Richard Dawkins in a religious argument? Really? That guy is the most arrogant, ignorant, egomaniacal atheist asshole on the face of the planet. And you're trying to prove a point by posting Richard Dawkins quotes? Yeesh...Debates on this board have sunk to a new low.
Now this is funny. Apparently Richard Dawkins is arrogant and ignorant, but this:
Originally posted by Finwe
Truly amazing, even most ancient societies who frequently practised homosexuality as almost a norm, were not so ignorant to try to presume a...practicality to homosexual marriage. This whole concept, this whole, "Fight", is for the most part, a modern, and quite silly ideal. The point of marriage isn't just love, but it's a concept of family. Marriage has not always been about love, and in alot of situations still isn't. In quite a few countries, past or present, marriages were usually arranged. This is not to say I agree with this, nor to say these people did not learn to love each other, but the idea, was a greater purpose. The preservation of ones family.
Family...The idea has been annihilated. It barely exists in our modern culture, you add in this crusade to allow homosexuals to marry, it's just another nail in the coffin.
Oh well, I suppose hope can be found that secularism never lasts, and history has always had a tendency to go from prudancy in it's infancy, to corruption and hedonism in its latter life, usually being the forebearing harbinger of total annihilation.
Is not?
I'm not surprised you don't like Richard Dawkins. A lot of religious folk don't. Because he gets right in your face, there is no suggercoating, he will call out your faith and describe it for what it really is.
#2. It's kind of like those guy's that just say they're being "real", and "honest", and "just telling the truth". Then go up to some girl and call her a "fat bitch", because she doesn't have 10% body fat. That's richard dawkins.
1# Yeah actually it is. Saying that other people who aren't like yourself aren't able to form a family is both Ignorant and arrogant. In fact, the fact you used ancient civilizations as an example is quite funny when there are MODERN civilzations who allow gay marriage and are *gasp* doing just fine. shocking isn't it?
2# Really? Well I haven't ever seen Richard Dawkins move up to a person and attack their faith or threatening them with something such as hellfire. I have seen him write books, offer lectures and create programs for people who are interested in what he has to say. I haven't seen him go from door to door to tell other people about his belief to other people.
#1. Anyone who uses Richard Hawkins never has, nor ever will, address a topic of religious discussion well. That's your opinion that's not supported by any facts...kinda like Religion, and so far only one of you who disagree has even attempted to address my post with any revelance..you, like the rest, make up a few sentences that has nothing to do with the post and rather a verbal attack on Dawkins, you don't even bother to address his stance...but instead call him 'disgusting and vile' How very religious, when you can't address it or understand it...attack it.
#2. What's to counter? A man who falls into close enough belief of a man who considers faith, a "disease of the mind" does not desire an intellectual belief, but to be an antagonist. Right...and religion isn't guilty of that at all People of religion try to convince and convert others into thinking that an invisible, immortal, omnipotent, kingdom in the sky "Lord of Lord's" made everything and if we don't believe in him or his son...we're damned....because a 3000+ year old book tells you so. To compound on this, other religions are totally and completely incorrect and to follow them is damnation as well. To the religious, the unfaithful have a disease of the soul and the others who believe in a God just not their God are fools, damned because of their ignorance. Religion does not desire a spiritual belief, just drones....see what i did there? i can twist things around just like you. So once again i have to ask, are you going to bring something to the table....or are you going to whine some more?
#1. You cannot debate with hate. It's impossible. Because it lacks reason. I'm friends with quite a few atheists. Very cool people, I couldn't care about their lack of faith so to speak, it's their own business, we've had religious discussions, faithbased discussions, etc. It has never turned into antagonistic self-righteousness though.
#2. I thought the debate was as individuals, not a hive mind? I find it ironic how you accuse me of "ducking", but when you're confronted with a valid point, "OH. And religion has never done this? Yah! Yah! There have been religious people that have done this! You hypocrite". God, I hope if there are aliens, and they have superior technology, they don't take this narrow minded antagonistic view of, "If one of them does it. They're all guilty of it".
Btw, resorting to ad hominems, not kosher.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
Richard Dawkins in a religious argument? Really? That guy is the most arrogant, ignorant, egomaniacal atheist asshole on the face of the planet. And you're trying to prove a point by posting Richard Dawkins quotes? Yeesh...Debates on this board have sunk to a new low.
Now this is funny. Apparently Richard Dawkins is arrogant and ignorant, but this:
Originally posted by Finwe
Truly amazing, even most ancient societies who frequently practised homosexuality as almost a norm, were not so ignorant to try to presume a...practicality to homosexual marriage. This whole concept, this whole, "Fight", is for the most part, a modern, and quite silly ideal. The point of marriage isn't just love, but it's a concept of family. Marriage has not always been about love, and in alot of situations still isn't. In quite a few countries, past or present, marriages were usually arranged. This is not to say I agree with this, nor to say these people did not learn to love each other, but the idea, was a greater purpose. The preservation of ones family.
