the rules anyway such that the vast majority of people who would ever live would be sentenced to be eternally tortured in hell. I am talking about little things like the two different, and mutually inconsistant versions of Judas' death. I am talking about big things like a God who preaches loves but practices cruelty. THAT is the sort of inconsistancy that made me question, and ultimately reject, the veracity of the bible (and eventually the idea of dieties in general)

[merphie]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
I'm not against freedom of religion. If you are a hindu and want to worship a trillion different ocean gods be my guest. However, do not force your pro-faggot agenda on my Church!

The laws doesn't say you have to marry anyone. If you make a law that says homosexuals can't marry, then you are forcing your Ant-Homosexual agenda on us and other churches.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Now I'm a nazi?

Yes.

[1inChrist]

I will be back later to answer your other posts. I cannot keep up and my head is spinning out of control. May the Lord bless you all even though you have chosen to reject Him.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
I already said fags can have something similar to marriage as long as it's not called marriage or performed in a Church.

What do you care what it's called? And what if "fags" set up their OWN church? You know, it's not illegal to do that. (At least, not until you fruitcakes get into power.)

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
I will be back later to answer your other posts. I cannot keep up and my head is spinning out of control. May the Lord bless you all even though you have chosen to reject Him.

Why don't you find three nails and some wood and follow the actions of your role model?

[merphie]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
I already said fags can have something similar to marriage as long as it's not called marriage or performed in a Church.

So if they believe a non-hating version of your religion then they can't call it marriage. It would be part of their religion. So you are OK with freedom of religion as long it is your religion?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
No, God gave us free will, period.

How so? God is totally in control isn't he?? Doesn't he know everything...etc...etc...?? So IF God is in control, how can we have free will?

People having free will would be able to SURPRISE GOD!

But if God is really all knowing and controlling, then surprising Him would not be possible. It'd be like watching an old movie you know by heart, and then seeing the characters do something completely different!

-z

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
What? We are just asking that gay people not get MARRIED. Marriage is a religious ritual!

Going to the courthouse and having the county clerk sign a document saying that two people are married is a religious ritual? What about paying one's property tax. No? Renewing one's driver's license, perhaps?

There is a difference between CIVIL marriage and religious marriage. Gays are only asking the right to be civilly married and that's all the government can grant. Churches are not going to lose the right to put their stamp of approval (or not) on any type of marriage they wish.

[merphie]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
I will be back later to answer your other posts. I cannot keep up and my head is spinning out of control. May the Lord bless you all even though you have chosen to reject Him.

A Cop out!

I feel sorry for him. Coming on a skeptic board. He's brave. I'll give him that.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by merphie
A Cop out!

I feel sorry for him. Coming on a skeptic board. He's brave. I'll give him that.

There's a fine line, sometimes, between "brave" and "stupid." Some people manage to have a foot on both sides. :p

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by rikzilla
People having free will would be able to SURPRISE GOD!


Which is why I'm going to convert, be a good Christian, then in the afterlife surprise God with a coup. Once in power, I'll let everyone out of hell and throw the bitchingest party ever. In fact, an eternal party in the newly-named Monkey Dimension of Free Love and Money and Junk Food.

See it coming, God?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
I will be back later to answer your other posts. I cannot keep up and my head is spinning out of control. May the Lord bless you all even though you have chosen to reject Him.

Your head is spinning because of some new things being inserted therein. They're called "ideas".

I'm sure that by the time you come back, you'll have used your superstitious beliefs and knocked those pesky "ideas" right back out of your head.

[merphie]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Which is why I'm going to convert, be a good Christian, then in the afterlife surprise God with a coup. Once in power, I'll let everyone out of hell and throw the bitchingest party ever. In fact, an eternal party in the newly-named Monkey Dimension of Free Love and Money and Junk Food.

See it coming, God?

But didn't Satan already do that?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Why don't you find three nails and some wood and follow the actions of your role model?

That strikes me as being rather difficult...But it would be interesting to watch someone try. :)

[merphie]

Originally posted by Cleon
There's a fine line, sometimes, between "brave" and "stupid." Some people manage to have a foot on both sides. :p

True. Maybe if his head is spinning its because we introduced a spark of doubt?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by merphie
But didn't Satan already do that?

I've already been told by a fundie that I'm "worse than Satan", so I think I might have an edge. Besides, after all this time and worship, God will undoubtedly be complacent.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by merphie
True. Maybe if his head is spinning its because we introduced a spark of doubt?

Well, if it was ever there, he'll go and "pray over it," and read the Babble, and find his favorite passage, which will remind him why the Bible's true because it says it's true, and come back spouting more declarations of Why He's Right.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
I'm not against freedom of religion. If you are a hindu and want to worship a trillion different ocean gods be my guest. However, do not force your pro-faggot agenda on my Church!

If this is truly your position then you are arguing against an enormous strawman, as no one has said that your Church has to recognize gay marriage.

Congrats on killing that strawman though.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by merphie
The laws doesn't say you have to marry anyone. If you make a law that says homosexuals can't marry, then you are forcing your Ant-Homosexual agenda on us and other churches.

Ain't it funny how us skeptical conservatives start doing a wonderful impression of liberalism when a REAL RIGHT WING NUT shows up!? :D

Memo to the other skeptics....

The Moral Majority thinks we're liberals too!

Please Jesus! Deliver us from your followers!

-z

[Cleon]

This thread's been beautiful. You know why?

Because despite all the differences we have over the election, Iraq, "Memogate," Palestine, the Governator, fox hunting, etc., we were all on the same side when a fundie came trolling.

*sniff* I love you guys....

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cleon
This thread's been beautiful. You know why?

Because despite all the differences we have over the election, Iraq, "Memogate," Palestine, the Governator, fox hunting, etc., we were all on the same side when a fundie came trolling.

*sniff* I love you guys....

:)

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Ain't it funny how us skeptical conservatives start doing a wonderful impression of liberalism when a REAL RIGHT WING NUT shows up!?

