# Common misconceptions and misunderstandings of the Bible



## shakyartist (Feb 26, 2010)

Ok, before I get bashed for this let me make this clear, *THIS IS NOT A "CONVERSION ATTEMPT"* I am not trying to prove the Bible right or prove evolution wrong. I am not trying to convert anyone or anything close to that. I've discussed with many people on and off here I hear many people say they have read the Bible so they at least know what they are rejecting. However after speaking with many people I have also discovered how much they misunderstand. So this is more or less to educate people so they understand a little better where Christians (And the views I'm expressing are mainly Lutheran and may not all be the views of certain other Christian religions) stand and what they believe.

1. The belief that one must do good works to get into heaven.

This is believed by almost every religion except for Lutheranism. So Why do Lutheran's not believe it? In James 2:20 is says "Faith without works is dead" and in James 2:24 it clearly says, "You see that a man is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." However this has been misudnerstand by the multitudes. Lutherans first look closely at the "You *SEE* that a man is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." This does not mean works are required to get into heaven. And with "Faith without works is dead" that is true, but in Lutheranism it is explained that if you have faith, you will do good works willingly, not because you are commanded to. This is demonstrated in 1 John 3:16 â€“ 17
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.  If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity (compassion) on him, how can the love of God be in him?
It is not because Lutherans are commanded, but because they should want to help others and do good works.

2.If the Doctrine of the Trinity is true, then jesus could not have been God, because that would mean God died.

Lutherans do actually believe that God died on the cross. However the Father and The Holy Spirit did not, because they are not Jesus. But they are God. So how can this make sense? Teachings in Lutheranism show clearly that some things are beyond human understanding. Like how could someone exist forever? And then just suddenly create everything so easily? The Trinity is also a confusing doctrine that humans cannot comprehend. However Lutherans are taught to not let human reason get in the way of certain doctrines. In 1 Corinthians 1:25 it says "For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength." Some things, as taught by Lutherans, are not meant to be fully understood.

3.The God of the Old Testament is a Monster and completely contrasts the God of the New Testament. Anyone who does not think the God of the Old Testament is a Monster has not read the Old testament.

On the contrary people who think he IS a monster have not read the Old Testament. Also it is need to compare the Old with the New. First off, Both the old and New Testament God send people to eternal damnation. This makes what the Old Testament God does, seem not as bad already in comparison but also think of what the people of that time did. If someone else were God I think they probably would've handled it even worse! But also remember this is before jesus was born. In Collosians 2:17 it says "These are a shadow of the things that were to come"
In the Old Testament people probably despaired a lot about the coming of Christ, so God instituted many laws to "show" them what was to come. (Sacrifices because jesus sacrificed himself, etc.) and because Christ was the ultimate sacrifice, Lutherans believe we are not bound by the Old Testament laws anymore.

4.Many mistakes in writing have creeped in since the beginning of the writing of the bible and therefor the Bible is not reliable

It is true that, especially in hebrew writing, many mistakes could have been easily made. However very very few of these actually would affect doctrines, and most of the ones that would, are painfully obvious (Such as one case in which bless would become curse). And with discoveries of older and older texts of the Bible, consistency is shown, such as the dead sea scrolls. In some cases certain verses could be translated a different way. But this would not change the doctrine, but merely change the way in which it is said.

5. The Old testament prophecies and the New testament do not match up so...

This is a case in which the person is either lying about reading the Bible, or just skimmed it. They do, not much of an arguement here, except that Lutherans use this as strong evidence due to the fulfilling of the prophecies, even given the different dates at which the books were written.

And the final point I would like to discuss is

6. The four Gospels do not match up (conflicting stories) and are just four things that were foolishly put together to make one thing.

Yes it is true that the details are odd when compared (One says one angel appeared, one says two, one says two men, or that different women are told in different books) but there is so much to be taken into account with this as well. If something suddenly happens and you get four different witnesses, are you gonna get the same exact details and story? Or if you take four reporters to cover one story, will they all be exactly the same? It is the same case here, whereas people use the "Verbally inspired" arguement here, it is not like they went into a trance to write their books. Human properties still applied and each one gives different details, from different points of few, written to different people, and at different times, all leading up to the same general story, just like the witnesses and reporters.


----------



## Revy (Feb 26, 2010)

no dont please

also god fails


----------



## Lobar (Feb 26, 2010)

Ahahahaha I thought you had quit the internet forever or something.  This'll be fun.

Protip: The details of the Bible are not nearly as important as _why you believe the Bible in the first place_.


----------



## the plagued (Feb 26, 2010)

this is the internet, few people are going to pay any attention to this.

edit: if they do, it will mostly be negative attention.


----------



## shakyartist (Feb 26, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Ahahahaha I thought you had quit the internet forever or something. This'll be fun.
> 
> Protip: The details of the Bible are not nearly as important as _why you believe the Bible in the first place_.


 
As said before this is just to show what (At least Lutherans) believe the Bible teaches. It's for the actually intelligent people on here so they get a little better prespective on what they're denying, cause that's what smart people do, before rejecting something


----------



## Rytes (Feb 26, 2010)

Don't people go to church to learn these things? GTFOHWTBS


----------



## shakyartist (Feb 26, 2010)

the plagued said:


> this is the internet, few people are going to pay any attention to this.
> 
> edit: if they do, it will mostly be negative attention.


 
Valid point, but I did this on FA because this is where I've had the most conversations with people about knowing what you're denying before denying it


----------



## the plagued (Feb 26, 2010)

shakyartist said:


> As said before this is just to show what (At least Lutherans) believe the Bible teaches. It's for the actually intelligent people on here so they get a little better prespective on what they're denying, cause that's what smart people do, before rejecting something


 

smart people don't belive books written thousands of years ago that can't be proved accurate.


----------



## shakyartist (Feb 26, 2010)

Rytes said:


> Don't people go to church to learn these things? GTFOHWTBS


 
But as I said, this is for people that already deny it so they get a better prespective on what they are denying. I highly doubt they will go to church to learn it


----------



## Rytes (Feb 26, 2010)

shakyartist said:


> But as I said, this is for people that already deny it so they get a better prespective on what they are denying. I highly doubt they will go to church to learn it



If they don't want to go to church, why bother? Let's be real


----------



## shakyartist (Feb 26, 2010)

the plagued said:


> smart people don't belive books written thousands of years ago that can't be proved accurate.


 
So I'll guess you believe the stereotype that christians are not smart? Or that there are no (or not many) smart Christians?


----------



## shakyartist (Feb 26, 2010)

Rytes said:


> If they don't want to go to church, why bother? Let's be real


 
You're going in a circle. Remember the "for smart people to get a better prespective on what they're denying


----------



## the plagued (Feb 26, 2010)

there are smart christians, it's blind faith in something that may not have happened that is foolish.


----------



## Viva (Feb 26, 2010)

The Bible is just a book to guide people on doing the right thing.  Only idiots take it literally.


----------



## Rytes (Feb 26, 2010)

shakyartist said:


> So I'll guess you believe the stereotype that christians are not smart? Or that there are no (or not many) smart Christians?



I never knew a stereotype like that existed, thanks for adding one to my list  .  Individuals are stupid, not groups.


----------



## shakyartist (Feb 26, 2010)

VivaLaPh!va said:


> The Bible is just a book to guide people on doing the right thing. Only idiots take it literally.


 
Well the same can be said of many books, especially religious ones


----------



## the plagued (Feb 26, 2010)

VivaLaPh!va said:


> The Bible is just a book to guide people on doing the right thing. Only idiots take it literally.


 
i'll have to agree, for the most part.


----------



## Viva (Feb 26, 2010)

shakyartist said:


> Well the same can be said of many books, especially religious ones


 
Yes.  Exactly.


----------



## shakyartist (Feb 26, 2010)

Rytes said:


> I never knew a stereotype like that existed, thanks for adding one to my list  . Individuals are stupid, not groups.


 
What? Can this be true? Did I actually find a sensible person on the interet!?!


----------



## Lobar (Feb 26, 2010)

shakyartist said:


> As said before this is just to show what (At least Lutherans) believe the Bible teaches. It's for the actually intelligent people on here so they get a little better prespective on what they're denying, cause that's what smart people do, before rejecting something



I suppose I must also get a better perspective on the nature of the Emperor's clothing before I can suggest that he is naked?


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 26, 2010)

inb4 dram-never mind.
Also more than half of the fandom are either atheists or agnostics therefore any thread referring to christianity will end up as furs saying kill them.
That's why I hate religion threads even if I bring up science and play by their rules furs will go, "PERSECUTION! STOP RELIGINIZING ME!"


----------



## the plagued (Feb 26, 2010)

Rytes said:


> I never knew a stereotype like that existed, thanks for adding one to my list  . Individuals are stupid, not groups.


 
unfortunately, many groups are made of stupid individuals.


----------



## shakyartist (Feb 26, 2010)

the plagued said:


> unfortunately, many groups are made of stupid individuals.


 
Those are what we call Animal rights activists XD


----------



## Tycho (Feb 26, 2010)

I SAW BIBBLES IN TITLE

I MAEK POAST NOW

It's a poorly-written, horribly disjointed, confusing, convoluted and constantly self-contradictory piece of fiction.

Want to know why it's misunderstood? Because NOBODY can fucking understand it half of the time.


----------



## Rytes (Feb 26, 2010)

shakyartist said:


> Those are what we call Animal rights activists XD



Is it wrong that I get hungry when I hear PETA? So many related thoughts swarm around that word and it ends up on delicious slow cooked chicken ohhhh ggawwwwdd *stomach growls*


----------



## shakyartist (Feb 26, 2010)

Tycho said:


> I SAW BIBBLES IN TITLE
> 
> I MAEK POAST NOW
> 
> It's a poorly-written, horribly disjointed, confusing, convoluted and constantly self-contradictory piece of fiction.


 
Confusing? I suppose so as it is difficult to understand at times. Self-contradictory? My good sir have you read the Bible?


----------



## WolvesSoulZ (Feb 26, 2010)

Kill thems!


----------



## Rytes (Feb 26, 2010)

Tycho said:


> I SAW BIBBLES IN TITLE
> 
> I MAEK POAST NOW
> 
> ...



Your avi and this post match so perfectly


----------



## the plagued (Feb 26, 2010)

Tycho said:


> I SAW BIBBLES IN TITLE
> 
> I MAEK POAST NOW
> 
> ...


 
that's the smartest thing i've heard all day.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 26, 2010)

WolvesSoulZ said:


> Kill thems!


I called it.


----------



## the plagued (Feb 26, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> I called it.


 
nuh-uh! i called it first!


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 26, 2010)

the plagued said:


> nuh-uh! i called it first!


Ok we both called it then.


Next comes the atheists' pride on the thread, then everyone is gonna get butthurt that the OP isn't a atheist, then "gtfo noob".


----------



## Lobar (Feb 26, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> That's why I hate religion threads even if I bring up science and play by their rules furs will go, "PERSECUTION! STOP RELIGINIZING ME!"



Or at least that's the caricature you want to believe.  It makes it easier to not have to think about things, doesn't it?


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 26, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Or at least that's the caricature you want to believe.  It makes it easier to not have to think about things, doesn't it?


Oh god not this again, lemme ask when was the last time you saw me be serious and also wasn't shitposting?
I gave up on these threads along time ago, if you think I'm serious on religion threads hit yourself with a doorknob.
Also
You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad? You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?  You mad?


----------



## Kommodore (Feb 26, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Protip: The details of the Bible are not nearly as important as _why you believe the Bible in the first place_.




Yeah I would have to agree with this. You just kinda listed some facts about the Lutheran faith. Cool, you can't discuss that and it only has relevance to you or people who specifically care about Lutherans.


----------



## the plagued (Feb 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Yeah I would have to agree with this. You just kinda listed some facts about the Lutheran faith. Cool, you can't discuss that and it only has relevance to you or people who specifically care about Lutherans.


 
i don't care about them.


----------



## WolvesSoulZ (Feb 26, 2010)

What is this? I don't even
I'm atheist.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 26, 2010)

shakyartist said:


> As said before this is just to show what (At least Lutherans) believe the Bible teaches. It's for the actually intelligent people on here so they get a little better prespective on what they're denying, *cause that's what smart people do*, before rejecting something



You were expecting intelligence on this forum?  From my own experiences, gooood luck finding more that a few here with three-digit IQs.  Or two-digit IQs, for that matter... especially when it comes to religious debate.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 26, 2010)

WolvesSoulZ said:


> What is this? I don't even
> I'm atheist.


yeah the "kills them" comment made it obvious.


----------



## the plagued (Feb 26, 2010)

i don't belive anything without considerable evidence backing it up. i'm not saying there is no god, i'm saying that i won't belive in one without total proof of it's existance.


----------



## WolvesSoulZ (Feb 26, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> yeah the "kills them" comment made it obvious.



Of course it did.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 26, 2010)

...you know what?
This thread sucks


----------



## the plagued (Feb 26, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> ...you know what?
> This thread sucks


 that's what i thought too.


----------



## Joeyyy (Feb 26, 2010)

Gah... 10 years of church drilled bible in my head....
It's gonna take decades to cleen it out...


----------



## the plagued (Feb 26, 2010)

Joeyyy said:


> Gah... 10 years of church drilled bible in my head....
> It's gonna take decades to cleen it out...


 speed up the process with a tall, cool glass of drain-cleaner.


----------



## Joeyyy (Feb 26, 2010)

the plagued said:


> speed up the process with a tall, cool glass of drain-cleaner.



I have post traumatic bible disorder...

ACTS 2:38!!!!  Repent and be baptized each and every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins!!!!

..... Sorry there it goes...  It's embarassing ya know?


----------



## WolvesSoulZ (Feb 26, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> ...you know what?
> This thread sucks



Of course it does, it's religious!


----------



## mystery_penguin (Feb 26, 2010)

I'm Christian

I think God saved our sorry asses, and that Jesus was sacrificed to do that.

Its my opinion, and I don't give damn what other people think.

I also don't understand why people hate religions so much
There are about 8 bajillion other ones, so why does it matter to you? So long as we don't do stupid radical acts I don't see what the problem is. (not aimed at OP)

BTW, religious topics on the internetz DO fail, unless you are on a specific religion forum board or something like that.


----------



## Hir (Feb 26, 2010)

One big flaw with this thread...

How do you know your enterpretation of the Bible is right?


----------



## mystery_penguin (Feb 26, 2010)

DarkNoctus said:


> One big flaw with this thread...
> 
> How do you know your enterpretation of the Bible is right?


/lol


----------



## Joeyyy (Feb 26, 2010)

mystery_penguin said:


> /lol



I don't understand your sig


----------



## WolvesSoulZ (Feb 26, 2010)

Joeyyy said:


> I don't understand your sig


Indeed, since when religion are races?