Family...The idea has been annihilated. It barely exists in our modern culture, you add in this crusade to allow homosexuals to marry, it's just another nail in the coffin.
Oh well, I suppose hope can be found that secularism never lasts, and history has always had a tendency to go from prudancy in it's infancy, to corruption and hedonism in its latter life, usually being the forebearing harbinger of total annihilation.
Is not?
I'm not surprised you don't like Richard Dawkins. A lot of religious folk don't. Because he gets right in your face, there is no suggercoating, he will call out your faith and describe it for what it really is.
#2. It's kind of like those guy's that just say they're being "real", and "honest", and "just telling the truth". Then go up to some girl and call her a "fat bitch", because she doesn't have 10% body fat. That's richard dawkins.
1# Yeah actually it is. Saying that other people who aren't like yourself aren't able to form a family is both Ignorant and arrogant. In fact, the fact you used ancient civilizations as an example is quite funny when there are MODERN civilzations who allow gay marriage and are *gasp* doing just fine. shocking isn't it?
2# Really? Well I haven't ever seen Richard Dawkins move up to a person and attack their faith or threatening them with something such as hellfire. I have seen him write books, offer lectures and create programs for people who are interested in what he has to say. I haven't seen him go from door to door to tell other people about his belief to other people.
#1. I got to admit, I loled when you made the point that modern civilizations are doing just fine. I mean, really? If this is fine to you, I'd hate to see what's bad?
And I never said they couldn't form a family. The point I was making, was it being a functional family.
#2. Hellfire? No, he just tells them they're delusional and have a disease of the mind. That no healthy minded human being could believe in such rubbish. Even Jehovah's witnesses, as pushy, and kind of odd as they are, do not come to you with such an arrogant, condescending tone.
The funny thing I find about this, is the defense over the arrogant SOB. Don't see me on here defending people like Benny Hinn or Bob Tilton. Mainly because I know it's intellectual suicide to try to align yourself with people that do not look at things from an open perspective.
It's sad that this is the best rolemodel the atheist movement has come up with.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
Richard Dawkins in a religious argument? Really? That guy is the most arrogant, ignorant, egomaniacal atheist asshole on the face of the planet. And you're trying to prove a point by posting Richard Dawkins quotes? Yeesh...Debates on this board have sunk to a new low.
Now this is funny. Apparently Richard Dawkins is arrogant and ignorant, but this:
Originally posted by Finwe
Truly amazing, even most ancient societies who frequently practised homosexuality as almost a norm, were not so ignorant to try to presume a...practicality to homosexual marriage. This whole concept, this whole, "Fight", is for the most part, a modern, and quite silly ideal. The point of marriage isn't just love, but it's a concept of family. Marriage has not always been about love, and in alot of situations still isn't. In quite a few countries, past or present, marriages were usually arranged. This is not to say I agree with this, nor to say these people did not learn to love each other, but the idea, was a greater purpose. The preservation of ones family.
Family...The idea has been annihilated. It barely exists in our modern culture, you add in this crusade to allow homosexuals to marry, it's just another nail in the coffin.
Oh well, I suppose hope can be found that secularism never lasts, and history has always had a tendency to go from prudancy in it's infancy, to corruption and hedonism in its latter life, usually being the forebearing harbinger of total annihilation.
Is not?
I'm not surprised you don't like Richard Dawkins. A lot of religious folk don't. Because he gets right in your face, there is no suggercoating, he will call out your faith and describe it for what it really is.
#2. It's kind of like those guy's that just say they're being "real", and "honest", and "just telling the truth". Then go up to some girl and call her a "fat bitch", because she doesn't have 10% body fat. That's richard dawkins.
1# Yeah actually it is. Saying that other people who aren't like yourself aren't able to form a family is both Ignorant and arrogant. In fact, the fact you used ancient civilizations as an example is quite funny when there are MODERN civilzations who allow gay marriage and are *gasp* doing just fine. shocking isn't it?
2# Really? Well I haven't ever seen Richard Dawkins move up to a person and attack their faith or threatening them with something such as hellfire. I have seen him write books, offer lectures and create programs for people who are interested in what he has to say. I haven't seen him go from door to door to tell other people about his belief to other people.
#1. I got to admit, I loled when you made the point that modern civilizations are doing just fine. I mean, really? If this is fine to you, I'd hate to see what's bad?
And I never said they couldn't form a family. The point I was making, was it being a functional family.
#2. Hellfire? No, he just tells them they're delusional and have a disease of the mind. That no healthy minded human being could believe in such rubbish. Even Jehovah's witnesses, as pushy, and kind of odd as they are, do not come to you with such an arrogant, condescending tone.
The funny thing I find about this, is the defense over the arrogant SOB. Don't see me on here defending people like Benny Hinn or Bob Tilton. Mainly because I know it's intellectual suicide to try to align yourself with people that do not look at things from an open perspective.