Just goes to show that there's a sliding scale. If you found a way to quantify everyone's politics and beliefs and calculate where they fall, someone, somewhere, at some time would occupy both the extremes--they would be the absolute most conservative person EVER, and the absolute most liberal person EVER. I wonder who they would be?

er, bad structure. I mean two people, not one as both extremes.

[merphie]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I've already been told by a fundie that I'm "worse than Satan", so I think I might have an edge. Besides, after all this time and worship, God will undoubtedly be complacent.

Since I have been told I am going to hell. I shall join you. Two against one!

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by merphie
Since I have been told I am going to hell. I shall join you. Two against one!

But he's tripartite. We'll have to fight dirty.

[merphie]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
But he's tripartite. We'll have to fight dirty.

Is there any other way?

[merphie]

Originally posted by Cleon
This thread's been beautiful. You know why?

Because despite all the differences we have over the election, Iraq, "Memogate," Palestine, the Governator, fox hunting, etc., we were all on the same side when a fundie came trolling.

*sniff* I love you guys....

We may all disagree from time to time, but I would at least like to think that we all have some common sense and are able to see the truth.

That fellow is completely blinded by his faith.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by merphie


That fellow is completely blinded by his faith.

Or a troll from the get-go.

EIther way, I do hear real people making the same points he did, so arguing with him was good practice for arguing with those people.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by merphie
We may all disagree from time to time, but I would at least like to think that we all have some common sense and are able to see the truth.

That fellow is completely blinded by his faith. I have some problems with this thread.

Problem number 1: He offends the hell out of me. I have a serious question for him if/when he shows up again, a question I ask anyone who wants to "save" me. I've gotten some interesting answers, but when I ask it, I'd appreciate it if y'all could hold off carpet-bombing him for a bit until he's had a chance to reply - I can see why his head is spinning.

Problem number 2: Whatever his filthy intolerance for gays, I notice a lot of fury, even hate, being directed back at him. Calling him a Nazi, suggesting he kill himself, etc. I even indirectly called him a wackjob, and I don't like calling people names. When/if he comes back, can we make an effort to answer him civilly and RATIONALLY? That's supposed to be our strng point. I never heard of a religious zealot being shown the light of reason by being told his god is hateful.

Problem number 3: Isn't this an incredible waste of time? Does anyone here seriously believe they're going to win this guy over? If you ask him why he's here, he'll tell you it's because he's doing the Lord's work, and he expects to be persecuted for his beliefs, just like Jesus was.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Suddenly
[Re. quote, 'We are the same. I just deny one more God than you do.'] Sure. I think I stole it from somewhere though. It sounds awfully familiar... At least the idea is anyway....

It's Robert Ingersoll. He went on to say, 'Ask yourself why you deny other gods and you might come to understand why I deny yours', or words to that effect. But then, as I'm three pages behind on this thread, someone's probably told you that already...

[thaiboxerken]

Isn't this an incredible waste of time?

Yes, but it's entertaining. This guy wouldn't be won over by reason either.

[merphie]

Originally posted by BPSCG
I have some problems with this thread.

Problem number 1: He offends the hell out of me. I have a serious question for him if/when he shows up again, a question I ask anyone who wants to "save" me. I've gotten some interesting answers, but when I ask it, I'd appreciate it if y'all could hold off carpet-bombing him for a bit until he's had a chance to reply - I can see why his head is spinning.

Problem number 2: Whatever his filthy intolerance for gays, I notice a lot of fury, even hate, being directed back at him. Calling him a Nazi, suggesting he kill himself, etc. I even indirectly called him a wackjob, and I don't like calling people names. When/if he comes back, can we make an effort to answer him civilly and RATIONALLY? That's supposed to be our strng point. I never heard of a religious zealot being shown the light of reason by being told his god is hateful.

Problem number 3: Isn't this an incredible waste of time? Does anyone here seriously believe they're going to win this guy over? If you ask him why he's here, he'll tell you it's because he's doing the Lord's work, and he expects to be persecuted for his beliefs, just like Jesus was.

You have valid points. I think the name calling was only after he refused to accept any presented facts. It's frustrating to deal with people who can not be convienced.

Can you private message me your question? I am curious.

Finally, I agree with you. There is no way that we would win him over. However does that means we should never try?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by BPSCG
I have some problems with this thread.

Problem number 1: He offends the hell out of me. I have a serious question for him if/when he shows up again, a question I ask anyone who wants to "save" me. I've gotten some interesting answers, but when I ask it, I'd appreciate it if y'all could hold off carpet-bombing him for a bit until he's had a chance to reply - I can see why his head is spinning.

Problem number 2: Whatever his filthy intolerance for gays, I notice a lot of fury, even hate, being directed back at him. Calling him a Nazi, suggesting he kill himself, etc. I even indirectly called him a wackjob, and I don't like calling people names. When/if he comes back, can we make an effort to answer him civilly and RATIONALLY? That's supposed to be our strng point. I never heard of a religious zealot being shown the light of reason by being told his god is hateful.

Problem number 3: Isn't this an incredible waste of time? Does anyone here seriously believe they're going to win this guy over? If you ask him why he's here, he'll tell you it's because he's doing the Lord's work, and he expects to be persecuted for his beliefs, just like Jesus was.

I won't argue with you on points 1 and 2. Though I think I was at least TRYING to remain calm and rational with him.

As for point three, I disagree that it was a waste of time. First of no matter what his motivations for being here are and no matter the likelyhood of "winning him over" there is value to be had from countering his arguments. He is not the only person reading htis board besides us. I just don't think it would be proper to give someone who may be seriously thinking about such matters the impression that the guys logic was irrefutable by not showing the counter arguments. Such discussion is what this board is SUPPOSED to be about. I could give a rat's behind if I "de-convert" him or not. That's not my goal. I just want to show the other side of his arguments

Besides, like Ken said, it's fun.

[Hutch]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Or a troll from the get-go.

Hmmmm....he/she sounds like a 180-degree spin off of old XX-Rational-XX....whom we haven't seen for some time now, haven't we?

