yikes. some people in this thread need to study some christian theology before making claims about a book they clearly don't understand.

5/2/2009 1:02:02 AM

Quote :

"The truth is this doesnt affect ANY of us. Except those people in LA that it may have saved... but lets not count them."

Sorry, I just noticed this from page 1, but what people in LA, exactly? Please tell me you're not talking about the Library Tower (or the "Liberty Tower", as Bush and co. tended to call it). Because that's bullshit.

5/2/2009 1:56:38 PM

Quote :

"Because that's bullshit. "

Ok great. Do you mind sending over where you got your info from?

It might be false info. But going from the memo release and Cheney's interview that it worked, I have enough info to think it we got intel that helped.

Here is the full memo, if you would like to read it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/pdf/OLCmemo_May30_Part1.pdf?sid=ST2009041602877

5/2/2009 5:53:09 PM

^ Have you read the other torture thread?

Zubaidah gave up what he knew before being tortured:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

The LA plot was foiled BEFORE KSM was ever captured: http://vyan.blogspot.com/2009/04/library-plot-was-foiled-before-ksm-was.html
and
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/23/723640/-The-torture-prevented-a-west-coast-9-11-lie

FBI guy says no plots were ever foiled from torture:
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2008/12/torture200812?printable=true¤tPage=all

5/2/2009 8:31:58 PM

Quote :

"Newsflash: People who put serious stock in the racist transcripts of ancient tribesmen more prone to be barbaric and short-sighted."

5/3/2009 12:09:36 AM

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=20701

about how the top nazi and american interrogators in WWII agreed that violence only harmed the quality of intelligence gained from interrogation.\

Quote :

"Stephens did not eschew torture out of mercy. This was no squishy liberal: the eye was made of tin, and the rest of him out of tungsten. (Indeed, he was disappointed that only 16 spies were executed during the war.) His motives were strictly practical. “Never strike a man. It is unintelligent, for the spy will give an answer to please, an answer to escape punishment. And having given a false answer, all else depends upon the false premise.” Confessions extracted by inflicting pain are most likely to be whatever the victim believes the torturer desires to hear, whatever is necessary to stop the agony. "

5/3/2009 9:03:34 AM

Greatest generation, my ass. Those guys were pussies.

LET'S SMOKE 'EM OUT OF THEIR HOLES LIKE THE GENTLE CARPENTER!!!

5/3/2009 5:42:03 PM

Quote :

"yikes. some people in this thread need to study some christian theology before making claims about a book they clearly don't understand."

Haha, yeah...this is a classic. I'm sure you have some special understanding of the bible that outsiders can't really understand, right? Right. How about you, I don't know...read the bible. I don't mean just the parts that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, I mean the whole thing. I don't think you could legitimately defend the actions of God in the old testament.

All I have to do is be able to open the bible and point to one scripture where God commits or condones an immoral act. At that point, I can discount the entire book as not actually having divine properties. A book written by such a divine being would be perfect, otherwise it's just another book written by humans that make errors.

5/3/2009 5:58:45 PM

Quote :

"I don't mean just the parts that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, I mean the whole thing."

One of the major points of the New Testament is that it overwrites a lot of the rules and guidelines in the Old Testament. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much point to it, now would there?

Quote :

"All I have to do is be able to open the bible and point to one scripture where God commits or condones an immoral act."

This statement seems to miss the point of belief in Judeo-Christian god. If such a god exists, he is, almost by definition, incapable of committing an immoral act. He may commit an act you consider immoral, but if such a god exists, he is the source of all morality, and thus able to provide nuance/adjustments/changes/whatever-you-want-to-call-it to the code as he sees fit, or in accordance with differing situations.

5/4/2009 4:42:30 AM

In other words, God is kinda like Richard Nixon.

5/4/2009 6:00:08 AM

Quote :

"if such a god exists, he is the source of all morality, and thus able to provide nuance/adjustments/changes/whatever-you-want-to-call-it to the code as he sees fit, or in accordance with differing situations."

Thank you for explaining that you have no problem with your god's blatant inconsistencies as he is portrayed in the Old and New Testaments. I suppose you would offer up similar bullshit when presented with evidence of god supporting and commanding rape, murder, and genocide, among other things.

5/4/2009 6:57:44 AM

Quote :

"One of the major points of the New Testament is that it overwrites a lot of the rules and guidelines in the Old Testament. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much point to it, now would there?"