----------



## Azure (Feb 26, 2010)

Religion fails. Most forms of spirituality fail. Mankind is a pack of self deluding morons. And yet, were the most highly evolved life form on this planet. If a God exists, he has a killer sense of humor.


----------



## WolvesSoulZ (Feb 26, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Religion fails. Most forms of spirituality fail. Mankind is a pack of self deluding morons. And yet, were the most highly evolved life form on this planet. If a God exists, he has a killer sense of humor.



I agree with most of you said there. Religion does fail.


----------



## Joeyyy (Feb 26, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Religion fails. Most forms of spirituality fail. Mankind is a pack of self deluding morons. And yet, were the most highly evolved life form on this planet. If a God exists, he has a killer sense of humor.



God has a good sense of humor.  It's actually in the bible lol. (not lying)
which is actually pretty sick


----------



## Joeyyy (Feb 26, 2010)

But don't really believe in it
much...


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 26, 2010)

and we're now on part 2 of religious topics on f.a.f., the insulting everyone who is religious and trying to chase them all out part.
I wish I had a list of the things mods lock threads for, that way I could get this one locked before the ego stroking begins.


----------



## WolvesSoulZ (Feb 26, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> and we're now on part 2 of religious topics on f.a.f., the insulting everyone who is religious and trying to chase them all out part.



We must ... KILL THEM WITH FIRE!


----------



## Joeyyy (Feb 26, 2010)

WolvesSoulZ said:


> We must ... KILL THEM WITH FIRE!



Thaat won't take 'em down... Kill 'em with crude humor...


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 26, 2010)

Joeyyy said:


> Thaat won't take 'em down... Kill 'em with crude humor...


Why did the atheist cross the road?

He thought there might be a sidewalk on the other side, but he wouldnâ€™t believe it until he tested his hypothesis.



How many atheists does it take to change a light bulb?

Two. One to actually change the bulb, and the other to videotape the job so fundamentalists wonâ€™t claim that god did it.


An atheist buys an ancient lamp at an auction, takes it home, and begins to polish it. Suddenly, a genie appears, and says, â€œIâ€™ll grant you three wishes, Master.â€ The atheist says, â€œI wish I could believe in you.â€ The genie snaps his fingers, and suddenly the atheist believes in him. The atheist says, â€œWow. I wish all atheists would believe this.â€ The genie snaps his fingers again, and suddenly atheists all over the world begin to believe in genies. â€œWhat about your third wish?â€ asks the genie. â€œWell,â€ says the atheist, â€œI wish for a billion dollars.â€ The genie snaps his fingers for a third time, but nothing happens. â€œWhatâ€™s wrong?â€ asks the atheist. The genie shrugs and says, â€œJust because you believe in me, doesnâ€™t necessarily mean that I really exist.â€


----------



## Bando (Feb 26, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> and we're now on part 2 of religious topics on f.a.f., the insulting everyone who is religious and trying to chase them all out part.
> I wish I had a list of the things mods lock threads for, that way I could get this one locked before the ego stroking begins.



This thread willgo on for pages, like the fundies murdering kids one. Yay.


----------



## Wreth (Feb 26, 2010)

Agnosticism>Atheism.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 26, 2010)

A Christian, a Jew, and an atheist are standing in line to be executed during the French Revolution.  

The christian is first, and he lays down on the guillotine. Before the executioner pulls the lever he shouts, "My god will save me!". The lever is pulled, and the blade swooshes down, stopping just short of his neck. The executioner, believing a miracle of god has occurred, figures he can't kill this man, as so sets him free. 

The Jew lays down on the guillotine. Like the christian, he shouts, "My god will save me!". The lever is pulled, the blade falls, and once again it stops just short of his neck. The executioner, again, believes god is on this man's side, and lets him go.

Finally, the atheist lays down on the guillotine. He examines the guillotine, finds a rock in the gears, and says to the executioner, "Well here's your problem..."

The moral?  There's a time and a place for skepticism.

The Pope took a philosophy professor (an atheist at that) out fishing on a large lake. As they drifted on the still lake, the philosopher accidentally dropped an oar and watched it float away. The pontiff stepped out of the boat, walked across the water to the oar, grabbed it and walked back to the boat. The next day at the university, a colleague asked the philosopher if he had enjoyed fishing with the Pope. "It was okay, but would you believe that guy can't swim?"


----------



## Joeyyy (Feb 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> Agnosticism>Atheism.



Correct


----------



## Hir (Feb 26, 2010)

mystery_penguin said:


> /lol


Wow, good job totally owning my arguement there.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 26, 2010)

An atheist was walking through the woods one day in Alaska, admiring all that evolution had created. "What majestic trees! What a powerful river! What beautiful animals!" he said to himself. As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. Turning to look, he saw a 13-foot Kodiak brown bear beginning to charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could down the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was rapidly closing on him. Somehow, he ran even faster, so scared that tears came to his eyes. He looked again and the bear was even closer. His heart pounding in his chest, he tried to run faster yet. But alas, he tripped and fell to the ground. As he rolled over to pick himself up, the bear was right over him, reaching for him with its left paw and raising its right paw to strike him.

"OH MY GOD! ..."

Time stopped.

The bear froze.

The forest was silent.

Even the river stopped moving ...

As a brilliant light shone upon the man, a thunderous voice came from all around...

"YOU DENY MY EXISTENCE FOR ALL THESE YEARS, TEACH OTHERS THAT I DON'T EXIST AND EVEN CREDIT CREATION TO SOME COSMIC ACCIDENT. DO YOU EXPECT ME TO HELP YOU OUT OF THIS PREDICAMENT? AM I TO COUNT YOU AS A BELIEVER?"

Difficult as it was, the atheist looked directly into the light and said, "It would be hypocritical to ask to be a Christian after all these years, but perhaps you could make the bear a Christian?"

"VERY WELL." Said God.

The light went out.

The river ran.

The sounds of the forest resumed.

... and the bear dropped down on his knees, brought both paws together, bowed his head and spoke: "Lord, thank you for this food which I am about to receive.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 26, 2010)

atheism is a non-prophet organization


----------



## Bando (Feb 26, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> atheism is a non-prophet organization



I lol'd at this one.


----------



## Wreth (Feb 26, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> atheism is a non-prophet organization



Hahaha, best one yet.


----------



## Joeyyy (Feb 26, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> atheism is a non-prophet organization



Lmao


----------



## Zerig (Feb 26, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Athiest/Bear joke


 
http://www.youtube.com/user/KnowJesusKnowPeace

This guy tells that story in one of his videos. Do you really want to be associated with him in the slightest?


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 26, 2010)

Zerig said:


> This guy tells that story in one of his videos. Do you really want to be associated with him in the slightest?


Dude chill it's just a joke, why so srs?


----------



## Zerig (Feb 26, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Dude chill it's just a joke, why so srs?


 
I didn't intend to sound srs. I just hate that guy.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> Agnosticism>Atheism.



An agnostic is just an atheist with commitment issues.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 26, 2010)

Lobar said:


> An agnostic is just an atheist with commitment issues.


trying to hard


----------



## Cindercheth (Feb 26, 2010)

Revy said:


> no dont please
> 
> also god fails



Testify. 

Just a quick question (not at poster I quoted) - how can imperfection come out of perfection? How could some so called perfect being create a world of fail? I don't get it.

Yeah yeah... chalk it up to "free will". But if a perfect being created all that is, then I think it'd stand to reason that this world wouldn't be the failboat it is, what with disease, famine, freezing to death, heat strokes - all of that is COMPLETELY unbiased as to what we all choose to do with ourselves.  The "religious righteous" suffer disease every bit as much as the heathens they scold.

My take on all of it.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 26, 2010)

#3

Just because god does something in both doesn't make him less of a monster in one or the other.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Feb 26, 2010)

Jesus is the sun, and the Christians tend to pick and choose things from other religions.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 26, 2010)

A creationist is crowing to an atheist about all the supposed flaws in evolutionary theory and generally being a dick about it.  "And as for transitional forms, ha!  Show me a fish with legs on it.  That's the symbol you Darwinists use, right?  Yet it's just another gap in the fossil record"  The atheist shoots back with, "_Tiktaalik roseae_, motherfucker.  Lobe-finned fish with articulated fins that could prop itself up on.  Fins with rotator cuffs and primitive versions of all the features of modern limbs.  Splits your 'gap' perfectly down the middle."  The creationist is dumbstruck for a moment, before he tentatively retorts, "Well, uh, so you're saying there's _two_ gaps now, right?"


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 26, 2010)

christian goes: "stop being so fundamentalist atheist lobar"
lobar goes: *apeshit*
Ten bucks says this pisses him off.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 26, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> christian goes: "stop being so fundamentalist atheist lobar"
> lobar goes: *apeshit*
> Ten bucks says this pisses him off.



*yawn* for someone not being serious you sure go to a lot of effort to shit up religion threads


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 26, 2010)

Lobar said:


> *yawn* for someone not being serious you sure go to a lot of effort to shit up religion threads


attempt at pissing off lobar: failed


----------



## peterandcompany (Feb 27, 2010)

I dunno. Everyone has their own reasons for believing what they do, whether it's Christianity, Atheism, Buddhist, or even nihilism. It just doesn't stand to reason for someone to talk down another person for their beliefs when it's obvious that you won't share their experiences that led up to their faith in whatever it may be.

I myself am part of the non-denominational Christian church, which pretty much is the "laid-back-groovy" side of Christianity. I don't go around trying to convert people to my beliefs, and I honestly do not care if other people don't believe the same as I do; in fact, I'm legitimately interested in hearing their explanations as to how they came to their own faithful conclusions. Pretty much everything has its roots in the same basic structure anyway, so in essence we're all on the right track; although I doubt anyone has hit the bullseye yet, so to speak.

Also, I'm a strange individual that believes that creationism and evolution are the exact same thing. Honestly, if God made everything, what's to say evolution wasn't the tool by which he got the job done? There's room enough to accommodate for everyone's beliefs without the need to argue about who is right or wrong. It doesn't matter what you believe in. Just _believe._ That's what's important.


----------



## the plagued (Feb 27, 2010)

peterandcompany said:


> It doesn't matter what you believe in. Just _believe._ That's what's important.


 do i have to?


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

Lobar said:


> *yawn* for someone not being serious you sure go to a lot of effort to shit up religion threads


oh forget, cause religion threads go fast, and all my comments on them count towards my post count.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 27, 2010)

peterandcompany said:


> Also, I'm a strange individual that believes that creationism and evolution are the exact same thing. Honestly, if God made everything, what's to say evolution wasn't the tool by which he got the job done?



Because if God's way of doing things is indistinguishable from observable natural processes, can it even be said God did anything at all?


----------



## peterandcompany (Feb 27, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Because if God's way of doing things is indistinguishable from observable natural processes, can it even be said God did anything at all?



This is where the idea of "faith" comes into play. Many people believe that most things happen for a reason, and that implies that there is something behind-the-scenes making things work. Again, everyone has arrived at their beliefs in their own way, so while you may not see it as God having any effect on the ways of nature, others may look at the same evidence and see it as proof of his existence. It all depends on one's perception of things.


----------



## the plagued (Feb 27, 2010)

i never understood how people 'just belived' without any evidence to what they are beliving in. religious faith is blind.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 27, 2010)

I call Jihad on this thread.

4 pages and no mention of the great Prophet Mohammed. That's discrimination.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

the plagued said:


> i never understood how people 'just belived' without any evidence to what they are beliving in. religious faith is blind.


*facepalm* believe: "To accept as genuine or true"


----------



## peterandcompany (Feb 27, 2010)

the plagued said:


> i never understood how people 'just belived' without any evidence to what they are beliving in. religious faith is blind.



Well again, there's no way you can understand how those people can believe what they do because you haven't lived through the same experiences that confirmed their beliefs. Everyone has their own reasons for believing, even if they choose NOT to believe in something. It's different for every person, and not something that they can really express to anyone else, since you really need that effect of it happening on a personal level to confirm your beliefs one way or the other.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

The internet: it's srs bznz


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Feb 27, 2010)

You're kidding me. WHAT THE FUCK.

God does NOT exist. Heaven is fake. 

Let me tell you all something true-

Jesus was a baby born out of marraige, and having an unwedded baby called for stoning and other general hatred. The mother of the baby did not want to be shunned, so she claimed virginity and that he was the son of god- daddy went along of course. Kid is born in a stable, which is really not that uncommon at the time, and the story of the unwedded "god's child" is spreading like fire. People come to see the baby and they have _Money. _So, mom keeps up the story, takes moneys, and tells the kid the story. Everyone is all over the kid, god's child and shit. What would you do as a kid who was raised thinking you were the son of god? *Exploit it! DUH.* Jesus honks around being worshipped his whole life. Big ass deal. Then he's killed by some romans who saw through his crap.


That's what actually happened. GOD IS NOT REAL. Sheeees. Threads like this make me mad.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

Congratulations we have our official first bigot.
We have reached step three of religious threads: flamewars


----------



## Leon (Feb 27, 2010)

@moonfallthefox that's fucked up.


----------



## peterandcompany (Feb 27, 2010)

Moonfall The Fox said:


> That's what actually happened. GOD IS NOT REAL. Sheeees. Threads like this make me mad.



Wow. Feel better now that you got that all out?


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Feb 27, 2010)

*fails* I knowww, but goddamn. Christians think they're high and mighty. I am going to cause enough trouble to close this thread and it's "message"


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

leon said:


> @moonfallthefox that's fucked up.


Careful if you insult what he says next he'll scream persecution.


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Feb 27, 2010)

.......I'm not that bad really.


----------



## peterandcompany (Feb 27, 2010)

Moonfall The Fox said:


> Christians think they're high and mighty.



I think the same can be said for anyone who is dedicated to what they believe. Including you, as evidenced in that mess of a rant above.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

peterandcompany said:


> I think the same can be said for anyone who is dedicated to what they believe. Including you, as evidenced in that mess of a rant above.


seconded Moonfall is full of himself


Moonfall The Fox said:


> .......I'm not that bad really.


suuuuurrrrrreeeeeee


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Feb 27, 2010)

Haaha, yeah. I'm going to go take my meds now....I probably should have had them the past 2 days.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 27, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> seconded Moonfall is full of himself





Moonfall The Fox said:


> *fails* I knowww, but goddamn. Christians think they're high and mighty. I am going to cause enough trouble to close this thread and it's "message"



I dunno he kinda reminds me of you actually :V


----------



## BasementRaptor42 (Feb 27, 2010)

Ceiling cat, Cthulhu, the Flying Spaghetti monster, and of course basement raptor can all pwn god easily. Your argument is invalid.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

Moonfall The Fox said:


> Haaha, yeah. I'm going to go take my meds now....I probably should have had them the past 2 days.


What are you getting treated for then?


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Feb 27, 2010)

BPD, ADHD, depression, and a variety of other mental incongruities.