.....slinks offstage right with coat pulled up about head, muttering of vast conspiracies and shadows......

[merphie]

This reminds me of the song "The Bible is BullSh!t" by corporate avenger.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Hutch
Hmmmm....he/she sounds like a 180-degree spin off of old XX-Rational-XX....whom we haven't seen for some time now, haven't we?

.....slinks offstage right with coat pulled up about head, muttering of vast conspiracies and shadows......

Possible, but if he were truly the mirror image of XX-Rational-XX he should have sounded even nuttier.

Even so, it is also possible that he is "refining" his act. I don't know.

[Charlie Monoxide]

I will join the teeming millions of atheists by saying my conversion from Catholicism to reality was due to the reading of the bible (both old and new testaments). It was a tough slog and I'll admit I skipped a lot of the psalms and the opening begats in the new testament (enough already! Jebus is related to David). The Book of Revelation had some great imagery, but not enough to scare the "bejebus" out of me (err maybe it did).

After reading 1"christ's responses, I'm convinced he is Pillory's sock-puppet, but in a sober state.

Charlie (dang, I miss Pillory)

[Circon]

Pot, meet kettle.I registered just to say how funny this was! :D


On a more serious note, though: I'm one of those Christians who really believes Jesus lived & died (for us), and I keep my critical thinking faculties sharp nonetheless- with the help of Terry Goodkind, C.S. Lewis and a family-sized self-confidence.

And I'm ashamed. Of myself and Christians in general, for what we have let happen.
1inChrist and the like have usurped "Christianity" to the point where it becomes something along the lines of fundie Islam - a horrid remnant of the middle ages. I've read several of the Lewis writings - they're good, they're rational, and they wipe a whole heap of dust from Christianity that we should not have let accumulate.

So what have I got to say here? Well, I'd like to rebut a few other points.Originally posted by Tony
Then he's not omnipotent, thus he's not god, thus he's a liar.

Challenge God to make a square circle. Loss of omnipotence? I doubt it. More like humans playing with words.

Sin as a knowable consequence of free will? Sin as a knowable consequence of having anything but automatons, I contest. The greater an entity - the greater harm or good it is capable of.
A dog can chase off a robber or bite you in the leg.
A man can write a beatiful symphony or invent a weapon killing millions of people.
And the Devil - guess why he's called a "fallen angel"? No, it's not the "horned cloven-hoof red guy with a tail and a pitchfork" one which belongs in a comic book. It's not the appearance I'm concerned for.


As for the whole "homosexual marriage" thing: I don't really care. I know a homosexual person and I have nothing against him (except that he once referred to one of my favorite computer games as a ripoff of Warcraft. Grr.) The condemning I remember is of the sort "the evil city of XX, where men sleep with men" etc etc. This seems to be colored both by author's prejudice, surroundings and by the morals of that people in that time.

Say hello to a new debater, people. I may not be better, or even seem more rational, but I can reasonably expect to be different. Maybe I can even score Christianity a few points. Feel free to correct me and point out stuff i missed - there will be loads of it, I am sure - but I have read, or rather browsed "Skeptic's Annotated Bible, so don't just link it.
Oh, and I went 3 years to a Pentecostal school where I spent a lot of time arguing with the teachers, trying to convince them that evolution is a fact. I ended up like this:
Me: Is there any amount or sort of information that will make you change your mind?
Teacher: No.
Me: Very well. (I decide not to say: Then you are so brainwashed that your point of view should be disallowed for small-mindedness.)
So Don't classify me there - preferably, don't classify me at all. I have Asberger Syndrome and several other things, so It'll be a while before I can settle down here.

-Circon, proud of his first post on the great Randi's forum.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Circon
I registered just to say how funny this was! :D

On a more serious note, though: I'm one of those Christians who really believes Jesus lived & died (for us), and I keep my critical thinking faculties sharp nonetheless- with the help of Terry Goodkind, C.S. Lewis and a family-sized self-confidence.

And I'm ashamed. Of myself and Christians in general, for what we have let happen.
1inChrist and the like have usurped "Christianity" to the point where it becomes something along the lines of fundie Islam - a horrid remnant of the middle ages. I've read several of the Lewis writings - they're good, they're rational, and they wipe a whole heap of dust from Christianity that we should not have let accumulate.

So what have I got to say here? Well, I'd like to rebut a few other points.
Challenge God to make a square circle. Loss of omnipotence? I doubt it. More like humans playing with words.

Sin as a knowable consequence of free will? Sin as a knowable consequence of having anything but automatons, I contest. The greater an entity - the greater harm or good it is capable of.
A dog can chase off a robber or bite you in the leg.
A man can write a beatiful symphony or invent a weapon killing millions of people.
And the Devil - guess why he's called a "fallen angel"? No, it's not the "horned cloven-hoof red guy with a tail and a pitchfork" one which belongs in a comic book. It's not the appearance I'm concerned for.


As for the whole "homosexual marriage" thing: I don't really care. I know a homosexual person and I have nothing against him (except that he once referred to one of my favorite computer games as a ripoff of Warcraft. Grr.) The condemning I remember is of the sort "the evil city of XX, where men sleep with men" etc etc. This seems to be colored both by author's prejudice, surroundings and by the morals of that people in that time.

Say hello to a new debater, people. I may not be better, or even seem more rational, but I can reasonably expect to be different. Maybe I can even score Christianity a few points. Feel free to correct me and point out stuff i missed - there will be loads of it, I am sure - but I have read, or rather browsed "Skeptic's Annotated Bible, so don't just link it.
Oh, and I went 3 years to a Pentecostal school where I spent a lot of time arguing with the teachers, trying to convince them that evolution is a fact. I ended up like this:
Me: Is there any amount or sort of information that will make you change your mind?
Teacher: No.
Me: Very well. (I decide not to say: Then you are so brainwashed that your point of view should be disallowed for small-mindedness.)
So Don't classify me there - preferably, don't classify me at all. I have Asberger Syndrome and several other things, so It'll be a while before I can settle down here.