If you believe this, then you are admitting that morality is relative. At one point, something was considered morally wrong. But at a later point, it was not considered morally wrong. By doing that, you're saying that there is no real, objective moral truth than spans all space and time. This is inconsistent with an all-powerful, all-knowing, unchanging God from which we derive our morality.

Quote :

"This statement seems to miss the point of belief in Judeo-Christian god. If such a god exists, he is, almost by definition, incapable of committing an immoral act. He may commit an act you consider immoral, but if such a god exists, he is the source of all morality, and thus able to provide nuance/adjustments/changes/whatever-you-want-to-call-it to the code as he sees fit, or in accordance with differing situations."

Yes, he may commit an act that I consider immoral. And, according to the bible, he has on many occasions. On the subject of what is and isn't wrong, my opinion is all that matters to me. I believe that slavery is wrong. I believe that rape is wrong. I believe that killing innocent people is wrong. I believe that human sacrifice is wrong. My morality, whether or not it is correct, is better than the morality outlined by the bible.

Now, can you actually say that you want to side with God on issues of morality? Was it ever right to enslave humans? At any point in our history? If so, why was it okay then, but not now? If not, then why didn't God command that slavery was wrong, just like he did for so many other seemingly trivial things?

5/4/2009 12:19:04 PM

As long as you do not get on the topic of rituals, who is better jesus v Muhammed, and scripture differences you would think the Evangelical right and the Fundamentalist Islamic regime's would get along.

Both group tend to favor authoritarian regimes (although evangelicals like to pretend they believe in democracy) that incite religious moral doctrine into a strict attitude toward social freedoms.
Also, both believe their chosen religion is better and should in incorporated into gov't policy besides just being the state religion.

Many of our moonbat Jesus Bible thumping americans would feel right at home with a strict sharia law country where...
- Alcohol is prohibited
- Woman are exepected to dress conservatively (albeit full burkas in some middle eastern countries)
- No Homos
- Drugs are bad
- No gambling
- A lot of music/movies censored
- Public prayer
- An us v. them attitude
- Abortions illegal
- Blind patriotism towards ones country


[Edited on May 4, 2009 at 12:56 PM. Reason : l]

5/4/2009 12:54:32 PM

Quote :

"- A lot of music/movies censored"

This seems to be a cross platform issue (see Hillary Clinton)

Quote :

"- Public prayer"

Who is against public prayer? I wouldn't want to live somewhere it's prohibited.

Quote :

"- Blind patriotism towards ones country"

What islamist country is blindly patriotic? They seem to be more about fighting for islam than any country.

[Edited on May 5, 2009 at 12:43 AM. Reason : Also, everyone favors authoritarian regimes when their man is in charge...]

5/5/2009 12:42:45 AM

Quote :

"Who is against public prayer? I wouldn't want to live somewhere it's prohibited."

Gee I don't know maybe Jesus Christ.

5/5/2009 1:16:54 AM

I definitely wouldn't say I support torture. I would never picket at the White House in favor of it. But I really don't care that much if it goes on.

I mean, can anyone here say that IF we could have prevented 9-11 by torturing 100 suspected terrorists, would you have done it? Without debating the effectiveness of torture, I would without a doubt say yes.

If you don't think torture goes on, regardless of who is in office or regardless of what the official policy is, keep dreaming. It does and it always will.

A lot of people claim to have this amazing moral compass, which is proudly displayed in classrooms and on the internet, but that's where it stops. I am more of a realist on the matter. if I could maybe trade 1000 whacko Muslims for a few Americans, I'd gladly make the trade. Let's be honest here.... there are about a bazillion starving Somali children, but if I could trade a SuperBowl win for 100,000 of them being able to eat, I wouldn't do it. And I bet deep down most people are the same way but just don't admit it.

5/5/2009 3:07:34 AM

^^ He just said not to pray only to be seen, but to be sincere.

5/5/2009 3:54:09 AM

^
Are y'all talking about the same thing?
When I read "public prayer" I'm thinking that means government-led prayer. Like prayer in public schools or a mayor leading the whole town in a public prayer. (...a clear violation of the 1st amendment.)

...not simply instances of individuals praying in public areas.

5/5/2009 6:53:17 AM

Quote :

"there are about a bazillion starving Somali children, but if I could trade a SuperBowl win for 100,000 of them being able to eat, I wouldn't do it."

You are one of the most horrible human beings ever to live on this planet.