And also for everyone concerned, I'm a female.

>.>


----------



## Lucy Bones (Feb 27, 2010)

Common misconception of the Bible: It's true.

*Chuckle* Silly Christians.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 27, 2010)

Moonfall The Fox said:


> BPD, ADHD, RSVP, BBQ, WTF, PTO, depression, and a variety of other mental incongruities.
> 
> >.>



Tell me more about the BBQ...


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

Oh joy, by the time I log on in the morning this thread will have erupted a down right flame fest.
shakyartist ask a mod to close it, this thread is just going to turn into everyone insulting religion.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Feb 27, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Oh joy, by the time I log on in the morning this thread will have erupted a down right flame fest.
> shakyartist ask a mod to close it, this thread is just going to turn into everyone insulting religion.


Isn't that what every religion thread in FAF boils down to?


----------



## peterandcompany (Feb 27, 2010)

Moonfall The Fox said:


> Christians think they're high and  mighty.





Ahkmill said:


> Common misconception of the Bible: It's true.
> 
> *Chuckle* Silly Christians.



Hmmm, something's odd here. Can't quite put my finger on it, though...


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Feb 27, 2010)

Bipolar Disorder, not BBQ. And I should hope you people know what ADHD is. And ADD. They're fairly common.

Just because I use the abbreviated terms, doesn't mean you have to act like an ass.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Feb 27, 2010)

Moonfall The Fox said:


> Bipolar Disorder, not BBQ. And I should hope you people know what ADHD is. And ADD. They're fairly common.
> 
> Just because I use the abbreviated terms, doesn't mean you have to act like an ass.


You mentioned BBQ, and he was hungry. Calm down, honey~


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

Ahkmill said:


> Isn't that what every religion thread in FAF boils down to?


2/3 of the fandom are atheists because of how many gay/bi furs there and it causes a crisis in faith and the people we get are butthurt towards religion if their parents didn't accept them being gay/bi and therefore blame it all on religion and don't realize it just is because it's ruining the parents plans for their children to have a middle class job, get married, have 2/3 children, 2 cars and a house.
tl;dr butthurt furries what's new?


----------



## Smelge (Feb 27, 2010)

Moonfall The Fox said:


> Bipolar Disorder, not BBQ. And I should hope you people know what ADHD is. And ADD. They're fairly common.
> 
> Just because I use the abbreviated terms, doesn't mean you have to act like an ass.



Hey, I'll have you know I have a pretty serious disease too.

The doctors say it's a rare form of Lycanthropy. Basically, on the full moon, I completely fail to change into a wolf and eat people.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Feb 27, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> 2/3 of the fandom are atheists because of how many gay/bi furs there and it causes a crisis in faith and the people we get are butthurt towards religion if their parents didn't accept them being gay/bi and therefore blame it all on religion and don't realize it just is because it's ruining the parents plans for their children to have a middle class job, get married, have 2/3 children, 2 cars and a house.


I'm an agnostic because all religions I have followed led to my laughing out loud and walking out. I just find them all quite ridiculous.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

Ahkmill said:


> I'm an agnostic because all religions I have followed led to my laughing out loud and walking out. I just find them all quite ridiculous.


You're one of the exceptions, most of the gay/bi furs that hate religion have had what I talked about happen to them.


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Feb 27, 2010)

I have officially given up on this thread.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Feb 27, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> You're one of the exceptions, most of the gay/bi furs that hate religion have had what I talked about happen to them.


Yeah, that's understandable. I pretty much decided to make up my own religion to keep my mind occupied. I worship the Claw. It is a Claw, and it Claws at things.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 27, 2010)

Ahkmill said:


> I worship the Claw. It is a Claw, and it Claws at things.




There is no Frohman...there is only...THE CLAW


----------



## mystery_penguin (Feb 27, 2010)

Derailed topics ftw


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

Ahkmill said:


> Yeah, that's understandable.


I can be serious when I want to be.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 27, 2010)

mystery_penguin said:


> Derailed topics ftw



A graphical representation of this thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WADnriWzJes

Both a trainwreck and completely derailed.


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Feb 27, 2010)

That video is epicly pointless.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

Moonfall The Fox said:


> That video is epicly pointless.


and yet it's still more on topic than half this thread.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 27, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> 2/3 of the fandom are atheists because of how many gay/bi furs there and it causes a crisis in faith and the people we get are butthurt towards religion if their parents didn't accept them being gay/bi and therefore blame it all on religion and don't realize it just is because it's ruining the parents plans for their children to have a middle class job, get married, have 2/3 children, 2 cars and a house.
> tl;dr butthurt furries what's new?



You're making grand assumptions again.  For me, it was always a purely logical basis, which I worked out when I was like nine or ten (because it really is that fucking elementary).  I wouldn't even start liking cock for another eight years.  I wouldn't be convinced of the need to end religion entirely until well after that point, and it's never been due to personal experiences.


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Feb 27, 2010)

Sadly yes, but it is FAF....at least it hasn't turned into yiff yet ;P


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

Lobar said:


> You're making grand assumptions again.  For me, it was always a purely logical basis, which I worked out when I was like nine or ten (because it really is that fucking elementary).  I wouldn't even start liking cock for another eight years.  I wouldn't be convinced of the need to end religion entirely until well after that point, and it's never been due to personal experiences.


Except the grand assumption is true this time around, that's what happened with my sister(she's a lesbian) and a couple other of my ex friends(you know for texas being so homophobic there sure are alot of them here).
There should be a poll for this.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 27, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> that's what happened with my sister(she's a lesbian)



I invoke rules 32 and 34.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> I invoke rules 32 and 34.


I'm not going to lurk, I'm only here to shitpost, also no I will not draw porn of her.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 27, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> I'm not going to lurk



That's rule 33. 32, man. 32.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 27, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Except the grand assumption is true this time around, that's what happened with my sister(she's a lesbian) and a couple other of my ex friends(you know for texas being so homophobic there sure are alot of them here).
> There should be a poll for this.



I'm not saying personal experiences never motivate people to leave religion, but it's a hell of an assumption to say that it happens all or even a majority of the time.  And even if someone is motivated by a bad experience, the only real draw of atheism remains in wanting only to accept that which logically is most likely to be true.  Angsty rebellious teens that still want to feel special typically end up being Wiccans or something.

If Christianity was strongly supported by evidence more than anything else, I would accept it, regardless of how I feel about the consequences of it.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> That's rule 33. 32, man. 32.


http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh313/blackfinch/rules.gif
rule 32 is "lurk moar. it is never enough"
rule 33 is "."
Just say which rule you're invoking.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 27, 2010)

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Rules_of_the_Internet

"You must have pictures to prove your statements"


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

Lobar said:


> I'm not saying personal experiences never motivate people to leave religion, but it's a hell of an assumption to say that it happens all or even a majority of the time.  And even if someone is motivated by a bad experience, the only real draw of atheism remains in wanting only to accept that which logically is most likely to be true.  Angsty rebellious teens that still want to feel special typically end up being Wiccans or something.


I'm not saying it's all or the majority of what happens in society although it does happen often, just not sure how much.  We're talking about furries here where common sense and logic is thrown right out the window.
I live in the south and pretty much the only options people chose here is either christian or atheist.  You very rarely see a hindu or a islamic person or anything else.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Rules_of_the_Internet
> 
> "You must have pictures to prove your statements"


Whoops, also how can I prove that?  Have my sister making out with her girlfriend?


----------



## Smelge (Feb 27, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Whoops, also how can I prove that?  Have my sister making out with her girlfriend?



Depends. Is she hot?


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Depends. Is she hot?


She's a lesbian and she doesn't work on cars do I need to answer? :V


----------



## Smelge (Feb 27, 2010)

A picture paints a thousand words.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> A picture paints a thousand words.


...*logs off*


----------



## Smelge (Feb 27, 2010)

Haha.

I deem this thread sufficiently derailed.


----------



## the plagued (Feb 27, 2010)

it's about time.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 27, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Whoops, also how can I prove that? Have my sister making out with her girlfriend?


 
A shame it couldn't be the other way around.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 27, 2010)

shakyartist said:


> Blah blah tl;dr.



I don't really give two shits what the bible says.


----------



## kyle19 (Feb 27, 2010)

Religion is the Opium of the people. It changes to what they want to hear and when they want to hear it. Thats all Im gonna say on this thread.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Feb 27, 2010)

I hate this.
I hate relligion.
I hate christianity and my own relligion, even though I think my relligion gives the most freedom.
It all matters what you believe in and not what you read from the bible - as the bible is a bunch of lies.
I, from the relligion that made the bible, wrote the most important things in it and didn't put jesus in there because jesus sucks, don't believe in it at all.
I don't even know what the hell do the christian and muslim truly believe in, I just know that they made a bunch of lies and their prophets are stupid. The only ruler of the world that is believed is god and there is only one. God urges to be the only one and is the only one. There are no other gods facing him, nor "The son of god" - as god is completly unknown, and we can't know what is true about it and what is no.
In the end, it is all belief. If god really exists, it would come in one minute and tell me how I'm feeling.(Wait that's rick roll).
COME AND SMITE ME WITH ALL YOUR POWER.
Still my relligion is the best one as it gives the most freedom and those who are orthodox are really happy with it. Nothing is sad, dark or quiet in our relligion expect for the "Shoah".


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 27, 2010)

Oh cool, another religion thread that will no doubt involve another 25 pages of bullshit.

Awesome.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 27, 2010)

The fact anybody even remotely attempts to put any real meaning into a poorly written, old, mistranslated pile of crap such as the "Holy Bible" is beyond me. Ignore it entirely; it's all crap.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Feb 27, 2010)

Harmony said:


> The fact anybody even retardly attempts to put any real meaning into a poorly written, old, retarded pile of crap such as the "Holy Squirtle" is beyond me. Ignore it entirely; it's all crap.


Yeah, now that sounds better :V

Bible is shit, the only book I want to read would be dictionary.

Also, I heard some teenagers explode something to signify their love for their relligion.


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 27, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> Also, I heard some teenagers explode something to signify their love for their relligion.



Themselves?


----------



## CynicalCirno (Feb 27, 2010)

LizardKing said:


> Themselves?


I wish.
All the teenagers here are barbarians with no brain or good manners.
They are arses obsessed with relligion.
They should die.
I'd stick C4 charge to one of them and say BUH BYE. The end is near.


----------



## Ep1c_Pha1l (Feb 27, 2010)

Revy said:


> no dont please
> 
> also god fails



+1


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

LizardKing said:


> Oh cool, another religion thread that will no doubt involve another 25 pages of bullshit.
> 
> Awesome.


We're already on page 7 and it's only been a day.


----------



## Dass (Feb 27, 2010)

shakyartist said:


> 3.The God of the Old Testament is a Monster and completely contrasts the God of the New Testament. Anyone who does not think the God of the Old Testament is a Monster has not read the Old testament.
> 
> On the contrary people who think he IS a monster have not read the Old Testament.



I'm sorry, but didn't OT god kill all but 2 people on the planet once?

And raze two entire cities?

And kill the first born of every Egyptian family?


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

Dass said:


> And kill the first born of every Egyptian family?


The Israelites were _slaves_ in egypt.


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 27, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> The Israelites were _slaves_ in egypt.



I suppose your point is that the death of EVERY LAST first-born child in Egypt from the poorest peasant to the Pharaoh - in other words, *mass murder* by God - is *totally okay* because the Israelites were slaves in Egypt, amirite?


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

Have you read the book, "Ender's game"?


----------



## Tycho (Feb 27, 2010)

Dass said:


> I'm sorry, but didn't OT god kill all but 2 people on the planet once?
> 
> And raze two entire cities?
> 
> And kill the first born of every Egyptian family?



Actually, it was more than 2 people.  Noah and his family.

Yeah, OT is pretty much a bunch of hateful drivel.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 27, 2010)

Dass said:


> I'm sorry, but didn't OT god kill all but 2 people on the planet once?
> 
> And raze two entire cities?
> 
> And kill the first born of every Egyptian family?



He did that after the pharaoh decided to let them go twice already but "god hardened his heart" he also got in a fistfight with moses, was willing to kill innocents (Abraham had to bargain him down) and played nasty games of psyche with people. 
did you know at the end of the jonah story he basically goes and wanders the desert and dies?
Did you know the story of Job isn't just "bad things happened, his faith was tested, he passed and got cool stuff back" no theres a middle bit where he is asking why such horrible things are happening to him. his friends insist that he did something wrong and god shows up to tell them "screw you I do what I want" So it doesn't matter how good a person you and your family are, god will fuck with you and kill them if he wants. 

OP claims OT god handled it better than some people, I mean OT people were bastards right? but OT god was a real dick at times. He even admits it with Noah.


----------



## Takun (Feb 27, 2010)

There is a religion that believes Jesus's side wound became a vagina; your thread is invalid.


----------



## Tycho (Feb 27, 2010)

Fay V said:


> OP claims OT god handled it better than some people, I mean OT people were bastards right?



And NT people weren't? People are assholes.  This is a theme that is universal and transcends all of human history (and biblical "history" as well).



Takun said:


> There is a religion that believes Jesus's side wound became a vagina; your thread is invalid.



Herm Jesus, o murr.


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 27, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Have you read the book, "Ender's game"?


Very good book. Although, I'm not sure if quoting it here is an argument for or against religion. 

Anyways, this looks like almost every other religious thread that pops up on these forums. Every bashes Christianity. 
Hooray for personal grudges.


----------



## Tycho (Feb 27, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> Hooray for personal grudges.



It isn't always a personal grudge, sometimes it's just people who think it's downright fucking insulting to be told that a piece of ancient trash lit is the gospel truth, science and common sense be damned.


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 27, 2010)

Tycho said:


> It isn't always a personal grudge, sometimes it's just people who think it's downright fucking insulting to be told that a piece of ancient trash lit is the gospel truth, science and common sense be damned.


That's a primarily fundamentalist opinion. Most people who consider themselves actually religious do not take the Bible literally. That's why evolution is widely accepted by religious people. (With a few exceptions...Creationist crazies.)

What I was commenting on is the common opinion held by many of the people who bother to argue in religious threads that all religion should be abolished.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 27, 2010)

Tycho said:


> And NT people weren't? People are assholes.  This is a theme that is universal and transcends all of human history (and biblical "history" as well).



Exactly. I just meant OPs excuse for God's behavior does not make God less of a dick. You can't say "oh no, genocide was cool, cause they were mean"


----------



## Tycho (Feb 27, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> What I was commenting on is the common opinion held by many of the people who bother to argue in religious threads that all religion should be abolished.



It should be.  Want to know why?

Let's say you have kids on a playground.  One kid is named Christian, one kid is named Muslim, one kid is named Jewish and one kid is named Non-Abrahamic.