-Circon, proud of his first post on the great Randi's forum.

Nice to see someone who not such a fanatic. There is a flaw in your reasoning already.

You will not score points for christians here. You can not provide proof that we require.

[Circon]

Originally posted by merphie
Nice to see someone who not such a fanatic. There is a flaw in your reasoning already.

You will not score points for christians here. You can not provide proof that we require. I think the flaw might lie with you. :) You've already said it's nice to see someone who is not such a fanatic. Isn't that a point? ;)

Require any level of proof. Ask and ye shall re- oh wait, I forgot, I'm not supposed to be taking the Bible literally. :p
I'll say the line that ought to be used far more often...I don't know so much about that, so you may very well be right. But there is one thing I do know, and that is...

My notion of "points" is probably different from yours, but I don't care. I'm happy to be here with other open-minded people, even if some of them are a bit free with the vitriol once someone is declared a troll/flamer/woo-woo.

-Circon, going off to read CS Lewis again.

[thaiboxerken]

Yet another long winded, "critically" thinking Christian apologetic.

Read all the CS Lewis you want, however, that doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence to support the claims that your god existed or jesus existed.

[Circon]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Yet another long winded, "critically" thinking Christian apologetic.

Read all the CS Lewis you want, however, that doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence to support the claims that your god existed or jesus existed. By saying "Yet another", you're already lumping me into a category of "people to be dismissed" as far as I can see. And what does "long winded" have to do with anything? I prefer it by far to the "sound bites" that contain little reason and much emotion. Check yourself for prejudices.

No evidence? Oh, there is evidence - you just won't accept it. Where's that quote? Jesus *as messiah* is in debate, I can agree to that, but Jesus *as historic person* seems to have a fairly strong case. Like being mentioned by his enemies the Romans.

-Circon, who edited his post because he forgot the tagline.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Circon

On a more serious note, though: I'm one of those Christians who really believes Jesus lived & died (for us), and I keep my critical thinking faculties sharp nonetheless- with the help of Terry Goodkind, C.S. Lewis and a family-sized self-confidence.


Uh, dude, Goodkind's an Objectivist. He's as atheist as they come.

I actually really liked his first few books, before he decided to become Ayn Rand reborn. Note to TG: It is possible to put your politics into your books without sacrificing everything that makes you a decent writer.

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan
Awesome! Something testable at last! So....where are these prophecies that have been fullfilled so to speak...?

We're waiting....ho hum.

Daniel predicted Jesus's crucifixion 1000 years before crucifition became a form of capital punishment.

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by merphie
You right. In contains more than one fairy tale. It's amazing literature in the sense that it has been translated more than the rosetta stone and still contains a few English words.

So if it isn't a kids book, then you believe that someone lived in a whale? You believe Moses got every species on one small boat? (Which he loses respect for saving ticks etc. . .)

How can any reasonable person believe such obvious lies?

Yes I do believe in Noah's Ark. Someone can live in a Whale easily, since an all powerful God exists. You just presuppose naturalism.

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by Cleon
Yeah, it means that the "religious right" can do whatever it wants, believe whatever it wants, until it decides what people who aren't part of the religious reich can and cannot do.

The rights of your first end where my nose begins.

So you agree we have the right to reject homosexuals from performing the Christian ritual of marriage?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
So you agree we have the right to reject homosexuals from performing the Christian ritual of marriage?

No, no, I don't. Reading is not difficult--you should try it sometime.

You can reject anyone you want in your own church. You do not have the right to deny people the right to marry who don't marry in your church--whether they marry in another church, a synagogue, a mosque, or a courthouse.

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Daniel predicted Jesus's crucifixtion 1000 years before crucifixtion became a form of capital punishment.

Or maybe the people who wrote the New Testament wrote things so they matched up with Old Testament prophecies.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Circon

No evidence? Oh, there is evidence - you just won't accept it. Where's that quote? Jesus *as messiah* is in debate, I can agree to that, but Jesus *as historic person* seems to have a fairly strong case. Like being mentioned by his enemies the Romans.

-Circon, who edited his post because he forgot the tagline.

But Jesus *as messiah* is what you have to prove if you want to prove that Christianity isn't just another fairy tale or at best a philosophy that is no better or no worse than any other philosophy.

To recycle an example I used previously; if I wanted to prove the existance of vampires, I couldn't just show evidence that Dracula existed, I'd have to show evidence that he existed (which I could)AND that the story Bram Stoker wrote about him was true (which I could not)

The mere fact that a story contains factual elements does nto make it true.

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by Circon
By saying "Yet another", you're already lumping me into a category of "people to be dismissed" as far as I can see. And what does "long winded" have to do with anything? I prefer it by far to the "sound bites" that contain little reason and much emotion. Check yourself for prejudices.

No evidence? Oh, there is evidence - you just won't accept it. Where's that quote? Jesus *as messiah* is in debate, I can agree to that, but Jesus *as historic person* seems to have a fairly strong case. Like being mentioned by his enemies the Romans.

-Circon, who edited his post because he forgot the tagline.

Welcome brother in Christ!

[Circon]

Originally posted by Cleon
Uh, dude, Goodkind's an Objectivist. He's as atheist as they come.

I actually really liked his first few books, before he decided to become Ayn Rand reborn. Note to TG: It is possible to put your politics into your books without sacrificing everything that makes you a decent writer. :) So what? He writes a good book, in my favorite genre, and it comes with good morals. He may be atheist, but that in no way affects me - I still get a lot of critical thinking practice here.

Who's Ayn Rand?

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Welcome brother in Christ! I'm staring strangely at you now.

-Circon, who really has to go to bed instead of thinking of witty taglines.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Circon

Who's Ayn Rand?


Oh, you lucky, lucky boy...I truly envy you.

[1inChrist]

Circon,

May I ask when you accepted the Lord as your Savior?

[Chaos]

Originally posted by merphie
Nice to see someone who not such a fanatic. There is a flaw in your reasoning already.