It's sad that this is the best rolemodel the atheist movement has come up with.
1: Really? Then what would you consider a "Good" ancient civilization where homosexuality was the norm?
They can make a functional family just fine, have you actually ever witnessed a married homosexual couple? Ofcourse not, silly question, your nation is still a couple of years behind on that, but perhaps you should do a bit more research on the subject, hm?
2: Really? Thats strange, I have never seen Richard Dawkins force himself onto other people, nor have I seen him ever go from door to door, pushing his belief onto other people. I have seen him OFFER his view on things though, there is a difference. I also love how you're not allowed to call a religious people delusional without being called arrogant. It's just another example of the free pass religion is given. Whenever a person sees ghosts or hears voices inside their head, they are called delusional and put in a mental care, but whenever someone says they have seen angels and the voice inside their head is god, they are religious and you're not allowed to called them deluded.
Also I hate to break it to you, but nobody here is part of an Atheist movement.
Richard Dawkins in a religious argument? Really? That guy is the most arrogant, ignorant, egomaniacal atheist asshole on the face of the planet. And you're trying to prove a point by posting Richard Dawkins quotes? Yeesh...Debates on this board have sunk to a new low.
Now this is funny. Apparently Richard Dawkins is arrogant and ignorant, but this:
Originally posted by Finwe
Truly amazing, even most ancient societies who frequently practised homosexuality as almost a norm, were not so ignorant to try to presume a...practicality to homosexual marriage. This whole concept, this whole, "Fight", is for the most part, a modern, and quite silly ideal. The point of marriage isn't just love, but it's a concept of family. Marriage has not always been about love, and in alot of situations still isn't. In quite a few countries, past or present, marriages were usually arranged. This is not to say I agree with this, nor to say these people did not learn to love each other, but the idea, was a greater purpose. The preservation of ones family.
Family...The idea has been annihilated. It barely exists in our modern culture, you add in this crusade to allow homosexuals to marry, it's just another nail in the coffin.
Oh well, I suppose hope can be found that secularism never lasts, and history has always had a tendency to go from prudancy in it's infancy, to corruption and hedonism in its latter life, usually being the forebearing harbinger of total annihilation.
Is not?
I'm not surprised you don't like Richard Dawkins. A lot of religious folk don't. Because he gets right in your face, there is no suggercoating, he will call out your faith and describe it for what it really is.
#2. It's kind of like those guy's that just say they're being "real", and "honest", and "just telling the truth". Then go up to some girl and call her a "fat bitch", because she doesn't have 10% body fat. That's richard dawkins.
1# Yeah actually it is. Saying that other people who aren't like yourself aren't able to form a family is both Ignorant and arrogant. In fact, the fact you used ancient civilizations as an example is quite funny when there are MODERN civilzations who allow gay marriage and are *gasp* doing just fine. shocking isn't it?
2# Really? Well I haven't ever seen Richard Dawkins move up to a person and attack their faith or threatening them with something such as hellfire. I have seen him write books, offer lectures and create programs for people who are interested in what he has to say. I haven't seen him go from door to door to tell other people about his belief to other people.
#1. I got to admit, I loled when you made the point that modern civilizations are doing just fine. I mean, really? If this is fine to you, I'd hate to see what's bad?
And I never said they couldn't form a family. The point I was making, was it being a functional family.
#2. Hellfire? No, he just tells them they're delusional and have a disease of the mind. That no healthy minded human being could believe in such rubbish. Even Jehovah's witnesses, as pushy, and kind of odd as they are, do not come to you with such an arrogant, condescending tone.
The funny thing I find about this, is the defense over the arrogant SOB. Don't see me on here defending people like Benny Hinn or Bob Tilton. Mainly because I know it's intellectual suicide to try to align yourself with people that do not look at things from an open perspective.
It's sad that this is the best rolemodel the atheist movement has come up with.
1: Really? Then what would you consider a "Good" ancient civilization where homosexuality was the norm?
They can make a functional family just fine, have you actually ever witnessed a married homosexual couple? Ofcourse not, silly question, your nation is still a couple of years behind on that, but perhaps you should do a bit more research on the subject, hm?
2: Really? Thats strange, I have never seen Richard Dawkins force himself onto other people, nor have I seen him ever go from door to door, pushing his belief onto other people. I have seen him OFFER his view on things though, there is a difference. I also love how you're not allowed to call a religious people delusional without being called arrogant. It's just another example of the free pass religion is given. Whenever a person sees ghosts or hears voices inside their head, they are called delusional and put in a mental care, but whenever someone says they have seen angels and the voice inside their head is god, they are religious and you're not allowed to called them deluded.
Also I hate to break it to you, but nobody here is part of an Atheist movement.