Now, there are toys on the playground, and there is one toy in particular that they all like.  We'll call it the "religion stick".  They constantly fight over who deserves to play with the religion stick (except Non-Abrahamic, who generally tends to sit in a corner and meditate), and when someone successfully wrests the stick from the others' hands, he beats them with it mercilessly.

Now these kids are fighting over and abusing the religion stick, which is supposed to be something that they can all share and pass around and play peacefully with, and not fight over and hurt each other with.  What to do? Simple.  If none of them will play nicely with the stick, TAKE IT AWAY FROM THEM.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 27, 2010)

why not give it to non-abrahamic?


----------



## Tycho (Feb 27, 2010)

Fay V said:


> why not give it to non-abrahamic?



Non-Abrahamic has his own stick he's quite happy with most of the time.  Occasionally the others will run over and pester him, but he usually doesn't go after them and beat them with his stick - they'd probably take it away from him and beat him anyway, or talk about how their stick is much bigger and better and he should throw away his stick and help one of them fight over the big stick.


----------



## Get-dancing (Feb 27, 2010)

May I add, "Christians are hypocrites because they eat pork despite it being outlawed in lectivus". The food laws were reprised in the new-testament and thus only apply to jews and muslims.



Mayfurr said:


> I suppose your point is that the death of EVERY LAST first-born child in Egypt from the poorest peasant to the Pharaoh - in other words, *mass murder* by God - is *totally okay* because the Israelites were slaves in Egypt, amirite?



Mess with the bull, face the horns.


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 27, 2010)

Tycho said:


> -snip-





Tycho said:


> -snip-



While it's true that non-abrahamic religions tend to keep to themselves as far as outside religions go, your little metaphor seems to be highly based on the media representation of religious conflict. In all honesty, it's a minority of religious practices that are violent and harmful. They just get broadcast more. 

My own belief is that the real problem is when religious *organizations* begin to gain secular power. Any organization that rises to a certain will begin to show corruption, and I think that's what's happened with quite a few religions. Especially Christianity. When people take things on an individual level, there's rarely any problems.


----------



## Tycho (Feb 27, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> While it's true that non-abrahamic religions tend to keep to themselves as far as outside religions go, your little metaphor seems to be highly based on the media representation of religious conflict. In all honesty, it's a minority of religious practices that are violent and harmful. They just get broadcast more.
> 
> My own belief is that the real problem is when religious *organizations* begin to gain secular power. Any organization that rises to a certain will begin to show corruption, and I think that's what's happened with quite a few religions. Especially Christianity. When people take things on an individual level, there's rarely any problems.



Pssh.  "I'm right you're wrong my God is better than your God" has been an ongoing theme for millennia.  Even if it doesn't manifest itself in violence it does so in prejudice, discrimination, hatred and exclusion.  "Those Jews are so greedy.  All they want is money money money." "Those Muslims are so backwards.  They oppress their own people with silly laws about clothing and food and drink." "Those Born-Again Christians are a bunch of crazies.  Constantly telling me what to do with my life and trying to hijack the government." It goes on and on.  Stereotypes get proven to be true much more often than they should, and people continue drawing imaginary lines between each other because they can't agree about their imaginary friends.


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 27, 2010)

Get-dancing said:


> May I add, "Christians are hypocrites because they eat pork despite it being outlawed in lectivus". The food laws were reprised in the new-testament and thus only apply to jews and muslims.



Proof, please.



Get-dancing said:


> Mess with the bull, face the horns.



Oh, so if it was the first-born of every *Israeli* that got killed because *Egyptians* were enslaved by Israelis it would be equally as acceptable in your eyes? Or is mass murder only justifiable if it's done on behalf of the so-called "God's chosen people"?


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 27, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Pssh.  "I'm right you're wrong my God is better than your God" has been an ongoing theme for millennia.  Even if it doesn't manifest itself in violence it does so in prejudice, discrimination, hatred and exclusion.  "Those Jews are so greedy.  All they want is money money money." "Those Muslims are so backwards.  They oppress their own people with silly laws about clothing and food and drink." "Those Born-Again Christians are a bunch of crazies.  Constantly telling me what to do with my life and trying to hijack the government." It goes on and on.  Stereotypes get proven to be true much more often than they should, and people continue drawing imaginary lines between each other because they can't agree about their imaginary friends.



You speak as if this only happens with religion. The same occurs with racism, science, hell, just about everything. When people start to think they're better than someone, it doesn't really matter what the base of the argument is. And you can extend on the statement with some more stereotypes. I suggest you do a few about atheists, and then a few that atheists think about religious people.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> Very good book. Although, I'm not sure if quoting it here is an argument for or against religion.
> 
> Anyways, this looks like almost every other religious thread that pops up on these forums. Every bashes Christianity.
> Hooray for personal grudges.


Sorry for taking so long to reply, the main lesson behind the book is,"there is nothing more immoral than the discontinued existent of your people".


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 27, 2010)

I still can't think of a justification as to why anyone can kill millions, and get worshiped. 




(No, this is not a Hitler reference.)


----------



## Tycho (Feb 27, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> You speak as if this only happens with religion. The same occurs with racism, science, hell, just about everything. When people start to think they're better than someone, it doesn't really matter what the base of the argument is. And you can extend on the statement with some more stereotypes. I suggest you do a few about atheists, and then a few that atheists think about religious people.



Religion has one of the worst, if not THE worst track record of ALL the things you have mentioned.  Discrimination and violence centered around ethnicity/heritage quite possibly do rival or overtake their counterparts in the sphere of religion.  The debates and fighting over scientific principle cannot hold a candle to EITHER of those.



Lastdirewolf said:


> I still can't think of a justification as to why anyone can kill millions, and get worshiped.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's a Godwin now.  Damn you >:C


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 27, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Sorry for taking so long to reply, the main lesson behind the book is,"there is nothing more immoral than the discontinued existent of your people".


Huh.
I always took it more as a lesson against acting on something without fully understanding it.


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Feb 27, 2010)

Originally Posted by *Tycho* 

 
_Pssh. "I'm right you're wrong my God is better than your God" has been an ongoing theme for millennia. Even if it doesn't manifest itself in violence it does so in prejudice, discrimination, hatred and exclusion. "Those Jews are so greedy. All they want is money money money." "Those Muslims are so backwards. They oppress their own people with silly laws about clothing and food and drink." "Those Born-Again Christians are a bunch of crazies. Constantly telling me what to do with my life and trying to hijack the government." It goes on and on. Stereotypes get proven to be true much more often than they should, and people continue drawing imaginary lines between each other because they can't agree about their imaginary friends._


that right there was gold, tycho.


(edit for post lag XD)


----------



## peterandcompany (Feb 27, 2010)

Yeah, forcing your non-religious views on others through insults and mockery of their faith is definitely the best way to teach tolerance and reasoning.


----------



## Darkwing (Feb 27, 2010)

peterandcompany said:


> Yeah, forcing your non-religious views on others through insults and mockery of their faith is definitely the best way to teach tolerance and reasoning.



This. 

Why can't we just get along and accept each other's differences


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 27, 2010)

peterandcompany said:


> Yeah, forcing your non-religious views on others through insults and mockery of their faith is definitely the best way to teach tolerance and reasoning.


This pretty much sums up the general mindset of atheist FAF.



Tycho said:


> Religion has one of the worst, if not THE worst track record of ALL the things you have mentioned.  Discrimination and violence centered around ethnicity/heritage quite possibly do rival or overtake their counterparts in the sphere of religion.  The debates and fighting over scientific principle cannot hold a candle to EITHER of those.


Well of course religion has the longest track record of violence. It has the longest track record of any way of life, period. Not to mention that it's much more all-encompassing than scientific principle. Science and logic does not go into matters of morality or ethics. Religion does, and as a result, it has much more to get violent about.

As for religion being involved with ethnic/religious violence, it's largely used as an excuse for it. Which is a common theme that you'll see in any community. Whenever a large scale group of people commit an act which they know most people will think is wrong, they find an excuse for it. The most common example for this behaviour is any countries government.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

peterandcompany said:


> Yeah, forcing your non-religious views on others through insults and mockery of their faith is definitely the best way to teach tolerance and reasoning.





Rsyk said:


> This pretty much sums up the general mindset of atheist FAF.


thirded


----------



## Darkwing (Feb 27, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> thirded



Forthed 

I mean seriously guys, a lot of religious people are nice, don't be hatin'. 

You guys act like religious people are baby killers, child beaters, etc. When, in reality, a lot of us Christians don't practice or endorse any of that stuff. 

Those bad and sick people you are describing to us aren't the true image of our religion, they are just the few bad apples that make the whole apple orchard look sour.

Like I said before, the same thing applies to the fandom, people generally think of us as furfags who fuck each other in fursuits. When you all know that is generally not true. 

Just please, I don't hate any of you for being non-religious, I completely accept you guys, but please understand us when we say that we are not those bad apples in religion, we don't practice child beating and whatnot, we are a really nice people, and we don't bite.


----------



## peterandcompany (Feb 27, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> Just please, I don't hate any of you for being non-religious, I completely accept you guys, but please understand us when we say that we are not those bad apples in religion, we don't practice child beating and whatnot, we are a really nice people, and we don't bite.



Well-said, friend. The decent majority of Christians don't hold it against Atheists for their lack of faith, so why do they openly ridicule ours?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 27, 2010)

A good chunk, if not the majority of Atheists are not worried about the majority of Christians; they are worried about the extreme sects, the minority over-the-toppers, and individual idiots that hold a position of power or influence (especially when such individuals speak of, or use their religion as a crutch or springboard to launch 'campaigns' against the ones who don't follow what they believe.)


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 27, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Its not the majority of Christians that Atheists are worried about. You guys just keep taking it personally, when it isn't aimed at you guys.


Your sig says that you're anit-religious.
I am religious.
Therefor, you are anti-me.

Sounds worth taking personally to me.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 27, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> Your sig says that you're anit-religious.
> I am religious.
> Therefor, you are anti-me.
> 
> Sounds worth taking personally to me.



Anti-minority-religious-groups doesn't exactly express what I want to convey.

(Anti-Minority-Creationist/Christian/Catholic/Methodist/Baptist/Borne again Christian/Scientologist/Lutheran/Mormon/Johovah Witnesses/Latter Day Saints/etc-groups. Doesn't exactly have a great ring either.)

But if you choose to take it personally, then so be it. 

What's even better, is that you are your religion? I didn't know you could embody a religion. 
(sarcasm aside, I'm against your religious choices - Not you.)


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Its not the majority of Christians that Atheists are worried about. You guys just keep taking it personally, when it isn't aimed at you guys.


Nice try, you're just covering your ass.
What is with you people, just because the majority of the fandom is atheist or agnostic doesn't mean you're entitled to bitch about anybody who is religious.


----------



## Darkwing (Feb 27, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Its not the majority of Christians that Atheists are worried about. You guys just keep taking it personally, when it isn't aimed at you guys.



Really? Enlighten me then, tell me what it's targeted at. You guys always gloat on here about how morally superior atheism is, saying that religion starts wars, kills people, etc. and that, without religion, the world would apparently be a better place, when that's not even true, you don't need religion to start wars and whatnot, there are many other factors, not just religion, that contribute and drive to such acts.


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 27, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Anti-minority-religious-groups doesn't exactly express what I want to convey.
> 
> But if you choose to take it personally, then so be it.
> 
> ...


That's beside the point. What you're saying is that you are against someone based on the choices that they have made regarding their lifestyle. It does not matter if they are part of the specific sect that you so commonly reference when arguing against religion. You are against them all regardless. Essentially, what you're doing is condemning most of the world because they choose to be religious, as opposed to atheism, which is your preferred lifestyle. Sound a little bit familiar?


----------



## peterandcompany (Feb 27, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Its not the majority of Christians that Atheists are worried about. You guys just keep taking it personally, when it isn't aimed at you guys.



If that were the case, I would highly recommend _not_ using broad statements encompassing the entirety of the religion, i.e. "Christians are insane" or "the Bible is an archaic work of _fiction._" It's hard not to take these kinds of statements personally.


----------



## Darkwing (Feb 27, 2010)

peterandcompany said:


> If that were the case, I would highly recommend _not_ using broad statements encompassing the entirety of the religion, i.e. "Christians are insane" or "the Bible is an archaic work of _fiction._" It's hard not to take these kinds of statements personally.



Exactly. 

It's hard not to take statements against your own personal lifestyle seriously. 

It's like saying that all atheists have no morals, it's hard not to take such a generalized statement seriously.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 27, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Nice try, you're just covering your ass.
> What is with you people, just because the majority of the fandom is atheist or agnostic doesn't mean you're entitled to bitch about anybody who is religious.



Ahem, _*YOU*_ people?

Anyways.

Are you telling me, that you don't bitch about groups like the Westboro Baptist Church (and more, that was just one example)? They are not a bane on God-fearing religious types at all?




Darkwing said:


> Really? Enlighten me then, tell me what it's targeted at. You guys always gloat on here about how morally superior atheism is, saying that religion starts wars, kills people, etc. and that, without religion, the world would apparently be a better place, when that's not even true, you don't need religion to start wars and whatnot, there are many other factors, not just religion, that contribute and drive to such acts.



I love how I'm being lumped into what everyone else has said here. I'm not on the same side as anyone here, and can't defend *their* position. If you want to question what *they've* said, and what *they've* done, then go ahead and ask *them*. 

I'm not even sure I typed my own original statement correctly, and I'll retract it for now, so I can reword it to portray what I was trying to say.



Rsyk said:


> That's beside the point. What you're saying is that you are against someone based on the choices that they have made regarding their lifestyle. It does not matter if they are part of the specific sect that you so commonly reference when arguing against religion. You are against them all regardless. Essentially, what you're doing is condemning most of the world because they choose to be religious, as opposed to atheism, which is your preferred lifestyle. Sound a little bit familiar?


 
 You completely missed my point. I'm, personally, against groups like the Westboro Baptist Church, and similar destructive groups. Also against idiots like Palin, Beck, and a bunch of other nutjobs. 

 You keep trying to take what I say, and apply it to a huge, broad audience (i.e., most of the world), which is incorrect, and not the application I'm using, nor did I use in that original statement. 




peterandcompany said:


> If that were the case, I would highly recommend _not_ using broad statements encompassing the entirety of the religion, i.e. "Christians are insane" or "the Bible is an archaic work of _fiction._" It's hard not to take these kinds of statements personally.



I didn't use broad statements. In fact, I did the exact opposite. I used statements encompassing minorities (except when speaking of Atheists). While I did speak of Atheists in general, what I stated was that it was the MINORITY that they are worried about.

If you guys keep misusing, or misinterpreting what I say, this isn't going to go anywhere fast, because I'm going to have to sit here and explain what I said, and defend against something I didn't say.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Ahem, _*YOU*_ people?
> 
> Anyways.
> 
> Are you telling me, that you don't bitch about groups like the Westboro Baptist Church (and more, that was just one example)? They are not a bane on God-fearing religious types at all?