You will not score points for christians here. You can not provide proof that we require.

There is also a flaw in your reasoning: we have not yet seen what proof he can provide. So we cannot know that it will not be enough.

I, for one, am curious what he has in stock.

[1inChrist]

And I'm ashamed. Of myself and Christians in general, for what we have let happen.
1inChrist and the like have usurped "Christianity" to the point where it becomes something along the lines of fundie Islam - a horrid remnant of the middle ages. I've read several of the Lewis writings - they're good, they're rational, and they wipe a whole heap of dust from Christianity that we should not have let accumulate.


Wait, huh? Are you comparing me to those murderous Muslims who took the lives of 3,000 Americans? NO! I am willing to forgive your crude statement. Excuse me, but I to am a big fan of C.S Lewis and also a follower of the Lord as you are. Your attack on your fellow brother in Christ concerns me.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Daniel predicted Jesus's crucifixion 1000 years before crucifition became a form of capital punishment.

1) I would be much more inclined to beleive you if you showed me the verse, rather than just making a bald asertion

2)What Lisa Simpson said...

3) Self referential prophecies (this thing in that bible said that something would happen and by golly, the bible says it happened afterward) are very suspect. If you want to show something was prophecied in the bible and that prophecy came true, your case would be MUCH stronger if the account of the event was elsewhere beside the bible.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Daniel predicted Jesus's crucifixion 1000 years before crucifition became a form of capital punishment.

The Daniel section in the OT was written - oh - AFTER Jesus's supposed crucifiction - how the HECK is that a prophesy? Would you care to clarify that more?

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Yes I do believe in Noah's Ark. Someone can live in a Whale easily, since an all powerful God exists. You just presuppose naturalism.

And here, ladies and gentlemen, we have a fine specimen and perfect example of circular logic, that can also be found when the subject is asked about the great flood.

"Oh, the great flood happened, the water came from God, you know, cuz god's...all...powerfull..and stuff...so yeah!"

Ah, the wonders of circular logic.

[1inChrist]

Want to talk about circular logic? Let's talk about your naturalistic presuppositions on the universe.

[Ashles]

Uh uh 1inchrist - that would involve logic and we all know you think that is the work of Satan.

Do you wish to use the tools of the Devil?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Want to talk about circular logic? Let's talk about your naturalistic presuppositions on the universe.

The argument that you can't fit a certain number of cubic feet worth of animals into a smaller number of cubic feet of ark or that if a human was swallowed by a whale either the whale would choke or the human would be digested is not based on naturaistic presuppositions or circular logic, it is based on observable fact. If you have observable facts to contradict this, please share.

[1inChrist]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
The argument that you can't fit a certain number of cubic feet worth of animals into a smaller number of cubic feet of ark or that if a human was swallowed by a whale either the whale would choke or the human would be digested is not based on naturaistic presuppositions or circular logic, it is based on observable fact. If you have observable facts to contradict this, please share.

You are presupposing that empiricalism is true.

[BPSCG]

1inChrist -

I have a serious question for you. I hope you'll note that after you left earlier, I tried to point out how out of line I thought some of the comments sent your way were, and answer my question.

First, a little background:

I'm not a professional basketball player.

Not that I wouldn't love to be - you sure can't complain about the money, even if you're a benchwarmer.

But the problem is that I'm comfortably under six feet tall, don't have the naturally lean build that you need to have the endurance required of the game, and my eyesight ain't so hot ("lazy eye" they call it - a very minor birth defect, if you will), which means there's no way I would ever remotely be able to compete on the basketball court. Plus I'm white, and everybody knows white boys can't jump.

In other words, I'm just not built for the game. Too bad - I would love to have been born with the genes that would have made me a rich, successful pro athlete. But, the God who formed me in the womb saw fit to give me very average genes. I did not choose to be average; God just made me like that.

As probably a lot of people here know, I had cancer (Hodgkins' disease) about 20 years ago. There's very little that focuses the attention like being told you have a potentially fatal disease. And there's nothing like it to make you think about your own mortality. Like many people, I was afraid to die. Terrified is not too strong a word. Not afraid I was going to go to Hell and be eternally tormented, because I simply didn't believe in that. But frightened of the abyss, of eternal extinction, which I do believe in.

One thing I wanted to believe in while I was going through the diagnosis process, was a savior, who would save my soul and allow me to live in bliss for ever. Yes, I would love to have believed that Jesus Christ, God's only begotten son, had come to earth and died for my sins so that I might have eternal life.

I wanted to believe that. I wanted powerfully to believe that. I tried to believe that.

But I could not believe it. It wasn't a matter of stubbornness, of defying God's will, or anything like that. It was just that I could not make my brain work in such a way that I could believe the words of the New Testament, just as I can not make my brain believe that 2 + 2 = 5. The same God who had given me average height and less-than hawklike vision, who had given me more of a stocky build than a lean one, had also given me a brain that could not believe I could have eternal life after death. It's not a question of free will, because I wanted to believe. I simply couldn't.

My question to you is: Will the God who made me unable - not unwilling - to believe in him, even when I desperately wanted to, even when I was facing the abyss, condemn me to eternal damnation because I was unable to believe in him?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
You are presupposing that empiricalism is true.

You presuppose it is not, the difference is, I am willing to be proven wrong. You are the one claiming that God exists among other things. Prove it.

[1inChrist]

But the problem is that I'm comfortably under six feet tall, don't have the naturally lean build that you need to have the endurance required of the game, and my eyesight ain't so hot ("lazy eye" they call it - a very minor birth defect, if you will), which means there's no way I would ever remotely be able to compete on the basketball court. Plus I'm white, and everybody knows white boys can't jump.

Don't worry, you are the Lord's Glorious creation and He loves you anyway. Plus, those are just superficial nitpicks that I'm sure many people on this board have. Except maybe a lazy eye, I'm not sure how common that is.

In other words, I'm just not built for the game. Too bad - I would love to have been born with the genes that would have made me a rich, successful pro athlete. But, the God who formed me in the womb saw fit to give me very average genes. I did not choose to be average; God just made me like that.