Ummm Id call em delusional. While God does speak through people I don't think he speaks directly to people anymore. That won't happen again untill the end times imo.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, (Exodus 20:5) -Jealousy (sin)
Jealousy is not sin - envy is.
God: "About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt - worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any man or animal."-Murder (sin)
God did not murder them. He executed evil, evil people who rebelled against His Word. This is a much larger topic than a sentence reply, but it deals justice.
At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead. (Exodus 11:4-7) -Murder (sin)
Again, God didn't murder anyone. They deserved it. The Scripture says, "and were by nature children of wrath" - humans are by their very NATURE under the wrath of God. It does not take a 'sin' for someone to deserve the wrath of God. This is a deep subject, but it is true. It has to do with the inherited guilt of Adam.
But I have said to you, "You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey." I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from the peoples. (Leviticus 20:24)-Racial seperation??...so....God made inferior people??-Racism (sin)
God isn't racist. He is anything but racist. He chose Israel for two reasons (not limited to two). Duet 7:7 - 8 says, "The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; but because the LORD loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers..."
He picked them as a nation because He #1: loved them and #2: was committed to keeping His covenant to their father's.
Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens" (Genesis 19:24)-God destroys -two- cities because of the goings-on within it, like homosexual activity...in fact God actually plots with Lot to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah -all of the above with Dawkins statement (sins)
God is judging two wicked cities for their abomination and their turning of the eye concerning the poor. How is this sin?
The verse is too long to list (Genesis 4:1-16)
3And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.-God plays favorites (not really a sin but still fits within Dawkins Statement)
And here comes the amazing part:
15 Then the Lord replied to him, "In that case,whoever kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over."And he placed a mark on Cain so that whoever found him would not kill him. Then Cain went out from the Lord's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
Ok...so he won't kill a man guilty of murder...but he'll wipe out two cities...wow.
Yeah...i think his statement is valid.
The main problem with this next claim is that you take out of a historical context. God did not yet make capital punishment law yet (Gen 9:6). Because of this, God still punished him quite severely, but also had mercy on him. God can have mercy on whomever He wishes.
God: "About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt - worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any man or animal."-Murder (sin) God did not murder them. He executed evil, evil people who rebelled against His Word. This is a much larger topic than a sentence reply, but it deals justice.
He didn't "execute evil", he killed CHILDREN.
I suppose you believe in the sins of the fathers being the childs' responsibility, too?
Originally posted by Zorvan He didn't "execute evil", he killed CHILDREN. I suppose you believe in the sins of the fathers being the childs' responsibility, too?
God sanctioned the execution of babies many times in the OT. You apparently didn't read what I wrote above, that we, by NATURE, as children of the wrath of God.
Christians should think about that the next time they pray for th ending of abortion.
#1. You cannot debate with hate. It's impossible. Because it lacks reason. I'm friends with quite a few atheists. Very cool people, I couldn't care about their lack of faith so to speak, it's their own business, we've had religious discussions, faithbased discussions, etc. It has never turned into antagonistic self-righteousness though. Hate? where? Dawkins has never said that he 'hated' any person of faith..not once, and neither have i...Oh i see, calling God out the way Dawkins did constitutes hate to you...because after all if somebody speaks ill of the big-bad ghost in the sky they must obviously hate it. Perhaps you should re-read what Dawkins said before you throw around the word 'hate'..he considers God to be a work of fiction as do i....you can't hate something that doesn't exist, but you can dislike the institution that spawned because of it. #2. I thought the debate was as individuals, not a hive mind? I find it ironic how you accuse me of "ducking", but when you're confronted with a valid point, "OH. And religion has never done this? Yah! Yah! There have been religious people that have done this! You hypocrite". God, I hope if there are aliens, and they have superior technology, they don't take this narrow minded antagonistic view of, "If one of them does it. They're all guilty of it". And i find it intresting that, yet again, you evaded the comment that you responded too..again...ducking? brother you give new meaning to the word. Hyprocrite? total nonsense. I hope there are aliens too...it'll blow a big gaping hole in that thing you call faith. Btw, resorting to ad hominems, not kosher. I'll stop it when you do.