I was using a generalization in this context because on the forums you're not allowed to call out people.


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 27, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Are you telling me, that you don't bitch about groups like the Westboro Baptist Church (and more, that was just one example)? They are not a bane on God-fearing religious types at all?


That is griping about a specific religious organization, not religion as a whole.
And you're not doing very well here, using words like "God-Fearing" (Which is primarily a Catholic mindset, mind you.) to apply to religious people. 





> I love how I'm being lumped into what everyone else has said here. I'm not on the same side as anyone here, and can't defend *their* position. If you want to question what *they've* said, and what *they've* done, then go ahead and ask *them*.
> 
> I'm not even sure I typed my own original statement correctly, and I'll retract it for now, so I can reword it to portray what I was trying to say.


Oh, by no means am I lumping you into a specific category. It's just the comments I've seen you make are the most inflammatory on the forums, along with Mayfurrs.

You both do the selective quoting thing as well...


----------



## Darkwing (Feb 27, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Are you telling me, that you don't bitch about groups like the Westboro Baptist Church (and more, that was just one example)?



Oh, well, Westboro, those guys are *insanely* corrupt. I hate them, they make the entire religion look bad.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 27, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> I was using a generalization in this context because on the forums you're not allowed to call out people.



I know, I was "trolling". I'm so lame.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I know, I was "trolling". I'm so lame.


bullshit, you're butthurt


----------



## Darkwing (Feb 27, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> You completely missed my point. I'm, personally, against groups like the Westboro Baptist Church, and similar destructive groups. Also against idiots like Palin, Beck, and a bunch of other nutjobs.
> 
> You keep trying to take what I say, and apply it to a huge, broad audience (i.e., most of the world), which is incorrect, and not the application I'm using, nor did I use in that original statement.



Oh, I understand what your saying now. Sorry for snapping at you like that. 

Yeah, those guys are indeed idiots and do make the religion look bad as a whole.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 27, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> bullshit, you're butthurt



I forgot the lube last night  I promised it to him...


((if you guys are waiting for a response, this is it.))


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 27, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> #3
> 
> Just because god does something in both doesn't make him less of a monster in one or the other.





Lastdirewolf said:


> I still can't think of a justification as to why anyone can kill millions, and get worshiped.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The two statements that you made before we got into the argument over people using the term "Religion" as an all-encompassing term.

Clearly, you and I are not thinking of the same "Original statement" that you keep referring to.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 27, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> The two statements that you made before we got into the argument over people using the term "Religion" as an all-encompassing term.
> 
> Clearly, you and I are not thinking of the same "Original statement" that you keep referring to.



The 'original statement' I implied was the one that set you off a few minutes ago. Sorry for that misunderstanding.

(I'm really on a hot-streak of using the wrong words right now :v)


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 27, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> The 'original statement' I implied was the one that set you off a few minutes ago. Sorry for that misunderstanding.
> 
> (I'm really on a hot-streak of using the wrong words right now :v)


Ah, you mean your sig. 
To be honest, that does not make me mad nearly as much as the statements that I just quoted. All it does is give me a few first impressions about you. 

1. You're atheist.
2. Your the kind of atheist who's a douche about religious issues. 
3. You and I will not get along. 

That's pretty much what I thought when I read your sig for the first time.


----------



## Tycho (Feb 27, 2010)

Get-dancing said:


> When Christ was being exicuted, Peter had a vision inwhich god offered him pork and Peter obviously turned it away saying it was unclean. God asked "Why are you calling the creatures what I created unclean?". Thus it all became quite clear that Lectivus was based around morals from the time and not the word of god.



It's _Leviticus_.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> Ah, you mean your sig.
> To be honest, that does not make me mad nearly as much as the statements that I just quoted. All it does is give me a few first impressions about you.
> 
> 1. You're atheist.
> ...


you forgot
4. the kind of atheist other atheists wanna throw a brick at.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 27, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> Ah, you mean your sig.
> To be honest, that does not make me mad nearly as much as the statements that I just quoted. All it does is give me a few first impressions about you.
> 
> 1. You're atheist.
> ...



1. We *just* went over this. 



Rsyk said:


> Your sig says that you're anit-religious.
> I am religious.
> Therefor, you are anti-me.
> 
> Sounds worth taking personally to me.





Lastdirewolf said:


> Anti-minority-religious-groups doesn't exactly express what I want to convey.
> 
> (Anti-Minority/extreme-Creationist/Christian/Catholic/Methodist/Baptist/Borne again Christian/Scientologist/Lutheran/Mormon/Johovah Witnesses/Latter Day Saints/etc-groups. Doesn't exactly have a great ring either.)


 
 I'm not Atheist, or not _just_ Atheist. However you want to look at it.

 2. Not at all really. You've taken personal offense, so that well is already poisoned.

3. If you say so? That's your choice, not mine. You'd be the first non-nutjob religious person I haven't gotten along with, except for maybe that crazy guy throwing Psalms texts at my friends and I in juniour high for wearing Slipknot shirts. (literally, throwing them.)



CannonFodder said:


> you forgot
> 4. the kind of atheist other atheists wanna throw a brick at.



4. Other, as in who? You? I'm really not that bad. I'm just the only non-religious person on here (that I know of), right now that's responding.


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 27, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> -snip-



I said that was the first impression I got from your sig.
And based on the amount of insults that you throw around in religious threads, I've yet to see any reason why I should change my opinion.


----------



## Wreth (Feb 27, 2010)

I'm agnostic, and if there's a god/godess/gods that's cool with me. I just hope they don't send me to eternal damnation for not picking a religion, out of the several hundred when none of them have any hard evidence supporting them.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 27, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> 2/3 of the fandom are atheists because of how many gay/bi furs there and it causes a crisis in faith and the people we get are butthurt towards religion if their parents didn't accept them being gay/bi and therefore blame it all on religion and don't realize it just is because it's ruining the parents plans for their children to have a middle class job, get married, have 2/3 children, 2 cars and a house.
> tl;dr butthurt furries what's new?


 
Pretty much. I think I said the same thing in another thread. The same thread were I got a death threat for asking if some of them were gay.


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 27, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Pretty much. I think I said the same thing in another thread. The same thread were I got a death threat for asking if some of them were gay.


The combination of avatar and sig almost had me fooled.
Almost.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 27, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> The combination of avatar and sig almost had me fooled.
> Almost.


 

Imma sneaky snake. >:]


----------



## Darkwing (Feb 27, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Pretty much. I think I said the same thing in another thread. The same thread were I got a death threat for asking if some of them were gay.



I remember that thread. 

It was lulzy.


----------



## Foxy_Boy (Feb 27, 2010)

I thought the bible was open to interpretation...


----------



## Tycho (Feb 27, 2010)

Foxy_Boy said:


> I thought the bible was open to interpretation...



I totally triple-dog-dare you to walk into a Baptist church in the South and say that out loud.


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 27, 2010)

Tycho said:


> I totally triple-dog-dare you to walk into a Baptist church in the South and say that out loud.


If I could find a Baptist Church, I would.
But most of the churches in my area are Korean, so I can't tell what denomination they are.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Feb 27, 2010)

I rolled a blunt with a sheet from the bible once. 

Next time, it will be with the exact pages which contain Exodus 3:1-15.

I'll need more weed than usual, but it would be so worth it :3


----------



## Foxy_Boy (Feb 27, 2010)

Tycho said:


> I totally triple-dog-dare you to walk into a Baptist church in the South and say that out loud.


Not without packing heat :<


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 27, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> I remember that thread.
> 
> It was lulzy.


 
That was outrageous, and yes, very lulzy. Towards the end there I inadvertently cased an argument about whether it is wrong or right to ask if someone was gay. I guess the ironic part was that I was actually gay myself.



JesusFish said:


> I rolled a blunt with a sheet from the bible once.
> 
> Next time, it will be with the exact pages which contain Exodus 3:1-15.
> 
> I'll need more weed than usual, but it would be so worth it :3


 
heh. heh. heh. I had to Google to find out what that was.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 27, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> That was outrageous, and yes, very lulzy. Towards the end there I inadvertently cased an argument about whether it is wrong or right to ask if someone was gay. I guess the ironic part was that I was actually gay myself.




FFFFFFFAAAAAAAAAAAAA-    (GAY)


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 27, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> FFFFFFFAAAAAAAAAAAAA- (GAY)


 
It totally sucks balls.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 27, 2010)

peterandcompany said:


> Well-said, friend. The decent majority of Christians don't hold it against Atheists for their lack of faith, so why do they openly ridicule ours?



There's not much opinion polling on the subject, but a Gallup poll of personal factors a Presidental candidate showed that being an atheist was the only thing that would make a majority of all Americans refuse to vote for someone, ignoring all else about that candidate.  It ranked well below being a Muslim, or a homosexual, or being three times divorced, etc.  So I would say that the majority do in fact hold it against atheists on lack of faith alone.



Darkwing said:


> You guys act like religious people are baby killers, child beaters, etc. When, in reality, a lot of us Christians don't practice or endorse any of that stuff.



When we argue specifically against those who personally do harm, we're arguing from consequences; logicless rebels angry because of our own personal experiences with religion.  When we say no, all religion is equally baseless, we're "lumping in" the moderates with the fundies.  It's a ridiculous double bind.  Let me put it to you then, what SHOULD we argue?


----------



## Tycho (Feb 27, 2010)

Lobar said:


> There's not much opinion polling on the subject, but a Gallup poll of personal factors a Presidental candidate showed that being an atheist was the only thing that would make a majority of all Americans refuse to vote for someone, ignoring all else about that candidate.  It ranked well below being a Muslim, or a homosexual, or being three times divorced, etc.  So I would say that the majority do in fact hold it against atheists on lack of faith alone.



"*gasp* He doesn't believe in God?"

"He must be a horrible immoral person, because morals only come from God!"

"Look, this 'Lucifer' guy says he believes in God! Let's vote for him!"


----------



## Wreth (Feb 27, 2010)

Tycho said:


> "*gasp* He doesn't believe in God?"
> 
> "He must be a horrible immoral person, because morals only come from God!"
> 
> "Look, this 'Lucifer' guy says he believes in God! Let's vote for him!"




Hahaha, that's gold.


----------



## Tycho (Feb 27, 2010)

By the way, here's a small statement of the obvious that might not be so obvious to some people.

You have lived all your life believing that a magical spirit-being is watching over you and guiding you and giving you winning lottery numbers or whatever.  This belief is something that you have BUILT your world upon, it is the lens through which you view everything, it is the assurance that you'll be rewarded if you're a good little boy/girl.  Pretty important to you.  Makes you feel very good, makes you say "I've got an almighty guardian who loves me unconditionally even when no one else does".

Now, along comes this person who DOESN'T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ANY SUCH THING AS YOUR MAGICAL SPIRIT-BEING GUARDIAN! Well, that challenges the validity of some of the most fundamental principles you built your life upon! It's like having a pocket full of shiny coins and being told by a grocer that your money is meaningless and worthless, and he will not exchange goods for them.  HOW DARE HE?! EVERYONE ELSE SAYS IT'S LEGAL TENDER! THAT MEANS HE NEEDS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS LEGAL TENDER AS WELL, BECAUSE DAMMIT YOU'RE HUNGRY AND THAT BOX OF SUGAR-FROSTED DOODLEPUFFS IS CALLING YOUR NAME!

See what I'm getting at?

EDIT: In case you aren't seeing it, what I'm getting at is that to many people, the idea of something so near and dear to them as their relationship with God having its existence and validity called into question begs other questions like "What if there ISN'T an almighty someone who loves me unconditionally?"  And this stings.  It hurts their feelings.  Because when you really get right down to the nitty gritty NOBODY has 100% faith in the existence of God.  The question of God's existence ALWAYS hangs there in the back of their mind.


----------



## Wreth (Feb 27, 2010)

Tycho said:


> By the way, here's a small statement of the obvious that might not be so obvious to some people.
> 
> You have lived all your life believing that a magical spirit-being is watching over you and guiding you and giving you winning lottery numbers or whatever.  This belief is something that you have BUILT your world upon, it is the lens through which you view everything, it is the assurance that you'll be rewarded if you're a good little boy/girl.  Pretty important to you.  Makes you feel very good, makes you say "I've got an almighty guardian who loves me unconditionally even when no one else does".
> 
> ...



I've noticed a lot of people don't seem to get this either. To some people it's not about ''Not forcing your views on other people''. As far as some people are concerned, you defenitely WILL have something awful happen to you, if you do not follow their views, they believe this fully, and they just want to save you. To some people, respecting your views is worse than them trying to protect you from eternal damnation, or whatever they believe in.


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 27, 2010)

Tycho said:


> -snip-



Hey look, it's Tycho.
He's assuming things about religious people again.
How amusing. 



Lobar said:


> There's not much opinion polling on the subject, but a Gallup poll of personal factors a Presidental candidate showed that being an atheist was the only thing that would make a majority of all Americans refuse to vote for someone, ignoring all else about that candidate.  It ranked well below being a Muslim, or a homosexual, or being three times divorced, etc.  So I would say that the majority do in fact hold it against atheists on lack of faith alone.


That's unfortunately true. But I think the reason for that is because atheists have built a reputation of being logical to the point of being cold. Not sure how it got that way, but it's the stereotype that most people believe. 





> When we argue specifically against those who personally do harm, we're arguing from consequences; logicless rebels angry because of our own personal experiences with religion.  When we say no, all religion is equally baseless, we're "lumping in" the moderates with the fundies.  It's a ridiculous double bind.  Let me put it to you then, what SHOULD we argue?


Argue against the organizations that promote such fundamental and baseless practices. It doesn't have to be something that has affected you personally. Like the child murder thread a while back. Instead of arguing against that specific church, it turned into an argument about whether or not religion was wrong because the OP did not specify that it was the practice he found objectionable, and instead he said religion was objectionable. Religion is so widespread, so easy to believe in, that it's also the best way to take advantage of people. After all, if someone shows a greater knowledge than you on certain subjects of your religion, you're more likely to follow their advice and opinions. (For example, most Christians and the Bible. They'll take their preachers word for things because he knows the Bible better than they do.)


----------



## Tycho (Feb 27, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> Hey look, it's Tycho.
> He's assuming things about religious people again.
> How amusing.



I don't believe in God.

Tell me what you think is gonna happen to me after I die.  Seriously.  Tell me what you think will happen to my soul.  Do you even think I have a soul? Tell me.


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Feb 27, 2010)

You're so cool, Tycho, I wish I was just like you >.>


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 27, 2010)

Hey it's Tycho it's a party now.