Yes He did.

As probably a lot of people here know, I had cancer (Hodgkins' disease) about 20 years ago. There's very little that focuses the attention like being told you have a potentially fatal disease. And there's nothing like it to make you think about your own mortality. Like many people, I was afraid to die. Terrified is not too strong a word. Not afraid I was going to go to Hell and be eternally tormented, because I simply didn't believe in that. But frightened of the abyss, of eternal extinction, which I do believe in

I am sorry for your difficulties in life.

One thing I wanted to believe in while I was going through the diagnosis process, was a savior, who would save my soul and allow me to live in bliss for ever. Yes, I would love to have believed that Jesus Christ, God's only begotten son, had come to earth and died for my sins so that I might have eternal life.

I wanted to believe that. I wanted powerfully to believe that. I tried to believe that.

But I could not believe it. It wasn't a matter of stubbornness, of defying God's will, or anything like that. It was just that I could not make my brain work in such a way that I could believe the words of the New Testament, just as I can not make my brain believe that 2 + 2 = 5. The same God who had given me average height and less-than hawklike vision, who had given me more of a stocky build than a lean one, had also given me a brain that could not believe I could have eternal life after death. It's not a question of free will, because I wanted to believe. I simply couldn't.

My question to you is: Will the God who made me unable - not unwilling - to believe in him, even when I desperately wanted to, even when I was facing the abyss, condemn me to eternal damnation because I was unable to believe in him?

This is a good question that I don't think I can give a satisfactory answer to. I believe the Lord will judge you fairly. I also believe that when you die, you will meet the Lord face to face and will dicuss why you did not accept His Sacrifice. If it's true that you opened your heart but He didn't come in, I can't picture Him condemning you. Maybe He has a plan for you that He only knows about. This is why Jesus warned people not to judge, because only God can judge because only God knows the big picture.

[zenith-nadir]

...because only God can judge because only God knows the big picture. So why is god's big picture so wrathful, intolerant, oppressive and generally unpleasant? I didn't do anything to him. Personally I just don't feel like following anyone elses constructs. And how do I know that your construct of "god" is correct? Maybe what you are doing is wrong and quite offensive to "god". Unless you've chatted with him lately how can you prove what you preach is genuine? Quite the dillemma. I can't prove that s/he/it does not exist, so I believe what is most reasonable to me at this time.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
You are presupposing that empiricalism is true.

Your next stop should be the TAG argument. "Transcendental argument for the existence of God", But since you seem to disregard empiricism, then you may not use TAG as an argument . It is based on the flow of logic, experience and outcome.

What You are left with ( from your post ) is the view that Empiricism is wrong.

I can take two quantities of certain chemicals and perform an experiment and unless there is a contaminant repeat the experiment many times with the same outcome. In fact I can do the experiment in NY while colleagues do it in LA and Tokyo and ( again unless contaminated) the results will be equivalent. I and many others in disparate disciplines can do the same.

Whereas You can tell me a tale of a man/god who lived 2000 yrs ago and changed low numbers of fishes and loaves into vast numbers with no , proof, artifact or repeatability, but a bad multi-written multi-translated text by authors anonymous , who's very main subject is in question.

Feel at ease with your easter bunny tales , but don't try to foist it on reasonable people , especially in this forum. Go to R and P.

[thaiboxerken]

By saying "Yet another", you're already lumping me into a category of "people to be dismissed" as far as I can see.

Nope, I'm lumping into the category of people that have yet to give any evidence to support their claims.

And what does "long winded" have to do with anything?

If you're going to make a point, make it, people shouldn't have to read half a book to get to your point.

I prefer it by far to the "sound bites" that contain little reason and much emotion. Check yourself for prejudices.

I don't need much reason to be a doubter, after all, it is YOUR claims that need to be validated.

No evidence? Oh, there is evidence - you just won't accept it.

I doubt there is any valid evidence, feel free to show it though.

Where's that quote? Jesus *as messiah* is in debate, I can agree to that, but Jesus *as historic person* seems to have a fairly strong case. Like being mentioned by his enemies the Romans.

The case for a historical Jesus is very, very weak and flimsy. There exists very little credible evidence for such a historical figure. Please, feel free to give something that hasn't been shown to be invalid, such as Josephus and Tacticus.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Daniel predicted Jesus's crucifixion 1000 years before crucifition became a form of capital punishment.

Bwahahahhaha!!! Now THAT's entertainment. Puhleaze, predictions that happen earlier in a fairy tale about events later in a fairy tale really don't count.

[thaiboxerken]

You are presupposing that empiricalism is true.

It is.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
I am sorry for your difficulties in life. Don't be - I've had a damned good one, and I'll bet 90% of the people in this world have seen more misery in one year than I have in half a century.
This is a good question that I don't think I can give a satisfactory answer to. I believe the Lord will judge you fairly. I also believe that when you die, you will meet the Lord face to face and will dicuss why you did not accept His Sacrifice. If it's true that you opened your heart but He didn't come in, I can't picture Him condemning you. Maybe He has a plan for you that He only knows about. This is why Jesus warned people not to judge, because only God can judge because only God knows the big picture. Okay - I'll give you credit for what you believe to be an honest answer. I've asked that question a number of times, and the consensus is I'm not going to Hell, even though my understanding has always been that only those who believe in and accept Jesus as their personal savior are saved. Seems like a conflict between the people I talk to and the preachers you see on TV.

That having been said, I'm leaving this thread, as I see no benefit to myself in pursuing it. My experience has been that true believers are going to believe, no matter what the evidence of their eyes, and no matter what arguments are presented them, unless and until something truly catastrophic shakes their faith. But that's not my department. Parting advice: Around here, persuading someone of anything without real proof is a miracle on the order of the loaves and the fishes. That goes double for theology.

[Dogwood]

1inChrist,

You may add me to the list of atheists who have read the Bible all the way through.