5/5/2009 7:09:51 AM

He's honest; I don't give a shit about the Super Bowl, but you don't see me selling all of my possessions and giving all my money to starving Somalian children. I must also be the worst person in the history of existence.

5/5/2009 8:55:45 AM

You equate a superbowl loss with giving away all your money and posessions?

5/5/2009 9:47:52 AM

Quote :

"^^ He just said not to pray only to be seen, but to be sincere."

Also gave highly specific instructions, but let's pick and choose what to deem important.

5/5/2009 10:19:33 AM

Lumex, you missed the point. Feeble's example was hyperbole to suggest that people are not as moral as they portray on internet message boards. OEPII1 either is an idiot and took it at face value or was being sarcastic.

I was responding, assuming the former and followed up with hyperbole of my own. But the point remains; there are plenty of moral issues that we ignore (starving children in somalia for example) but at the same time we proudly display our morality. But then, isn't that the point of a subject-oriented message board? Damn you FeebleMinded!

5/5/2009 11:04:23 AM

He wasnt using hyperbole, he was either being serious or he was trolling.

Quote :

"I am more of a realist on the matter"

Quote :

"Let's be honest here.... "

\

5/5/2009 11:09:16 AM

Quote :

"This is inconsistent with an all-powerful, all-knowing, unchanging God from which we derive our morality."

I don't see why a supreme creator-god should have to respond to all situations in the same way. A fair number of people would agree, for example, that it's wrong for me to shoot a stranger on the street, but it's fine for me to shoot a criminal breaking into my home. Perhaps there is a vastly larger and more complex analogue to that situation for creator-deities. In 2000 BC, say, the Jews ("God's' chosen people") were an outnumbered band of occasionally enslaved homeless people surrounded by brutal, hostile groups. In 0 AD, they were whining incessantly about Romans who weren't slaughtering and who were, meanwhile, providing a lot of the benefits of Roman civilization. You can see how one of these situations might permit a more violent predisposition, and the other one might warrant sending a dude to say, "Hey, everybody, chill out."

Quote :

"Was it ever right to enslave humans? At any point in our history?"

Well, the Jewish concept of slavery has elements I'm fine with -- indeed, which most people are fine with -- and first among those is its primary implementation as a mean's of punishing criminals. Forced labor for certain offenses is no problem to me. Rules requiring that forced laborers be fed, clothed, and generally be kept safe are also OK with me.

But more importantly, it seems that the Jewish leadership had more to do with keeping slavery around than divine command did. Taking away slavery would have angered the masses, and the leadership had enough trouble without that. And if that's not the case, then my answer is simply that at the time an endorsement of slavery by God must have been necessary at least and moral at most. It wouldn't be the only time in the Bible where God didn't like something but told us we could do it anyway because it was necessary.

5/5/2009 12:08:38 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps there is a vastly larger and more complex analogue to that situation for creator-deities. "

Wow. I tried to respond to this without sounding insulting, but I can't. Let's try this. I disagree with the logic behind rationalizing inconsistencies in the Bible with metaphysics. There.

5/5/2009 1:00:24 PM

^^ Rationalizing slavery because it's in the Bible, just because it was "a different time" with "different circumstances", is pretty pathetic....

5/5/2009 1:05:49 PM

Quote :

"its not like we are grabbing every asshole off the street and waterboarding him.. Lets gain some perspective. "

In some cases this is precisely what we have done. We go into a dirt poor region and bribe people for info (my neighbor is a terrorist, gimme the money) and then break the neighbor down until he gives unreliable information (my neighbor is a terrorist, stop drowning me!).

5/5/2009 5:58:32 PM

Quote :

"Rationalizing slavery because it's in the Bible, just because it was "a different time" with "different circumstances", is pretty pathetic...."

You've made it clear a number of times that you think it's pretty pathetic to just believe in God. Of course, since you don't, any rationalization that involves God or his words is going to be very silly. I could just as well be rationalizing slavery because it's in Huckleberry Finn or some other work of fiction.

As for the circumstances...there are many things with which circumstances dictate morality. It's OK to shoot a home invader, not OK to shoot a stranger. It's OK to have sex in your house, not OK to have sex in the middle of Times Square. It's OK to give your dad a bottle of liquor but not OK to give your 8-year old kid one. So maybe slavery was acceptable because it was used against wrongdoers, or because of serious outside pressures, or because humanity as a species wasn't mature enough to know better. Or maybe for none of those reasons. Unfortunately enough for my position in this argument, God is not obligated to explain His rationale for everything to me.