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 27, 2010)

Get-dancing said:


> When Christ was being exicuted, Peter had a vision inwhich god offered him pork and Peter obviously turned it away saying it was unclean. God asked "Why are you calling the creatures what I created unclean?". Thus it all became quite clear that Lectivus was based around morals from the time and not the word of god.



This is complete and utter bollocks.

1) The passage you refer to (Acts 10: 1-18 ) has NOTHING to do with Jesus's death. Protip: The events in Acts occur AFTER the crucifixion.

2) If you actually READ the passage, you would have seen that it was to do with Peter essentially being given the go-ahead to receive Cornelius the Roman centurion at Caesarea. Peter's vision was essentially that the prohibition for Jews to not associate with foreigners was rendered null and void. Acts 10: 28 - _" And he said to them, â€œYou yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and *yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean*." (emphasis added)_ It has NOTHING to do with revoking Jewish dietary laws.

Good grief, it's a sad world when an *atheist *has to correct a Christian about their OWN Bible... next time, try READING your own holy books *before *spouting off about the contents.


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Feb 27, 2010)

I wonder why people become so feisty with religion? Can we not be tolerant? >.>


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 27, 2010)

Dragon-Shark said:


> I wonder why people become so feisty with religion? Can we not be tolerant? >.>



When religion starts tolerating everyone else, I'll start tolerating religion more, deal?


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Feb 27, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> When religion starts tolerating everyone else, I'll start tolerating religion more, deal?


It does tolerate everyone. You do realize that atheists are surpressing the rights of Christans technically? I like most atheists and I don't care if they are, but I really tend to dislike the crybabies of the atheists, who complain that there is "God" in the anthem... Just don't say it... Its not the religion that causes intolerance, its mankind who creates intolerance. "Nothing" (Something abstract) doesn't cause intolerance.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 27, 2010)

Dragon-Shark said:


> It does tolerate everyone. You do realize that atheists are surpressing the rights of Christans technically? Its not the religion that causes intolerance, its mankind who creates intolerance. Nothing abstract causes intolerance.



No they don't. If they did tolerate and respect other people they would not do the following:

1: stand on street corners and/or go door-to-door preaching to random people trying to get them to join their fucking religion.

2: They would not be fighting and arguing with each other.

That to me, is not being tolerant. How are Atheists suppressing the rights of christians? Don't talk shit. Atheists have a right to their views and opinions as much as christians do, whether you like that view or not.

Also mankind started religion in the first place. It is mankinds fault either way.


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Feb 27, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> No they don't. If they did tolerate and respect other people they would not do the following:
> 
> 1: stand on street corners and/or go door-to-door preaching to random people trying to get them to join their fucking religion.
> 
> ...


 
Sigh... Technically, atheists are surpressing the rights of Christanity, there are no laws bounded against atheists, but there are laws bounded against Christanity. People trying to illegalize the Anthem, students are not allowed to wear their religious garments to some schools, etc, etc. One radical does not represent a whole society or represent it. If you were tolerant of it, you wouldn't be fighting with him, would you?


Debates are good, it helps open up the mind, both for me and you


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 27, 2010)

Dragon-Shark said:


> Sigh... Technically, atheists are surpressing the rights of Christanity, there are no laws bounded against atheists, but there are laws bounded against Christanity. People trying to illegalize the Anthem, students are not allowed to wear their religious garments to some schools, etc, etc. One radical does not represent a whole society or represent it. If you were tolerant of it, you wouldn't be fighting with him, would you?
> 
> 
> Debates are good, it helps open up the mind, both for me and you



That is not Atheists causing that. at least not in england. In england that shit is/was caused by "other religions" being "offended" by certain things native religions do. We are supposed to say "happy holidays" now because religions like islam find happy christmas "offensive" and that list goes on and on and on. No if they are going to move to OUR country they should respect OUR way of life. If they don't like how we do things in OUR country then why don't they fuck off back where they came from?

Sorry I can't respect religions that do this sort of thing. Nor will I tolerate it. I will do things MY way in MY country.


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 27, 2010)

Tycho said:


> I don't believe in God.
> 
> Tell me what you think is gonna happen to me after I die.  Seriously.  Tell me what you think will happen to my soul.  Do you even think I have a soul? Tell me.



The soul is an odd concept. Yes, I think that it does exist. In what state or form, I cannot accurately say. 
As to what happens to you after you die, I'm still working on that bit. There's many concepts to wade through in that area...
But I can tell you that you probably won't be burning for eternity. 



Mayfurr said:


> This is complete and utter bollocks.
> 
> 1) The passage you refer to (Acts 10: 1-18 ) has NOTHING to do with Jesus's death. Protip: The events in Acts occur AFTER the crucifixion.
> 
> ...


I don't think he's Christian. Considering that he was calling us all hypocrites in his original statement. I just think that was a fail at some kind of insult. 

You know, if you're going to point out something hypocritical about religion, why not just quote the "Let he who is free of sin throw the first stone," bit.
Or better yet, Jesus's opinion of people who preach and pray on street corners.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 27, 2010)

Dragon-Shark said:


> Sigh... Technically, atheists are surpressing the rights of Christanity, there are no laws bounded against atheists, but there are laws bounded against Christanity. People trying to illegalize the Anthem, students are not allowed to wear their religious garments to some schools, etc, etc. One radical does not represent a whole society or represent it. If you were tolerant of it, you wouldn't be fighting with him, would you?
> 
> 
> Debates are good, it helps open up the mind, both for me and you




fighting with who?


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 27, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> When religion starts tolerating everyone else, I'll start tolerating religion more, deal?


STOP USING THE WORD "RELIGION" AS IF TO SAY ALL PEOPLE OF RELIGION ARE INTOLERANT BIGOTS GOD DAMNIT!


RandyDarkshade said:


> fighting with who?


I have no idea who he's talking about.


----------



## peterandcompany (Feb 27, 2010)

Tycho is just about the best example-in-action of the "Aggressive Atheist" I mentioned earlier. What does it accomplish to get so confrontational and insulting when it comes to the idea of someone having religious views? Why is it your priority to lessen the importance of their beliefs and mock the living hell out of it with some idealized -- and incorrect -- version of what you _think_ their religion entails?

You don't see anyone here jumping on your ass, pinning you to the ground, and cramming the "body of Jesus" down your throat. So get off our backs about your lack of faith being "correct." Obviously since you believe it, it's the definitive truth to you; to us, Christianity is the truth, _because it's what we believe._ If you disagree, wonderful. We get it. You're entitled to do so. Now *shut up about it.*


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 27, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> STOP USING THE WORD "RELIGION" AS IF TO SAY ALL PEOPLE OF RELIGION ARE INTOLERANT BIGOTS GOD DAMNIT!
> 
> I have no idea who he's talking about.


 
Like I've always said, just use the word Christianity. Stop with the doublespeak.


----------



## Milo (Feb 27, 2010)

what's with people and talking about religion... you know it's just going to end in shit


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 27, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Like I've always said, just use the word Christianity. Stop with the doublespeak.


T.T
You're not helping. '=



Milo said:


> what's with people and talking about religion... you know it's just going to end in shit


This is not people talking about religion. 
This is people shit posting about religion. 

+1, AWAAAAAAAAAAAY!


----------



## Tycho (Feb 27, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> The soul is an odd concept. Yes, I think that it does exist. In what state or form, I cannot accurately say.
> As to what happens to you after you die, I'm still working on that bit. There's many concepts to wade through in that area...
> But I can tell you that you probably won't be burning for eternity.



How many other Christians do you think would agree with you? I'm going to venture a guess and say damn few.  And you aren't certain what happens to you after death? Do you not have faith that you'll be delivered into some kind of afterlife? Is there doubt in your mind?


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 28, 2010)

Tycho said:


> How many other Christians do you think would agree with you? I'm going to venture a guess and say damn few.  And you aren't certain what happens to you after death? Do you not have faith that you'll be delivered into some kind of afterlife? Is there doubt in your mind?


Please. I have no doubt that there is an afterlife. What I'm trying to figure out is what form it will take.  

It doesn't matter how many other Christians disagree with me. My religion is not based off of what other people think.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 28, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> T.T
> You're not helping. '=
> 
> 
> ...


 
]: sorry.


----------



## Tycho (Feb 28, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> It doesn't matter how many other Christians disagree with me. My religion is not based off of what other people think.



You are completely non-denominational, then? Would you consider yourself "the norm"? Do you ever run into other Christians who tell you "No, you're not being a real Christian, you're not doing it right"?

And what do you say to them when they say that?


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 28, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> ]: sorry.


I forgive you. 


Tycho said:


> You are completely non-denominational, then? Would you consider yourself "the norm"? Do you ever run into other Christians who tell you "No, you're not being a real Christian, you're not doing it right"?
> 
> And what do you say to them when they say that?


I do not consider myself the norm.
And actually, the only people I've ever met who tell me that I'm not doing things right when it comes to my religion are atheists.

And I'd probably say the same thing that I say to those atheists. "Why is it your business?"


----------



## Tycho (Feb 28, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> I do not consider myself the norm.
> And actually, the only people I've ever met who tell me that I'm not doing things right when it comes to my religion are atheists.
> 
> And I'd probably say the same thing that I say to those atheists. "Why is it your business?"



Do you ever wish the other Christians, the obnoxious ones, would stop being so obnoxious? Do you think they undermine Christianity with their actions?


----------



## -xSuishox- (Feb 28, 2010)

For the longest time I have struggled and forced to believe in something that I never wanted to believe in the first place. I was forced to go to church, be saved, thinking that was what everyone wanted for me....up until now. 

I'm what's called "agnostic", a person who believes in God/gods/goddesses, but they do not practice the religion(s) itself. They are spiritual in nature, but they are not religious in it.

For example, I believe that God is the ruler of all of the other gods and goddesses of all the religions in the world except for the evil ones, and I only pray to God when necessary. I don't go to church because I believe that people who go to church are some of the biggest hypocrites I've ever met, and going to church doesn't make you more of a Christian than standing in a garage makes you a car. And I don't read the Bible cause it contradicts itself many, many, MANY times. 

And you can bank what I say when those crock-o-shit Christian TV channels are full of hypocrites, scammers, thieves, and brainwashers who scream and spout senseless nonsense recently about 2012 and making people paranoid about their future on this earth is really starting to piss me off. I'll be laughing my ass off on December 22nd, 2012 when I'm still alive having damn good sex with my new husband. 

So starting this religion thread in my eyes is a waste of fucking time and typing. All it's gonna end up is creating drama and trolling that shouldn't happen in the first place. That's why I hate when I see threads like this pop up.


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 28, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Do you ever wish the other Christians, the obnoxious ones, would stop being so obnoxious? Do you think they undermine Christianity with their actions?


Yes, but that's more because it is an intolerable behaviour in anyone. I find it annoying when it's coming from Christians, Muslim, Atheists, Sceintologists, whatever. Whenever it happens, it gives the religion a bad name.

But I don't think it undermines the religion as a whole. Because even people who are Christians look at these people and go, "Wow, they're stupid." Like the deal with the Baptists in Haiti. Most common reaction at my church was, "What a bunch of idiots."


----------



## Tycho (Feb 28, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> Yes, but that's more because it is an intolerable behaviour in anyone. I find it annoying when it's coming from Christians, Muslim, Atheists, Sceintologists, whatever. Whenever it happens, it gives the religion a bad name.
> 
> But I don't think it undermines the religion as a whole. Because even people who are Christians look at these people and go, "Wow, they're stupid." Like the deal with the Baptists in Haiti. Most common reaction at my church was, "What a bunch of idiots."



What do you think of the statement "Religion = spirituality + herd mentality"?


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 28, 2010)

Tycho said:


> What do you think of the statement "Religion = spirituality + herd mentality"?


I think at this point you're trying to make me mad. 

And I think that's an incredibly general statement to make. I consider myself religious. But I hardly fit into a herd scheme.


----------



## peterandcompany (Feb 28, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> I think at this point you're trying to make me mad.



I think he's been trying to accomplish this since 5 questions ago.


----------



## Tycho (Feb 28, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> I think at this point you're trying to make me mad.
> 
> And I think that's an incredibly general statement to make. I consider myself religious. But I hardly fit into a herd scheme.



Why "religious" and not "spiritual"?



peterandcompany said:


> I think he's been trying to accomplish this since 5 questions ago.



No, just being a pest.  I'm bored, what can I say?


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 28, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Why "religious" and not "spiritual"?


Because, to me, the word "spiritual" describes someone who does not particularly adhere to any particular set of beliefs, nor do actually spend time to think about what they believe. When I hear the word spiritual, I usually think of the kind of "Don't give a fuck" agnostics, only more on the side of believing in a controlling god. When you say, "Spiritual" you imply that you have your beliefs, you just don't do anything with them. 
That's just the impression I get, and it's probably incorrect in most cases, but not in my experience with "Spiritualists." I'll happily drop it if I ever meet someone who proves me wrong. 

I define myself as religious because I do have specific practices associated with my beliefs. Beyond the usual moral/daily things, it entails a great deal of my life.


----------



## peterandcompany (Feb 28, 2010)

Tycho said:


> No, just being a pest.  I'm bored, what can I say?



Yeah, I figured as much when you waltzed right by my statement about you on the previous page. Oy...


----------



## Tycho (Feb 28, 2010)

peterandcompany said:


> Yeah, I figured as much when you waltzed right by my statement about you on the previous page. Oy...



PS - not really an Aggressive Atheist.  I enjoy annoying the devout.  Some of them will say the darndest things.

Strange that my long drawn-out arguments didn't seem to raise hackles as much as my incessant questioning.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 28, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> Argue against the organizations that promote such fundamental and baseless practices. It doesn't have to be something that has affected you personally. Like the child murder thread a while back. Instead of arguing against that specific church, it turned into an argument about whether or not religion was wrong because the OP did not specify that it was the practice he found objectionable, and instead he said religion was objectionable. Religion is so widespread, so easy to believe in, that it's also the best way to take advantage of people. After all, if someone shows a greater knowledge than you on certain subjects of your religion, you're more likely to follow their advice and opinions. (For example, most Christians and the Bible. They'll take their preachers word for things because he knows the Bible better than they do.)



And upon what basis do I form such an argument against fundamentalism that deftly avoids treading upon the toes of moderates?  Herein lies the real problem.  To do this I must disarm myself of all the best arguments against such things in order to try to surgically excise fundamentalism, which may well be inseparable, from that which I see as equally valueless anyways, if not equally harmful.  It's the fundies that motivate me, but it's arguing against all religion that makes the most sense.



LegendaryOuka-chan said:


> I'm what's called "agnostic", a person who believes in God/gods/goddesses, but they do not practice the religion(s) itself. They are spiritual in nature, but they are not religious in it.
> 
> For example, I believe that God is the ruler of all of the other gods and goddesses of all the religions in the world except for the evil ones, and I only pray to God when necessary.