Circon,

Welcome to the forum.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Circon
I think the flaw might lie with you. :) You've already said it's nice to see someone who is not such a fanatic. Isn't that a point? ;)

Require any level of proof. Ask and ye shall re- oh wait, I forgot, I'm not supposed to be taking the Bible literally. :p
I'll say the line that ought to be used far more often...

My notion of "points" is probably different from yours, but I don't care. I'm happy to be here with other open-minded people, even if some of them are a bit free with the vitriol once someone is declared a troll/flamer/woo-woo.

-Circon, going off to read CS Lewis again.

Perhaps. A fanatic will defend the position not matter what evidence it presented. I am beyond conversion because there is no proof. As most people I was raised in a Christian house, but I can not agree with religion through reason. I also can not accept anything on blind faith. Religion offers nothing for my life that I do not obtain from being the best human I can possible be.

I don't look down on religious people, I think you have been mislead. just be ready for some blunt critisism of religion on this board.

Otherwise I think we are all happy to have a new member. If you are skeptic in other important areas then you have already made an important leap forward.

[merphie]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Yes I do believe in Noah's Ark. Someone can live in a Whale easily, since an all powerful God exists. You just presuppose naturalism.

So you suspend natural laws at will to conform to your ideas? That's convenient.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Chaos
There is also a flaw in your reasoning: we have not yet seen what proof he can provide. So we cannot know that it will not be enough.

I, for one, am curious what he has in stock.

I am willing to look at his evidence. Considering my family, it will be nothing new. I do enjoy a good debate,.

[merphie]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
This is a good question that I don't think I can give a satisfactory answer to. I believe the Lord will judge you fairly. I also believe that when you die, you will meet the Lord face to face and will dicuss why you did not accept His Sacrifice. If it's true that you opened your heart but He didn't come in, I can't picture Him condemning you. Maybe He has a plan for you that He only knows about. This is why Jesus warned people not to judge, because only God can judge because only God knows the big picture.

So even though he broke one of the 10 commandments and has forsaken God, he will get into heaven. So why should I practice religion if I will be judged fairly? Religion would just be a waste of time.

I don't think it is appropriate for you to condem muslims for the actions of their few. If you remember christians have a dark past as well as a few extremist. So if you expect us not to lump you into a category you better extend the same courtesy.

[Kopji]

We were trolling along, on Moonlight Bay...

#1: Stopping women from killing their babies.

There was a sweet time long ago when coathanger abortions were a prime source of income for gangs. Right up there with selling drugs.

The abortion battle would be won and celebrated just like when we were greeted by the cheering crowds throwing flowers in Iraq. Same simple mentality.

We could hear the voices ringing, they seemed to say..
"Fools!"

#2: Ridding the world of evil that threatens our freedom.

Yes! An Evil that kills tens innocents to attack one guilty, that snatches people and tortures them in the dark. That violates international law to promote its God directed agenda.
Oh, sorry... wait, that's the good guys not the evil guys...

"You have stolen her heart, now don't go 'way!"

#3: Stopping faggots from marrying eachother and preserving the purity of marriage.

Yes. The real threat to America is people who love each other and want to be married and live together.

#4: Proven to the world that AMERICA will NOT stand for terrorism!

Uh, unless it is in our interest. Or our allies interest. Or the interest of someone who might be useful to us. Or we owe someone a favor. Or someone has something we want. Or it serves God's will. Or...

Next he needs to put evolutionists and NASA out of their misery.

As we sang Love's Old Sweet Song...

Oooh that sounds so deliciously violent. The reason I tend to think threads like this are just Christian Trolling Inc(TM) is because promotion of religious violence is so, oh, I dunno, like Nailing Jesus to the Cross again?

And anyway, Bush can't put NASA out of their misery, he would lose Florida.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Want to talk about circular logic? Let's talk about your naturalistic presuppositions on the universe.

I'm willing to be shown I'm wrong, but at least naturalism makes sense, and we get good results with our scientific models that are based on it.

[1inChrist]

Can someone please tell me what trolling is!?

[materia3]

Sure, It's in the dictionary:
http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/troll+%28computing%29

troll (COMPUTING)
verb {I or T}
to leave an intentionally annoying message on a part of the Internet in order to get attention or cause trouble:
- His hobby is trolling for newbies.
troll
noun {C}
- A well-constructed troll will provoke irate or confused responses from flamers and newbies.

[American]

Lord Kenneth?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Circon
Sin as a knowable consequence of free will? Sin as a knowable consequence of having anything but automatons, I contest.

So your position is that sin is a consequence of free will? Why would your god give us free will, then threaten us with eternal torment in hell if we use it the way he don't likes (effectively circumventing the free will he gave us)?

[CapelDodger]

from Tony:Why would your god give us free will, then threaten us with eternal torment in hell if we use it the way he don't likes (effectively circumventing the free will he gave us)?Because it invented temptation, and is screwed-up over not being able to give in to it. It's also screwed-up over defiance - invented it, but can't put up with. And as for rejection, there are millenia of therapy in store.

[American]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Can someone please tell me what trolling is!?

You are an AMATEUR!!!!!!!!

Look at me! I gots twenty-seven hundred posts to my name! Everyone either hates me or thinks I'm gay, or both!

You're doing OK, but you need to spread yourself thin and see what works, THEN focus on the one or two areas that are your strongest. Getting banned over at Slashdot is a good first-step.

[Dorian Gray]

I think 1inchrist is a mouthpiece for Satan. He, or she, is trying to lead us all away from the path of logic and thought. Don't listen to him, or her, or it. Begone from this page - I cast you out foul spawn of Satan!

Plus, 1 IN christ? IN? Tell me that isn't latent homosexuality.

Yes, 1inchrist is definitely a tool of the devil. Especially the 'tool' part.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Plus, 1 IN christ? IN? Tell me that isn't latent homosexuality.


Okay: there's nothing latent about it.

[Ipecac]

Circon,

Welcome to the board.

Still waiting for your evidence of Jesus' existence.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Still waiting for your evidence of Jesus' existence.