5/6/2009 2:28:51 PM

Well, Grummy, our problem with that is that it sounds like a cop out. "The Lord works in mysterious ways" has been used to explain away incongruities between what he Bible says and the way things actually work for millennia.

At first I thought that this was the easy way out, but man I bet it takes a lot of mental fortitude to look at how fucked up the Bible and organized religion is still go along with it.

5/6/2009 2:56:13 PM

This is garbage. I find it difficult to believe America has any real Christians anyway. If I had to compare i'd say Christians in America are the same side of the coin as the crazy Muslim extremists they're fighting.

5/6/2009 3:15:08 PM

Quote :

"Well, Grummy, our problem with that is that it sounds like a cop out."

Obviously enough I'm aware of that. There's not much I can do about it, though, because it'd be the same with anything else. Why do you post on the wolfweb? I can make guesses -- maybe even educated ones -- but that's all I can do. Even if you tell me why you post on the wolfweb, there's no way I can bee 100% sure it's the truth.

Same thing with God. I don't know why he does what he does because I'm not Him. And what insight we do have into His thought processes is a large, dense, confusing book that has been translated many times.

5/6/2009 9:19:31 PM

Quote :

"Unfortunately enough for my position in this argument, God is not obligated to explain His rationale for everything to me."

More like "conveniently enough"....

You fucking god-followers are such pathetic and deluded fools. The entity you call "god" is nothing but a fictional character in a long story that keeps getting edited over and over again as long as someone is still willing to read it. (Plus, I'll never get over how most of you refer to god as being male.)

Quote :

"Same thing with God. I don't know why he does what he does because I'm not Him. And what insight we do have into His thought processes is a large, dense, confusing book that has been translated many times."

Oops! You twice forget to capitalize the word "he" -- and you know He is watching.

5/6/2009 11:38:09 PM

Willy Nilly I can't imagine how you got to be so arrogant and full of yourself that you refuse to accept that there is even a possibility of a higher power than yourself. I will admit, I used to be a Bible-thumping Christian, but after researching a lot of things I came to realize that there were in fact inconsistancies in what people said and in things I read. I definitely backed off a lot in my "blind faith" but wow.... people like you are a real work. There are millions of people who believe in God's existance... scholars, doctors, people from every walk of life. Yet an arrogant dickhole like yourself puts yourself and your belief (or non-belief) above all these people.... you sound like a great guy.

The plain and simple fact is I do not know if God exists. I want to believe he does, but I really don't think that there is any way to be 100% certain. But one thing is for sure, I am not going to refute the very possibility of some kind of higher power.

People like you love to start/post in threads like these and start talking shit about "Christians"... for what reason I do not know. But equating the views of some Christians with all Christians is absolutely stupid.... there is no other word for it. Just because ten NCSU fans get thrown out of the game for getting drunk and yelling racial slurs at the opposing players, does that mean all NCSU fans are drunk racists? Or even many? No, it does not. You find an isolated survey with a small percentage differential (12%) in who knows what kind of sample size, and now you can make generalizations about not just millions of Christians, but from your deniance of any type of God, the millions of people who believe in any form of higher power. There is absolutely no other word for you besides stupid.

5/7/2009 3:01:58 AM

Quote :

"Obviously enough I'm aware of that. There's not much I can do about it, though, because it'd be the same with anything else. Why do you post on the wolfweb? I can make guesses -- maybe even educated ones -- but that's all I can do. Even if you tell me why you post on the wolfweb, there's no way I can bee 100% sure it's the truth. Same thing with God. I don't know why he does what he does because I'm not Him. And what insight we do have into His thought processes is a large, dense, confusing book that has been translated many times."

The difference is that no one is claiming disco_stu to be the infallible master of the universe.

5/7/2009 7:31:12 AM

Quote :

"The difference is that no one is claiming disco_stu to be the infallible master of the universe."

I proclaim that disco_stu is indeed the infallible master of the universe. I hope none of you are so arrogant as to refuse to accept that there is even a possibility that disco_stu is the infallible master of the universe.

I support torture as long as both chicks are hot.

5/7/2009 8:23:06 AM

^
lol

Quote :

"There is absolutely no other word for you besides stupid."

Um, no, you're the one that's stupid. Where the fuck did I generalize christians? Where did I "equate the views of some christians with all christians"? Oh right.. I didn't.