"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, (Exodus 20:5) -Jealousy (sin) Jealousy is not sin - envy is. Bullshit...and way to split hairs there...better re-read that bible you like to quote: Jealousy is listed by the apostle Paul as a work of the flesh
(Galatians 5:20); it will keep one from entering into heaven (Galatians
5:21
God: "About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt - worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any man or animal."-Murder (sin) God did not murder them. He executed evil, evil people who rebelled against His Word. This is a much larger topic than a sentence reply, but it deals justice. Right...damn cattle, will they never follow god's divine plan? He executed-full-stop, so much so that not even livestock was spared?!? i don't do this much but that deserves a 'wtf?'...how the hell does murdering a calf have to do with anything except God dishing out cruel and unusual punishment on whomever is left? The main problem with this next claim is that you take out of a historical context. God did not yet make capital punishment law yet (Gen 9:6). Because of this, God still punished him quite severely, but also had mercy on him. God can have mercy on whomever He wishes. Was this sufficient? Oh yes, very sufficent...you managed to prove my point completly...and Dawkins as well, while ignoring pieces of the very discussion i posted. Cain was -not respected- by God..how can a caring, loving God have disrespect for a obvious follower? Cain was not only allowed to live but if anybody killed him they would receive punishment (I.E. God's Wrath) seven fold....ummm dude...you do realize that by killing Cain they would receive capital punishment by God..right?? I think this is all i need to address...you've been extremely eloquent on your Gods vengeance, jealousy, ego, playing people against themselves, bigotry, and contempt for his own creations (even animals) than i ever could've. Thank you. Edit: I'm just going to leave this right here.... "Wrath is cruel and anger a torrent, but who is
able to stand before jealousy?" (Proverbs 27:4)-Paul "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me (Exodus 20:5) "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness." Rom. 1:18 ...Funny...i find it hard to tell if Paul was talking about man's faults or of God.
"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, (Exodus 20:5) -Jealousy (sin)
Bullshit...and way to split hairs there...better re-read that bible you like to quote: Jealousy is listed by the apostle Paul as a work of the flesh
(Galatians 5:20); it will keep one from entering into heaven (Galatians
5:21
This is were these debates get interesting. The answer to your point lies within the original languages themselves. The word used for God's jealousy "qanna'" is ONLY used when referring to God's jealousy (ex 20:5, ex 34:14, deut 4:24, Deut 5:9, Deut 6:15). NO other place is it used. The definition of the word itself is used when describing God's 'zeal' for what belongs to Him. The word that is translated into "jealousy" in the English from the Hebrew can also be translated into "zeal". The understood definiation of this word, as given by a dictionary I read, is this type of jealousy is unique to God - holy in character; not tainted with sin. The Greek word in Gal 5:20 is 'zelos', and means roughly what we would deem 'envy' is, or jealousy, depending of your definitation of each. Basically, the Biblical definition of envy is lusting after something that isn't yours, and potentially having 'zeal' about it. Jealousy is having zeal concerning what is ALREADY yours. Consider someone is married. The wife has an affiar. That husband experiences jealousy. However, the man who HAD the affair with the wife experienced envy over the other husband's wife in the first place. God: "About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt - worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any man or animal."-Murder (sin)
Right...damn cattle, will they never follow god's divine plan? God has mercy on livestock (last verse in Jonah). God has men and armies in the OT slay EVERYTHING (including livestock) because sin has continated everything at that point. "The soul who sins must die", as Ezekiel says. He executed-full-stop, so much so that not even livestock was spared?!? i don't do this much but that deserves a 'wtf?'...how the hell does murdering a calf have to do with anything except God dishing out cruel and unusual punishment on whomever is left? Sin cannot stand before a Holy God. As I said before, when a community of people are so ingrossed in sin, those effects reach out and touch everything - including livestock. That means, when God comes to cleanse a nation, everything that is tainted by sin must be taken care of. Cain was -not respected- by God..how can a caring, loving God have disrespect for a obvious follower? Er, Cain CLEARLY didn't follow God's orders and you have the order mixed up. Cain disrespected GOD - not the other way around. God had all right to slay him silly right then and there, but had mercy on him and instead cursed him. Cain was not only allowed to live but if anybody killed him they would receive punishment (I.E. God's Wrath) seven fold....ummm dude...you do realize that by killing Cain they would receive capital punishment by God..right?? Yes. I was referring to a universal law above. ...Funny...i find it hard to tell if Paul was talking about man's faults or of God. Man's.
St. Augustine of Hippo, used to ponder long and hard on the greatest mystery of the Christian faith: the Holy Trinity, as he tried to understand it.
Strolling along the seashore one day while pondering how there could be three Persons in one God, he noticed a small child seemingly at play on the beach. He watched how the child repeatedly scooped up water from the sea in a shell and carried it to a hole in the sand into which he emptied the water. Then returning to the water's edge, the child refilled the shell and repeated the process over and over.
Curious, Augustine walked over and asked the child what he was doing.
Smiling up at him the child said, "I am emptying the sea into this hole."
Amused at the child's naivete, Augustine replied, "Why, even if you spent your whole life at this task, child, you could never complete it. The sea is far too vast and deep to be contained in so small a hole!"
The child looked up solemnly at Augustine and said: "Yet I will complete this task before you can ever understand the Mystery on which you ponder"
–-and with that, the child vanished.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
St. Augustine of Hippo, used to ponder long and hard on the greatest mystery of the Christian faith: the Holy Trinity, as he tried to understand it.
Strolling along the seashore one day while pondering how there could be three Persons in one God, he noticed a small child seemingly at play on the beach. He watched how the child repeatedly scooped up water from the sea in a shell and carried it to a hole in the sand into which he emptied the water. Then returning to the water's edge, the child refilled the shell and repeated the process over and over.