For the record, people like this are why I adamantly refuse to ever describe myself as agnostic despite acknowledging an infinitesimal possibility that God exists.  Thomas Henry Huxley is rolling in his grave.


----------



## Get-dancing (Feb 28, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> This is complete and utter bollocks.
> 
> 1) The passage you refer to (Acts 10: 1-18 ) has NOTHING to do with Jesus's death. Protip: The events in Acts occur AFTER the crucifixion.
> 
> ...





> The apostle Peter once faced a dilemma on this matter of clean and unclean. Some ten years after the resurrection of Jesus he had a vision of "all kinds of quadrupeds. reptiles and birds" - dogs, cats, horses, frogs, alligators, snakes, spiders etc - being lowered before him in a huge sheet. A voice said "Rise, Peter, kill and eat". A shocking command. For as Peter makes clear:
> 
> "On no account, Lord, for I have never yet [this was, remember, ten years after the resurrection!] eaten anything unhallowed or unclean". (You can read the account in Acts 10.)
> 
> ...



Sic

So shoosh ya moosh!


----------



## KashakuTatsu (Feb 28, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> I define myself as religious because I do have specific practices associated with my beliefs. Beyond the usual moral/daily things, it entails a great deal of my life.



Although I am Pagan, I agree with how well you put that. It's like the end of my self-describing sentence where I put "in the service of the ancient gods".


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 28, 2010)

Get-dancing said:


> Sic



You STILL can't get it right, can you? Your quote *explicitly* states: _"In the vision God was telling him that salvation is open to all men. *The vision had nothing to do with food!*"_

Do you even READ what you're posting? Or do you get off on shooting yourself in the foot over and over again?

"This EPIC FAIL brought to you by Get-Dancing."


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 28, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> You STILL can't get it right, can you? Your quote *explicitly* states: _"In the vision God was telling him that salvation is open to all men. *The vision had nothing to do with food!*"_
> 
> Do you even READ what you're posting? Or do you get off on shooting yourself in the foot over and over again?
> 
> "This EPIC FAIL brought to you by Get-Dancing."




Thia is why I like atheists so much. Atheists are not blind to the truth, and they understand the bible better than most Christians. I think Christians do understand the bible, they just twist it to suit them.

Either that or they really do not understand the bible.


----------



## Tycho (Feb 28, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> "This EPIC FAIL brought to you by Get-Dancing."



He has a nearly spotless track record of failure and self-sabotage.  Someone should give him a medal.  Preferably firmly lodged in his colon.


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 28, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Thia is why I like atheists so much. Atheists are not blind to the truth, and they understand the bible better than most Christians. I think Christians do understand the bible, they just twist it to suit them.
> 
> Either that or they really do not understand the bible.


You're much more judgmental than you seem at first.
And I still don't think Dancing is a Christian. 
Just saying.


----------



## Wreth (Feb 28, 2010)

LegendaryOuka-chan said:


> For the longest time I have struggled and forced to believe in something that I never wanted to believe in the first place. I was forced to go to church, be saved, thinking that was what everyone wanted for me....up until now.
> 
> I'm what's called "agnostic", a person who believes in God/gods/goddesses, but they do not practice the religion(s) itself. They are spiritual in nature, but they are not religious in it.
> 
> ...



What you have described is not agnostic.


----------



## Tycho (Feb 28, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> You're much more judgmental than you seem at first.
> And I still don't think Dancing is a Christian.
> Just saying.



He isn't.  He's an idiot who thinks he's God's gift to the fucking world.  He shits on every ideal put forth by Christianity, on a regular basis.


----------



## Rsyk (Feb 28, 2010)

Tycho said:


> He isn't.  He's an idiot who thinks he's God's gift to the fucking world.  He shits on every ideal put forth by Christianity, on a regular basis.


I figured as much.


----------



## Takun (Feb 28, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> Please. I have no doubt that there is an afterlife. What I'm trying to figure out is what form it will take.
> 
> It doesn't matter how many other Christians disagree with me. My religion is not based off of what other people think.




Really, no doubt.  Huh.


----------



## Get-dancing (Feb 28, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> You STILL can't get it right, can you? Your quote *explicitly* states: _"In the vision God was telling him that salvation is open to all men. *The vision had nothing to do with food!*"_
> 
> Do you even READ what you're posting? Or do you get off on shooting yourself in the foot over and over again?
> 
> "This EPIC FAIL brought to you by Get-Dancing."



Miss points much? Read that page again and notice how much of it is emotive and subjective opinions brought forward by the author and what rest is biblical quotes. Doing so you will realise all the "lol lol nothing to do with food here, only, god is just speaking against dietry" is from the AUTHORS interpretation of the passage. Point was, it does say that. 

You have got some CHEEK!


----------



## Kairuk (Feb 28, 2010)

the plagued said:


> smart people don't belive books written thousands of years ago that can't be proved accurate.


 So true


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Feb 28, 2010)

Kairuk said:


> So true


Too bad intelligent historians rely on them... Many historical texts depend on things written a thousand years ago that was written almost a thousand years after it happened.

The bible was written within fifty years when Jesus Christ supposedly died.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 28, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> You're much more judgmental than you seem at first.
> And I still don't think Dancing is a Christian.
> Just saying.



Sorry, I don't mean to be. I know there are a lot of nice Christians out there. It is just some of the things I have seen on TV, on YT and elsewhere online tend to shine a bad light on Christianity.

I was actually thinking about this today while I was out with a friend. It isn't a group itself that is or causes problems, it is a select few people within any group that cause the groups problems, and this goes for any group, religious or other. It is this small minority that the media concentrate on which in turn sheds a bad light on what ever group the media is reporting on.


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Feb 28, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Sorry, I don't mean to be. I know there are a lot of nice Christians out there. It is just some of the things I have seen on TV, on YT and elsewhere online tend to shine a bad light on Christianity.
> 
> I was actually thinking about this today while I was out with a friend. It isn't a group itself that is or causes problems, it is a select few people within any group that cause the groups problems, and this goes for any group, religious or other. It is this small minority that the media concentrate on which in turn sheds a bad light on what ever group the media is reporting on.


 Just like how terrorism isn't terrorism, unless it involves muslims.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 28, 2010)

Dragon-Shark said:


> Just like how terrorism isn't terrorism, unless it involves muslims.



Indeed. I wonder why so many people only listen to the bad stuff and not the good? there is usually a good side to everything, group wise.


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Feb 28, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Indeed. I wonder why so many people only listen to the bad stuff and not the good? there is usually a good side to everything, group wise.


Humans are naturally negative. Just look at the news, and you'll see...


----------



## Captain Spyro (Feb 28, 2010)

Dragon-Shark said:


> Humans are naturally negative. Just look at the news, and you'll see...



I watch the news, and from my standpoint negativity brings in the ratings.

Anything positive just isn't news.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 28, 2010)

Dragon-Shark said:


> Humans are naturally negative. Just look at the news, and you'll see...



Aye, this is one reason why I don't watch the news much these days, or read any news papers. Some news papers make shit up and/or twist the truth to make a story anyway. The Sun is one that is one over here that does just that.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 1, 2010)

Get-dancing said:


> Miss points much? [...] You have got some CHEEK!



Considering YOU were the person *quoting text* that actually supported MY position instead of yours, it would seem that the deficiency in reading comprehension here is *yours*, not mine. Consequently, any "cheek" around here is entirely your own for desperately trying to claim that evidence YOU voluntarily supplied means what you fantasise it to mean rather than what it actually says in plain English.

Shot off your own foot yet? Here's some more cartridges - make it a _good_ job, there's a good fellow...


----------



## Tycho (Mar 1, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> Considering YOU were the person *quoting text* that actually supported MY position instead of yours, it would seem that the deficiency in reading comprehension here is *yours*, not mine. Consequently, any "cheek" around here is entirely your own for desperately trying to claim that evidence YOU voluntarily supplied means what you fantasise it to mean rather than what it actually says in plain English.
> 
> Shot off your own foot yet? Here's some more cartridges - make it a _good_ job, there's a good fellow...



Just give him a grenade launcher so he can be done with it already.  The constant *BANG BANG BANG* is quite tiresome and offensive to my ears.

Also, the reason people pay more attention to the bad stuff? They don't have to worry about keeping an eye on the GOOD stuff to keep it from fucking them up.  Don't watch the cheering crowd behind you, watch the pissed-off bull in front of you.


----------



## Zrcalo (Mar 1, 2010)

there are no furries in the bible.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 1, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Just give him a grenade launcher so he can be done with it already.  The constant *BANG BANG BANG* is quite tiresome and offensive to my ears.



I'll pass him a "Davy Crockett" tactical nuke just to make sure


----------



## Telnac (Mar 1, 2010)

Whoa... I just got to this thread and it's EXPLODED in the number of posts!

I can't possibly read even a tiny fraction of the responses, so I'll just respond to the OP:

Can you blame non-Christians for having misconceptions about the teachings of the Bible, when the Bible itself is rarely taught in CHURCHES these days?!?  Instead, two man-made philosophies are taught in churches these days, both of which are equally wrong:

Feel-good Christianity:  Jesus loves you!  Isn't that all you need to know.  Just bask in the love of Jesus and all of your worries and cares will wash away.

Reality: uh, WTF?  Yeah, Jesus may love you & everyone else, but there are _*two*_ requirements for salvation under Romans 10:9... not one.  Jesus must be your Lord and Savior.  Feel-good Christianity just ignores the "Lord" part.  If you accept Jesus as your Savior, you can rape, steal and murder to your heart's desire, right?  Uh... no.

Conservative Christianity: The Ten Commandments rule supreme!  But they don't go _*nearly*_ far enough!  In addition to them, we're going to add the commandment of: "Thou Shalt Not Drink Alcohol... in any amount, no matter how small."  One sip leads to one drink, which ultimately leads to massive *drunken* acts of _*debauchery*_ so vile that they'd make the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah blush!  So _*obviously*_ drinking is a sin (even tho it's not listed as a sin anywhere in the Bible, and the fact that both Jesus and the Apostles drank.)  Oh, and while we're adding our own sins to the Eleven Commandments, let's create some more:

Dancing: obviously leads to fornication and orgies.
Voting Democrat: you abortion-loving, fag-loving, Christ-hating perverts will all _*bern in Heeeeell*_
Anyone Who Doesn't Agree With Me: I'm a God-fearing Christian, which means that anything I say _*must*_ agree with the Word of God.  So if you disagree with me, on any topic, you're gonna _*bern in Heeeeell

*_All that said, I am a Christian myself, and I believe the truth lies between these two extremes, and that even the Bible itself makes that quite clear:

*Ecclesiastes 7:16-18--*_Do not be overrighteous, 
       neither be overwiseâ€” 
       why destroy yourself? __Do not be overwicked, 
       and do not be a foolâ€” 
       why die before your time? _
_It is good to grasp the one 
       and not let go of the other. 
       The man who fears God will avoid all extremes._


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 1, 2010)

Telnac said:


> Whoa... I just got to this thread and it's EXPLODED in the number of posts!
> 
> I can't possibly read even a tiny fraction of the responses, so I'll just respond to the OP:
> 
> ...



Well said!


----------



## Telnac (Mar 1, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> Well said!


*lol*  Let's just say there are many reasons Ecclesiastes is by far my favorite book in the Bible!


----------



## KashakuTatsu (Mar 1, 2010)

Well said Talnec, I have found some beautiful ethics and stories within the Bible while growing up, but there were aspects I couldn't believe in even from a young age (mostly ultimate good/evil, extreme inbalance, chaos=evil, etc). I don't fault Christianity as a religion for what the general population has done to it. I say this because it was not the religious text that caused the crusades or witch hunts, it was the people who followed their version of what they think the stories mean. I grew up in an area that is just north of the 'bible belt' and they have some twisted views of what the teachings of the bible should be. They don't pull out the author's opinion or cultural context out of the book, just go with what it says word for word even if it contradicted itself. They litterally told me if they found out I was pagan that they'd kill me because the book says "suffer not a witch to live" and I often got "the devil beat out of me" when I vocalized non-christian 'abilities'. Technically I'm a recon not a witch, but to them there's Christian or "hell-bound", they even got into which branch of Christianity was more righteous then others and the other branches were going to hell too. I'm sure I've come into contact with the bad side of Christian zealots growing up and as a whole across the world a majority of them aren't that way. But as much as I try to maintain peace with other religions, I sometimes remember what it was like growing up and get mad at the religion as a whole... but most of what the religion gets flack for (mostly the crusades and conversion of other religions) the people who committed the acts are long dead. It's like one race hating another for the "sins" of their ancestors.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Mar 1, 2010)

Telnac said:


> Can you blame non-Christians for having misconceptions about the teachings of the Bible, when the Bible itself is rarely taught in CHURCHES these days?!?



It's a book. Books shouldn't be taught, books should be read.

If book doesn't make sense, it's a bad book. If you have to elaborate and make crap up to make it sensible, it's a bad book. If the details (and, as we all know, the devil's in the details) don't add up, it's a bad book.
Personally, I treat as a curious fantasy book. It's not well written and most "OMG GOD GAVE US MORALS" stuff is nothing any sane person couldn't figure out on his own.

The Old Testament is especially fun, involving forced circumcision, mass murder, incest, attempted fratricide, divine genocide... the New Testament is just weak in comparison.


----------



## Telnac (Mar 1, 2010)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> It's a book. Books shouldn't be taught, books should be read.
> 
> If book doesn't make sense, it's a bad book. If you have to elaborate and make crap up to make it sensible, it's a bad book. If the details (and, as we all know, the devil's in the details) don't add up, it's a bad book.
> Personally, I treat as a curious fantasy book. It's not well written and most "OMG GOD GAVE US MORALS" stuff is nothing any sane person couldn't figure out on his own.
> ...


I agree that the OT is awesome.  There's some sick stuff in there, but there's some incredibly cool stuff as well.  I have to disagree about the Bible being poorly written, tho.  It's a collection of books by many authors spanning hundreds of years.  Even if you believe (as I do) that it was divinely inspired, there's going to be many different writing styles... some easier to read & understand than others.

I agree that the Bible should be read more than taught, but let's be honest: few people sit down & read the Bible cover to cover.  But is that so different than a textbook for a class in college?  Few students sit down and read their textbooks from cover to cover (even if they're supposed to.)  So how to professors deal with that?  They gave lectures on the subject.

I guess I'm rare in that I find the Bible fascinating, even the disgusting parts (heck, especially the disgusting parts) so I've read it cover to cover multiple times.  Doing so is what opened my eyes to the fact that most ministers are teaching it wrong.


----------



## Tycho (Mar 1, 2010)

Get-dancing said:


> 2. Yes I am against abortion and supportive of traditionalist famalies, but that is not because of religious reasons.



It's because you're a chauvinist prick.