I mean, who the fuck are you? It sure seems like you're the one generalizing... namely atheists: When you said "people like you", what people are you talking about? You don't know me.

Quote :

"I can't imagine how you got to be so arrogant and full of yourself that you refuse to accept that there is even a possibility of a higher power than yourself"

I guess it happened the same way so many god-followers became so arrogant and full of themselves that they refuse to accept that there is even a possibility of there not being a higher power.

Quote :

"There are millions of people who believe in God's existance... scholars, doctors, people from every walk of life. Yet an arrogant dickhole like yourself puts yourself and your belief (or non-belief) above all these people...."

So? There are millions of people who believe in total godlessness... scholars, doctors, people from every walk of life. And they put themselves and their beliefs above all the millions of people who believe in God's existence. What's the big deal? Are people supposed to regard the diametrically opposite beliefs of others on the same ground as their own? What?

Quote :

"The plain and simple fact is I do not know if God exists. I want to believe he does, but...."

What's with the "he"? If you claim to simply not know whether this entity you call "god" exists, then how do you know that it is a "he"? I mean, I believe in godlessness -- however, even I understand that a "god" or a "higher power" would very very likely be without gender. Sex (gender) is something for sexually reproducing animals -- why would a god need that? You try to sound all innocent and open-minded, but you still use "he"? Who told you god is a "he" and not simply an "it"? Why listen to them?

Quote :

"I really don't think that there is any way to be 100% certain"

So... you're agnostic?

Quote :

"But one thing is for sure, I am not going to refute the very possibility of some kind of higher power."

Will you refute the very possibility of complete godlessness? Why is the question nearly always: "Do you believe in god?", and not, "Do you believe in god, godlessness, or neither?"

Quote :

"People like you love to start/post in threads like these and start talking shit about "Christians"... "

People like me? Which people? (You're not generalizing are you? ) ...I've not talked shit about christians.... I didn't even mention the word "christian" until this post.

Quote :

"an isolated survey with a small percentage differential (12%)"

Nice armchair statistics, there. Never mind that you're explaining the process of generalizing groups -- something I simply didn't do... (nice straw-man)

Quote :

"you can make generalizations about not just millions of Christians, but from your deniance of any type of God, the millions of people who believe in any form of higher power"

But again, I'm not generalizing -- I'm merely stating what I believe is factual. I didn't say, "In general, god-followers are pathetic and deluded." I claimed that they all are, as a matter of fact. You don't generalize matters of fact. For instance, you don't say, "In general, prime numbers only have two factors." Why? Because it is a fact that all prime numbers only have two factors. No generalization necessary.

[Edited on May 7, 2009 at 8:43 AM. Reason : ]

5/7/2009 8:32:04 AM

Quote :

"I proclaim that disco_stu is indeed the infallible master of the universe."

Oh shit, that's how it starts. Soon there will be multitudes following me and proclaiming the holiness of my drinking gourd or my shoe.

5/7/2009 8:37:26 AM

Which is it Lord!? The Gourd or the Shoe? I must know.

5/7/2009 8:57:16 AM

Quote :

"More like "conveniently enough"...."

How in the sweet blue fuck is it even remotely convenient for me? It would be much easier for me to argue my position if God laid out a clear rationale for everything He's done. As it is, I'm well aware that I'm arguing from a position of serious weakness.

Quote :

"Plus, I'll never get over how most of you refer to god as being male."

"It" sounds too impersonal and "he" is the traditional wording. And frankly, of all the things in religion and the Bible you could attack as being sexist, I'm not sure how choice of pronoun even registers on the offensiveness scale.

Quote :

"The difference is that no one is claiming disco_stu to be the infallible master of the universe."

True enough, but what about being the infallible master of the universe carries with it the requirement that you explain your every action to everybody?

Quote :

"Where the fuck did I generalize christians?"

I would think that the part where you called us all "pathetic and deluded fools" qualifies, though I suppose you weren't just generalizing Christians with that. You were being even more generalizing regarding the beliefs of most of the planet's population.

5/7/2009 11:33:49 AM

Quote :

"You fucking god-followers are such pathetic and deluded fools."

lol, no generalization there

5/7/2009 11:49:34 AM

Quote :

"You fucking god-followers are such pathetic and deluded fools."

I could probably name 100 people who believed in God and who could absolutely crush your intellect. Off the top of my head.