Curious, Augustine walked over and asked the child what he was doing.
Smiling up at him the child said, "I am emptying the sea into this hole."
Amused at the child's naivete, Augustine replied, "Why, even if you spent your whole life at this task, child, you could never complete it. The sea is far too vast and deep to be contained in so small a hole!"
The child looked up solemnly at Augustine and said: "Yet I will complete this task before you can ever understand the Mystery on which you ponder"
I love telling that story as it provides a way to explain that there is much we do not know nor can comprehend. Learned it from my aunt who was a Nun.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Comments
Now this is funny. Apparently Richard Dawkins is arrogant and ignorant, but this:
Originally posted by Finwe
Truly amazing, even most ancient societies who frequently practised homosexuality as almost a norm, were not so ignorant to try to presume a...practicality to homosexual marriage. This whole concept, this whole, "Fight", is for the most part, a modern, and quite silly ideal. The point of marriage isn't just love, but it's a concept of family. Marriage has not always been about love, and in alot of situations still isn't. In quite a few countries, past or present, marriages were usually arranged. This is not to say I agree with this, nor to say these people did not learn to love each other, but the idea, was a greater purpose. The preservation of ones family.
Family...The idea has been annihilated. It barely exists in our modern culture, you add in this crusade to allow homosexuals to marry, it's just another nail in the coffin.
Oh well, I suppose hope can be found that secularism never lasts, and history has always had a tendency to go from prudancy in it's infancy, to corruption and hedonism in its latter life, usually being the forebearing harbinger of total annihilation.
Is not?
I'm not surprised you don't like Richard Dawkins. A lot of religious folk don't. Because he gets right in your face, there is no suggercoating, he will call out your faith and describe it for what it really is.
#1. No.
#2. It's kind of like those guy's that just say they're being "real", and "honest", and "just telling the truth". Then go up to some girl and call her a "fat bitch", because she doesn't have 10% body fat. That's richard dawkins.
1# Yeah actually it is. Saying that other people who aren't like yourself aren't able to form a family is both Ignorant and arrogant. In fact, the fact you used ancient civilizations as an example is quite funny when there are MODERN civilzations who allow gay marriage and are *gasp* doing just fine. shocking isn't it?
2# Really? Well I haven't ever seen Richard Dawkins move up to a person and attack their faith or threatening them with something such as hellfire. I have seen him write books, offer lectures and create programs for people who are interested in what he has to say. I haven't seen him go from door to door to tell other people about his belief to other people.
#1. You cannot debate with hate. It's impossible. Because it lacks reason. I'm friends with quite a few atheists. Very cool people, I couldn't care about their lack of faith so to speak, it's their own business, we've had religious discussions, faithbased discussions, etc. It has never turned into antagonistic self-righteousness though.
#2. I thought the debate was as individuals, not a hive mind? I find it ironic how you accuse me of "ducking", but when you're confronted with a valid point, "OH. And religion has never done this? Yah! Yah! There have been religious people that have done this! You hypocrite". God, I hope if there are aliens, and they have superior technology, they don't take this narrow minded antagonistic view of, "If one of them does it. They're all guilty of it".
Btw, resorting to ad hominems, not kosher.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
Now this is funny. Apparently Richard Dawkins is arrogant and ignorant, but this:
Originally posted by Finwe
Truly amazing, even most ancient societies who frequently practised homosexuality as almost a norm, were not so ignorant to try to presume a...practicality to homosexual marriage. This whole concept, this whole, "Fight", is for the most part, a modern, and quite silly ideal. The point of marriage isn't just love, but it's a concept of family. Marriage has not always been about love, and in alot of situations still isn't. In quite a few countries, past or present, marriages were usually arranged. This is not to say I agree with this, nor to say these people did not learn to love each other, but the idea, was a greater purpose. The preservation of ones family.
Family...The idea has been annihilated. It barely exists in our modern culture, you add in this crusade to allow homosexuals to marry, it's just another nail in the coffin.
Oh well, I suppose hope can be found that secularism never lasts, and history has always had a tendency to go from prudancy in it's infancy, to corruption and hedonism in its latter life, usually being the forebearing harbinger of total annihilation.
Is not?
I'm not surprised you don't like Richard Dawkins. A lot of religious folk don't. Because he gets right in your face, there is no suggercoating, he will call out your faith and describe it for what it really is.
#1. No.
#2. It's kind of like those guy's that just say they're being "real", and "honest", and "just telling the truth". Then go up to some girl and call her a "fat bitch", because she doesn't have 10% body fat. That's richard dawkins.
1# Yeah actually it is. Saying that other people who aren't like yourself aren't able to form a family is both Ignorant and arrogant. In fact, the fact you used ancient civilizations as an example is quite funny when there are MODERN civilzations who allow gay marriage and are *gasp* doing just fine. shocking isn't it?