----------



## Get-dancing (Mar 1, 2010)

Tycho said:


> It's because you're a chauvinist prick.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"Your opinion on donor-fathers is invalid as your are a woman and can't even produce sperm". (I couldn't think of anything clever to say back so I will just make a cheap shot against something about you that you can't help and shouldn't matter.)


----------



## Tycho (Mar 1, 2010)

Get-dancing said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
> 
> "Your opinion on donor-fathers is invalid as your are a woman and can't even produce sperm". (I couldn't think of anything clever to say back so I will just make a cheap shot against something about you that you can't help and shouldn't matter.)



Ad hominem it may be but it's true.

Your debate and argument skills are piss poor, and invoking Latin words doesn't improve those skills at all.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 1, 2010)

The Bible is actually pretty poorly written, grammatically at least. 

And blah blah said blah blah blah, to the sons of Blah: son blah, and blah, and sister blah, and blah, and blah, and bleep; and bleepbloop said boop to blah blah, and it...you get the picture.

And and and and and and, run on sentences!


----------



## Tycho (Mar 1, 2010)

Get-dancing said:


> Not really, as I said it's just a shallow arguement that radical-femminists use to narrow the debate down by 50% because they can't think of any intelectual arguement to use against them instead. It's as fair as using telling women they shouldn't have a say in debates regarding things that only first-handedly affect men as much as abortion is to women.



You realize I'm not EXCLUDING or DISMISSING you from any debate, I'm just stating a fact, right?  One that should be kept in mind whenever reading anything you post.  You're an immature teenage sexist reactionary bigot, but you're always free to try and play with the big boys, as long as you aren't banned of course.  Don't cry when you inevitably get spanked, though that ship has sailed a number of times before now, so I dunno why I bother saying it...



Get-dancing said:


> Also note, because child-bearing is restricted in China in India due to high populations, many parents are so preferential of boys that they will abort all daughters until the women is pregnant of a male. Now have the nerve to tell me that being anti-abortion is against women.



Denying choice to a woman in regards to her own body IS against women.  The fact that China imposes a 1 child limit does not mean families are ever FORCED to abort females - that is a choice they make.  China does not say "Well shit, that baby's gonna have a cunt when it slides out, better kill it now".  That's the inherently sexist patriarchy in Chinese culture influencing such a decision.


----------



## -xSuishox- (Mar 1, 2010)

The Bible has been glorifying mass murder, rape, incest, genocide, and many more topics since the dawn of time. The Bible isn't as holy as everybody thinks it is. Therefore, it's a crock of shit. I don't believe one single word it says. 

....Ohhh, I'm so gonna get shot at for that.


----------



## Tycho (Mar 1, 2010)

LegendaryOuka-chan said:


> The Bible has been glorifying mass murder, rape, incest, genocide, and many more topics since the dawn of time. The Bible isn't as holy as everybody thinks it is. Therefore, it's a crock of shit. I don't believe one single word it says.
> 
> ....Ohhh, I'm so gonna get shot at for that.



It's primarily the OT that does that.  The NT is more about Dr. Jesus McFeelgood and his pals spreading the love of Jesus and stuff, not so much hellfire and brimstone raining down upon people and such.


----------



## Get-dancing (Mar 1, 2010)

Tycho said:


> You realize I'm not EXCLUDING or DISMISSING you from any debate, I'm just stating a fact, right?  One that should be kept in mind whenever reading anything you post.  You're an immature teenage sexist reactionary bigot, but you're always free to try and play with the big boys, as long as you aren't banned of course.  Don't cry when you inevitably get spanked, though that ship has sailed a number of times before now, so I dunno why I bother saying it...



You're a mom's basement dweller who plays World of Warcraft all day who takes petty quasi-political debates over the internet WAY too heatedly. Hence your ridicuously huge post-count.


----------



## -xSuishox- (Mar 1, 2010)

Tycho said:


> It's primarily the OT that does that. The NT is more about Dr. Jesus McFeelgood and his pals spreading the love of Jesus and stuff, not so much hellfire and brimstone raining down upon people and such.


 
ilu. <3 You speak teh truth, mah friend.


----------



## Tycho (Mar 1, 2010)

Get-dancing said:


> You're a mom's basement dweller who plays World of Warcraft all day who takes petty quasi-political debates over the internet WAY too heatedly. Hence your ridicuously huge post-count.



Hee hee.  You a funny boy.



Get-dancing said:


> *flailflailflail*


----------



## Rsyk (Mar 1, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Sorry, I don't mean to be. I know there are a lot of nice Christians out there. It is just some of the things I have seen on TV, on YT and elsewhere online tend to shine a bad light on Christianity.
> 
> I was actually thinking about this today while I was out with a friend. It isn't a group itself that is or causes problems, it is a select few people within any group that cause the groups problems, and this goes for any group, religious or other. It is this small minority that the media concentrate on which in turn sheds a bad light on what ever group the media is reporting on.


Well that's your problem. The media only portrays the bad Christians, because that's the only thing that will get them ratings. There's a greater number of moderate Christians who're nice people and not raving maniacs. You just don't notice them because they don't stand with a megaphone and yell in peoples ears about their religion.
"When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to stand on street corners to be seen by men." 
Most seem to have forgotten that.


Lastdirewolf said:


> The Bible is actually pretty poorly written, grammatically at least.
> 
> And blah blah said blah blah blah, to the sons of Blah: son blah, and blah, and sister blah, and blah, and blah, and bleep; and bleepbloop said boop to blah blah, and it...you get the picture.
> 
> And and and and and and, run on sentences!


Look, something that's insulting a religious text without actually adding anything of value to the argument.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 1, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> Well that's your problem. The media only portrays the bad Christians, because that's the only thing that will get them ratings.



I find the opposite to be true: that if Christianity is involved, it takes a story that is truly beyond the pale to get any play in the media at all, that reporting tends to slant in their favor far more than it should, and the story dies faster than it would have otherwise.


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Mar 1, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> Look, something that's insulting a religious text without actually adding anything of value to the argument.


 
It makes so much sense since it was written a LONG time ago, within fifty years when Jesus died. Grammar does not matter at all to this argument. I hope he was being sarcastic.


----------



## Rsyk (Mar 1, 2010)

Lobar said:


> I find the opposite to be true: that if Christianity is involved, it takes a story that is truly beyond the pale to get any play in the media at all, that reporting tends to slant in their favor far more than it should, and the story dies faster than it would have otherwise.


Huh. I've not really noticed that. But whenever I hear stories that mention Christianity at all, they tend to slant towards the negative.
And I don't watch news. 



Dragon-Shark said:


> It makes so much sense since it was written a LONG time ago, within fifty years when Jesus died. Grammar does not matter at all to this argument. I hope he was being sarcastic.


Well, you also have to consider the Bible is translated as well, meaning that it's from a language that has fundamentally different grammatical rules.

And no, he's not being sarcastic, just insulting. It's what he does.


----------



## Darkwing (Mar 1, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> The Bible is actually pretty poorly written, grammatically at least.
> 
> And blah blah said blah blah blah, to the sons of Blah: son blah, and blah, and sister blah, and blah, and blah, and bleep; and bleepbloop said boop to blah blah, and it...you get the picture.
> 
> And and and and and and, run on sentences!



It's not written poorly (At least to the people living during that time). It's written in ancient text, don't expect it to be written the same way as modern english.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 1, 2010)

What the hell?


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Mar 1, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> And no, he's not being sarcastic, just insulting. It's what he does.


 
If thats what he always does, thats pretty bad o.=.o


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Mar 1, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> Well that's your problem. The media only portrays the bad Christians, because that's the only thing that will get them ratings. There's a greater number of moderate Christians who're nice people and not raving maniacs. You just don't notice them because they don't stand with a megaphone and yell in peoples ears about their religion.
> "When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to stand on street corners to be seen by men."
> Most seem to have forgotten that.



You're right. I had forgotten the number of times I got stopped by christians standing in the street handing out fliers for some big event their church was holding locally. and they were actually rather polite, always asked if I went to church, was I religious, did I believe in god. And they did seem to respect my answers.

Yes I believe in god. I just don't believe I must visit a church each week to worship him, I don't even believe it is necessary to worship him anyway.


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Mar 1, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> You're right. I had forgotten the number of times I got stopped by christians standing in the street handing out fliers for some big event their church was holding locally. and they were actually rather polite, always asked if I went to church, was I religious, did I believe in god. And they did seem to respect my answers.
> 
> Yes I believe in god. I just don't believe I must visit a church each week to worship him, I don't even believe it is necessary to worship him anyway.


 Most Christians, believe it or not, are polite and tolerant of others. They are taught to be tolerant and respectful, regardless of people's religion. It's just the minority that makes them seem like the radical Evangelists


----------



## Rsyk (Mar 1, 2010)

Dragon-Shark said:


> Most Christians, believe it or not, are polite and tolerant of others. They are taught to be tolerant and respectful, regardless of people's religion. It's just the minority that makes them seem like the radical Evangelists


And that's also the reason why we have to tolerate radicals within the religion. Most people find it as a fault within Christianity, but the fact is, we literally cannot do anything to stop radicals, without compromising our own beliefs.
"He who is not against you is for you."
If they're not doing anything that directly harms Christianity by it's very nature, we're not supposed to do anything other than to say, "That's not us, that's them." Anything else, like teaching against certain churches practices specifically, would be intolerance.


----------



## Telnac (Mar 1, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> And that's also the reason why we have to tolerate radicals within the religion. Most people find it as a fault within Christianity, but the fact is, we literally cannot do anything to stop radicals, without compromising our own beliefs.
> "He who is not against you is for you."
> If they're not doing anything that directly harms Christianity by it's very nature, we're not supposed to do anything other than to say, "That's not us, that's them." Anything else, like teaching against certain churches practices specifically, would be intolerance.


Uh, not really.  The fucktards who slap on man-made rules and then teach them as though they're part of the Ten Commandments are the same boat as the religious leaders of Jesus' day.  Jesus utterly _*unloaded*_ on those people, and those same arguments apply to the hypocrite legalistic Christians of today.

So yes, I argue against them, and vehemently so.  They're driving would-be seekers _*away*_ from Christ.  How can any Christian not condemn that?  So what I do is quite simple: I quote Matthew Chapter 23 to them... which is the chapter where Jesus lays into the fucktards who were driving people away from God 2000 years ago.

For those who'd like to read what He said, I think you'll find His criticism quite descriptive of the holier-than-thou pricks of today:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23&version=NIV


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 1, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> Look, something that's insulting a religious text without actually adding anything of value to the argument.



Not necessarily The text, but how it is written. 

Though your butthurtness is coming in loud and clear.


To everyone else.that replied to me: you guys are tacking on your own modifiers to what I said. So you're creating arguments based on something you're assuming I said.

And that's not how this game works
:V


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Mar 1, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Not necessarily The text, but how it is written.
> 
> Though your butthurtness is coming in loud and clear.
> 
> ...


Nah, we're putting it down, did you actually think we're arguing it? And who said we weren't going to argue with you? Just keep telling yourself lies lol. All we stated is that your argument has no sentimental value or interest and is off of pure ignorance.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 2, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> And that's also the reason why we have to tolerate radicals within the religion. Most people find it as a fault within Christianity, but the fact is, we literally cannot do anything to stop radicals, without compromising our own beliefs.
> "He who is not against you is for you."
> If they're not doing anything that directly harms Christianity by it's very nature, we're not supposed to do anything other than to say, "That's not us, that's them." Anything else, like teaching against certain churches practices specifically, would be intolerance.



First and foremost, this is utter bullshit.  Why should a religious organization tolerate radicals that are tearing it apart from the inside out?   We don't expect the Shi'ites or the Sunnis to dust off their hands and say 'well..we can't do anything against radicals because it compromises our own beliefs'.  Muslims are now _one _of the most persecuted people in the US and England thanks to Bin Ladin.  Tolerance for radical religious extremists bring about people like Osama, Fred Phelps, and David Koresh.  And by not reigning them in they do more damage not just to the credibility of their faith, but sometimes to the lives of other people.   They need to be held accountable for their actions, their teachings, and the damage that they do if any has been caused.

I do not understand why 100 Huntley St. forces Pat Robertson into early retirement.  Christians have shunned him, yes, but by not calling him to own up to the responsibility of his words, Christianity comes off as cowardly at best, or crazy at worst.  Remember that _silence gives consent_ in this case.  100 Huntley St. used to be a credible, shining jewel in Christian Ministries.  Now it's a joke.



Telnac said:


> Uh, not really.  The fucktards who slap on man-made rules and then teach them as though they're part of the Ten Commandments are the same boat as the religious leaders of Jesus' day.  Jesus utterly _*unloaded*_ on those people, and those same arguments apply to the hypocrite legalistic Christians of today.
> 
> So yes, I argue against them, and vehemently so.  They're driving would-be seekers _*away*_ from Christ.  How can any Christian not condemn that?  So what I do is quite simple: I quote Matthew Chapter 23 to them... which is the chapter where Jesus lays into the fucktards who were driving people away from God 2000 years ago.
> 
> ...



Amen.  *bookmarks link*  Methinks I should start sending that link out to Focus on the Family


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 2, 2010)

Dragon-Shark said:


> Nah, we're putting it down, did you actually think we're arguing it? And who said we weren't going to argue with you? Just keep telling yourself lies lol. All we stated is that your argument has no sentimental value or interest and is off of pure ignorance.



To put it down, it may help understanding what exactlt was actually said.


----------



## KashakuTatsu (Mar 2, 2010)

Not that I support said book, but it is a translation of an ancient language that has been manipulated over the years into different versions. 

Just like translating the Enuma Elish comes out with interesting sentences if not re-written in proper context XD


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Mar 3, 2010)

Telnac said:


> I agree that the OT is awesome.  There's some sick stuff in there, but there's some incredibly cool stuff as well.  I have to disagree about the Bible being poorly written, tho.  It's a collection of books by many authors spanning hundreds of years.  Even if you believe (as I do) that it was divinely inspired, there's going to be many different writing styles... some easier to read & understand than others.



You'd think that a "divine" text would be more coherent and have a consistent message in its entirety.

After all, God is perfect, so why isn't his word perfect too?



> I agree that the Bible should be read more than taught, but let's be honest: few people sit down & read the Bible cover to cover.  But is that so different than a textbook for a class in college?  Few students sit down and read their textbooks from cover to cover (even if they're supposed to.)  So how to professors deal with that?  They gave lectures on the subject.



Given that the Bible is a little different from textbooks (with it being considered the word of god etc.), the analogy is kinda faulty.



> I guess I'm rare in that I find the Bible fascinating, even the disgusting parts (heck, especially the disgusting parts) so I've read it cover to cover multiple times.  Doing so is what opened my eyes to the fact that most ministers are teaching it wrong.



The Bible's an interesting book, but I consider no more divine than, say, Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions or the Egyptian Book of the Dead.


----------