Well so far they have not answered any direct question. They had their sales pitch and then left.

[Cleon]

Gee, both "1inChrist" and "Circon" came and went at the same time....

Must be a coincidence. Yeah, that's the ticket...:D

[merphie]

Originally posted by Cleon
Gee, both "1inChrist" and "Circon" came and went at the same time....

Must be a coincidence. Yeah, that's the ticket...:D

Have someone check the IP.

[CapelDodger]

from Cleon:*sniff* I love you guys....It's like a warring family, all at each other's throat, and when the social worker knocks at the door they're on them like a pack of jackals. Gives you a kinda warm, fuzzy feeling.

Not love, obviously, gissa break ...

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Circon
Circon, proud of his first post on the great Randi's forum.

Welcome aboard Circon. Nice posts, I think you will be a good addition to this forum. :)


Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Read all the CS Lewis you want, however, that doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence to support the claims that your god existed or jesus existed.

Fist of all, he didn't make any claims at all, he merely stated his beliefs. And second of all; there is evidence of God, the Bible is evidence of God's existance. Personally I don't consider the Bible to be good evidence at all, but to say that there is no evidence is wrong, and tells me that you probably have to give Mr. Dictionary a try to see what the word actually means.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by plindboe
Fist of all, he didn't make any claims at all, he merely stated his beliefs. And second of all; there is evidence of God, the Bible is evidence of God's existance. Personally I don't consider the Bible to be good evidence at all, but to say that there is no evidence is wrong, and tells me that you probably have to give Mr. Dictionary a try to see what the word actually means.

Uh, so Lord of the Rings is evidence of the existence of Hobbits?

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Uh, so Lord of the Rings is evidence of the existence of Hobbits?

Why not? Lots of people believe that the battle of Helm´s Deep really happened.

[Tony]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Tony:Because it invented temptation, and is screwed-up over not being able to give in to it. It's also screwed-up over defiance - invented it, but can't put up with. And as for rejection, there are millenia of therapy in store.

I'm not understanding you, can you re-state your point?

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Uh, so Lord of the Rings is evidence of the existence of Hobbits?

The difference is that we know that LOTR is fictional. In the case of the Bible, we as atheists suspect it is fiction too, but we do not know it. That said, LOTR could be used as evidence of hobbits, but inferior evidence compared to the Bible as evidence for God.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by plindboe
The difference is that we know that LOTR is fictional. In the case of the Bible, we as atheists suspect it is fiction too, but we do not know it. That said, LOTR could be used as evidence of hobbits, but inferior evidence compared to the Bible as evidence for God.

We know when, how, and to some degree by whom, the bible was written. There is zero evidence that it was actually written by a god.

The bible claims to have been written/inspired by a god, but I don't think that means it's actual evidence (however poor) that it was.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Ipecac
We know when, how, and to some degree by whom, the bible was written. There is zero evidence that it was actually written by a god.

You're attacking a strawman. The Bible doesn't claim it's written by God, but by man.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by plindboe
The difference is that we know that LOTR is fictional. In the case of the Bible, we as atheists suspect it is fiction too, but we do not know it. That said, LOTR could be used as evidence of hobbits, but inferior evidence compared to the Bible as evidence for God.

Hey! How do you know LOTR is fictional? Maybe Tolkien was "guided by the hand of God," like those folks who wrote the Babble. For all we know, it's a story of what life was like before God got a hair up his ass and wiped out the planet.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Ipecac
The bible claims to have been written/inspired by a god, but I don't think that means it's actual evidence (however poor) that it was.

Technically, it really only is only people who would claim the bible is written/inspired by a god, the same ones who claim the bible is proof of that god, becuzz, well, it was written/inspired by god dontcha see?

At the close of the bible, the writer does call down all sorts of heavenly curses on anybody who would change it (and it didn't work, since there are multiple mismatched bible versions). That's the closest thing I think comes to 'god' claiming responsibility for it, and really it's only the writer claiming his make-believe 'god' would be miffed if you changed it.

Besides, the Silmarillion really would be a better comparison with the Bible. Multiple authors at work on it. Stuff discussing creation and deities, and their policies toward mortal folk. Good/evil. Ancient spirits. Geneologies. All the same sorts of useless bunk and fairy tales you find in the Bible.

[merphie]

Originally posted by evildave
Technically, it really only is only people who would claim the bible is written/inspired by a god, the same ones who claim the bible is proof of that god, becuzz, well, it was written/inspired by god dontcha see?

At the close of the bible, the writer does call down all sorts of heavenly curses on anybody who would change it (and it didn't work, since there are multiple mismatched bible versions). That's the closest thing I think comes to 'god' claiming responsibility for it, and really it's only the writer claiming his make-believe 'god' would be miffed if you changed it.

Besides, the Silmarillion really would be a better comparison with the Bible. Multiple authors at work on it. Stuff discussing creation and deities, and their policies toward mortal folk. Good/evil. Ancient spirits. Geneologies. All the same sorts of useless bunk and fairy tales you find in the Bible.

Don't forget that the bible has been translated many times. Wasn't it written in Hebrew? They said like in the story of the last supper that the translation for "He betrayed Jesus to the romans" is a valid meaning but the same phrase is translated "handed him over" every where else. That is if I recall the story correctly.

Like you said there are several version of the bible, one includes the King James bible.

[TillEulenspiegel]

I heard a voice yesterday that I was compelled to listen to. It came from the heavens.
It discribed the reality of my life.
The voice sayith unto me ...."geeze honey change your socks, will ya? They smell bad"
It was the voice of truth, my socks did stinkith and later the voice made me a sandwich. Mana from Amana. Want more Mayo honey?

Turns out theSilly bitch was screaming at me from the second floor. Sammich was good tho! Love that Woman.

[CapelDodger]

from Tony:I'm not understanding you, can you re-state your point?I'm just saying the god does vindictive, screwed-up things because it's a screw-up. Due to internal contradictions, an inability to admit error and, for all I know, a lack of parental affection.