2# Really? Well I haven't ever seen Richard Dawkins move up to a person and attack their faith or threatening them with something such as hellfire. I have seen him write books, offer lectures and create programs for people who are interested in what he has to say. I haven't seen him go from door to door to tell other people about his belief to other people.
#1. I got to admit, I loled when you made the point that modern civilizations are doing just fine. I mean, really? If this is fine to you, I'd hate to see what's bad?
And I never said they couldn't form a family. The point I was making, was it being a functional family.
#2. Hellfire? No, he just tells them they're delusional and have a disease of the mind. That no healthy minded human being could believe in such rubbish. Even Jehovah's witnesses, as pushy, and kind of odd as they are, do not come to you with such an arrogant, condescending tone.
The funny thing I find about this, is the defense over the arrogant SOB. Don't see me on here defending people like Benny Hinn or Bob Tilton. Mainly because I know it's intellectual suicide to try to align yourself with people that do not look at things from an open perspective.
It's sad that this is the best rolemodel the atheist movement has come up with.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
Now this is funny. Apparently Richard Dawkins is arrogant and ignorant, but this:
Originally posted by Finwe
Truly amazing, even most ancient societies who frequently practised homosexuality as almost a norm, were not so ignorant to try to presume a...practicality to homosexual marriage. This whole concept, this whole, "Fight", is for the most part, a modern, and quite silly ideal. The point of marriage isn't just love, but it's a concept of family. Marriage has not always been about love, and in alot of situations still isn't. In quite a few countries, past or present, marriages were usually arranged. This is not to say I agree with this, nor to say these people did not learn to love each other, but the idea, was a greater purpose. The preservation of ones family.
Family...The idea has been annihilated. It barely exists in our modern culture, you add in this crusade to allow homosexuals to marry, it's just another nail in the coffin.
Oh well, I suppose hope can be found that secularism never lasts, and history has always had a tendency to go from prudancy in it's infancy, to corruption and hedonism in its latter life, usually being the forebearing harbinger of total annihilation.
Is not?
I'm not surprised you don't like Richard Dawkins. A lot of religious folk don't. Because he gets right in your face, there is no suggercoating, he will call out your faith and describe it for what it really is.
#1. No.
#2. It's kind of like those guy's that just say they're being "real", and "honest", and "just telling the truth". Then go up to some girl and call her a "fat bitch", because she doesn't have 10% body fat. That's richard dawkins.
1# Yeah actually it is. Saying that other people who aren't like yourself aren't able to form a family is both Ignorant and arrogant. In fact, the fact you used ancient civilizations as an example is quite funny when there are MODERN civilzations who allow gay marriage and are *gasp* doing just fine. shocking isn't it?
2# Really? Well I haven't ever seen Richard Dawkins move up to a person and attack their faith or threatening them with something such as hellfire. I have seen him write books, offer lectures and create programs for people who are interested in what he has to say. I haven't seen him go from door to door to tell other people about his belief to other people.
#1. I got to admit, I loled when you made the point that modern civilizations are doing just fine. I mean, really? If this is fine to you, I'd hate to see what's bad?
And I never said they couldn't form a family. The point I was making, was it being a functional family.
#2. Hellfire? No, he just tells them they're delusional and have a disease of the mind. That no healthy minded human being could believe in such rubbish. Even Jehovah's witnesses, as pushy, and kind of odd as they are, do not come to you with such an arrogant, condescending tone.
The funny thing I find about this, is the defense over the arrogant SOB. Don't see me on here defending people like Benny Hinn or Bob Tilton. Mainly because I know it's intellectual suicide to try to align yourself with people that do not look at things from an open perspective.
It's sad that this is the best rolemodel the atheist movement has come up with.
1: Really? Then what would you consider a "Good" ancient civilization where homosexuality was the norm?
They can make a functional family just fine, have you actually ever witnessed a married homosexual couple? Ofcourse not, silly question, your nation is still a couple of years behind on that, but perhaps you should do a bit more research on the subject, hm?
2: Really? Thats strange, I have never seen Richard Dawkins force himself onto other people, nor have I seen him ever go from door to door, pushing his belief onto other people. I have seen him OFFER his view on things though, there is a difference. I also love how you're not allowed to call a religious people delusional without being called arrogant. It's just another example of the free pass religion is given. Whenever a person sees ghosts or hears voices inside their head, they are called delusional and put in a mental care, but whenever someone says they have seen angels and the voice inside their head is god, they are religious and you're not allowed to called them deluded.
Also I hate to break it to you, but nobody here is part of an Atheist movement.
Now this is funny. Apparently Richard Dawkins is arrogant and ignorant, but this:
Originally posted by Finwe
Truly amazing, even most ancient societies who frequently practised homosexuality as almost a norm, were not so ignorant to try to presume a...practicality to homosexual marriage. This whole concept, this whole, "Fight", is for the most part, a modern, and quite silly ideal. The point of marriage isn't just love, but it's a concept of family. Marriage has not always been about love, and in alot of situations still isn't. In quite a few countries, past or present, marriages were usually arranged. This is not to say I agree with this, nor to say these people did not learn to love each other, but the idea, was a greater purpose. The preservation of ones family.
Family...The idea has been annihilated. It barely exists in our modern culture, you add in this crusade to allow homosexuals to marry, it's just another nail in the coffin.
Oh well, I suppose hope can be found that secularism never lasts, and history has always had a tendency to go from prudancy in it's infancy, to corruption and hedonism in its latter life, usually being the forebearing harbinger of total annihilation.
Is not?
I'm not surprised you don't like Richard Dawkins. A lot of religious folk don't. Because he gets right in your face, there is no suggercoating, he will call out your faith and describe it for what it really is.
#1. No.
#2. It's kind of like those guy's that just say they're being "real", and "honest", and "just telling the truth". Then go up to some girl and call her a "fat bitch", because she doesn't have 10% body fat. That's richard dawkins.
1# Yeah actually it is. Saying that other people who aren't like yourself aren't able to form a family is both Ignorant and arrogant. In fact, the fact you used ancient civilizations as an example is quite funny when there are MODERN civilzations who allow gay marriage and are *gasp* doing just fine. shocking isn't it?
2# Really? Well I haven't ever seen Richard Dawkins move up to a person and attack their faith or threatening them with something such as hellfire. I have seen him write books, offer lectures and create programs for people who are interested in what he has to say. I haven't seen him go from door to door to tell other people about his belief to other people.
#1. I got to admit, I loled when you made the point that modern civilizations are doing just fine. I mean, really? If this is fine to you, I'd hate to see what's bad?
And I never said they couldn't form a family. The point I was making, was it being a functional family.
#2. Hellfire? No, he just tells them they're delusional and have a disease of the mind. That no healthy minded human being could believe in such rubbish. Even Jehovah's witnesses, as pushy, and kind of odd as they are, do not come to you with such an arrogant, condescending tone.
The funny thing I find about this, is the defense over the arrogant SOB. Don't see me on here defending people like Benny Hinn or Bob Tilton. Mainly because I know it's intellectual suicide to try to align yourself with people that do not look at things from an open perspective.
It's sad that this is the best rolemodel the atheist movement has come up with.
1: Really? Then what would you consider a "Good" ancient civilization where homosexuality was the norm?
They can make a functional family just fine, have you actually ever witnessed a married homosexual couple? Ofcourse not, silly question, your nation is still a couple of years behind on that, but perhaps you should do a bit more research on the subject, hm?
2: Really? Thats strange, I have never seen Richard Dawkins force himself onto other people, nor have I seen him ever go from door to door, pushing his belief onto other people. I have seen him OFFER his view on things though, there is a difference. I also love how you're not allowed to call a religious people delusional without being called arrogant. It's just another example of the free pass religion is given. Whenever a person sees ghosts or hears voices inside their head, they are called delusional and put in a mental care, but whenever someone says they have seen angels and the voice inside their head is god, they are religious and you're not allowed to called them deluded.
Also I hate to break it to you, but nobody here is part of an Atheist movement.
Ummm Id call em delusional. While God does speak through people I don't think he speaks directly to people anymore. That won't happen again untill the end times imo.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
MMO migrant.
He didn't "execute evil", he killed CHILDREN.
I suppose you believe in the sins of the fathers being the childs' responsibility, too?
God sanctioned the execution of babies many times in the OT. You apparently didn't read what I wrote above, that we, by NATURE, as children of the wrath of God.
Christians should think about that the next time they pray for th ending of abortion.
MMO migrant.
MMO migrant.
St. Augustine of Hippo, used to ponder long and hard on the greatest mystery of the Christian faith: the Holy Trinity, as he tried to understand it.
Strolling along the seashore one day while pondering how there could be three Persons in one God, he noticed a small child seemingly at play on the beach. He watched how the child repeatedly scooped up water from the sea in a shell and carried it to a hole in the sand into which he emptied the water. Then returning to the water's edge, the child refilled the shell and repeated the process over and over.
Curious, Augustine walked over and asked the child what he was doing.
Smiling up at him the child said, "I am emptying the sea into this hole."
Amused at the child's naivete, Augustine replied, "Why, even if you spent your whole life at this task, child, you could never complete it. The sea is far too vast and deep to be contained in so small a hole!"
The child looked up solemnly at Augustine and said: "Yet I will complete this task before you can ever understand the Mystery on which you ponder"
–-and with that, the child vanished.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
wow...deep./...seroiusly...so deep..
/bow
I love telling that story as it provides a way to explain that there is much we do not know nor can comprehend. Learned it from my aunt who was a Nun.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.