[Edited on May 7, 2009 at 12:32 PM. Reason : Like not even close.]

5/7/2009 12:31:14 PM

Quote :

"I could probably name 100 people who believed in God and who could absolutely crush your intellect. Off the top of my head."

And every single one is a pathetic and deluded fool. No generalization. If all of a class are, and have always been a particular way, no inference is needed to refer to the general class. All people who believe in god are pathetic and deluded fools. Fact.

Quote :

"How in the sweet blue fuck is it even remotely convenient for me?"

Because you can claim anything you want, and simply cop out of having to explain it. Unfortunate? No. Convenient? Highly.

Quote :

"It" sounds too impersonal"

Not to me, it doesn't. Of course, I don't even believe god exists, let alone that god is personal.

[Edited on May 7, 2009 at 12:45 PM. Reason : ]

5/7/2009 12:38:48 PM

Are we really going to keep respoding to such blatant trolling?

5/7/2009 12:53:42 PM

I stopped posting once I reached the "God works in mysterious ways" argument. I mean, really? Christians know they can't defend the bible once we get down to brass tacks. They just really really want to believe that it's true. Many Christians are not fools, some are actually quite intelligent and logical in most other areas of their life. However, when you've grown up around an entire social structure (church, family) that reinforces your belief in this, it's a big step to admit that it might be rubbish.

Quote :

"You fucking god-followers are such pathetic and deluded fools."

I don't think they're always pathetic, but they are deluded. Will any Christian say honestly that God has spoken to them? And I don't mean you just thought about it really hard and forced your brain to believe that you were hearing from God. Also, this God would have needed to specify that he was, indeed, the Judeo-Christian God. Or have you always just assumed that it was that God, since that was the religion you were raised in?

5/7/2009 1:53:36 PM

Quote :

"Because you can claim anything you want, and simply cop out of having to explain it. Unfortunate? No. Convenient? Highly. "

What was I claiming? I offered a handful of possible explanations for something, and admitted that I didn't know which, if any, was most accurate. People do it all the time, and they only start complaining about "mysterious ways" when God is involved. You've never been in a history class where the teacher offered some possible explanations for why a historical figure did a certain thing? And when the teacher admitted nobody knew for sure, did you roll your eyes and say, "Here's another delusional idiot with his 'Khrushchev acts in mysterious ways' crap."

Quote :

"Not to me, it doesn't. Of course, I don't even believe god exists, let alone that god is personal. "

Well no shit. But surely you can understand how "it" would come off as impersonal to someone who did believe in such a God. You wouldn't refer to your great-great-grandfather as "it," and you've probably never met him. I'll freely admit that there's probably more evidence around for the existence of your great-great-grandfather than there is for God, but the point stands.

Quote :

"Will any Christian say honestly that God has spoken to them?"

If they could, do you honestly think they'd do it on the wolfweb? And if they did say so, is there anything they can possibly say that would make you believe them?

It'd be a waste of time, and anybody who had such a (presumably important) experience would hopefully have the sense not to let it get molested by the internet.

5/7/2009 6:46:41 PM

Quote :

"And every single one is a pathetic and deluded fool. No generalization. If all of a class are, and have always been a particular way, no inference is needed to refer to the general class. All people who believe in god are pathetic and deluded fools. Fact."

And each is unbelievably better than you* so sit the fuck down.

*Fact.

5/7/2009 8:04:22 PM

Quote :

"I stopped posting once I reached the "God works in mysterious ways" argument. I mean, really? Christians know they can't defend the bible once we get down to brass tacks. They just really really want to believe that it's true. Many Christians are not fools, some are actually quite intelligent and logical in most other areas of their life. However, when you've grown up around an entire social structure (church, family) that reinforces your belief in this, it's a big step to admit that it might be rubbish."

right. b/c no one ever converts to christianity and defends the faith. wait...lee strobel, tim keller, ravi zacharias, etc.

5/9/2009 12:35:42 AM

And GrumpyGOP, who never went to church a day in his life until he converted at 17.

But I'm a pathetic, delusional idiot, in the eyes of more than just Willy Nilly.

I'll live.

5/9/2009 1:58:16 AM

Quote :

"What was I claiming? I offered a handful of possible explanations for something, and admitted that I didn't know which, if any, was most accurate...."

Ha! Go ahead and keep comparing actual history of reality with a bunch of fantasy and make believe. You "don't know which, if any, was most accurate"? Here's a hint -- the explanations that are actually possible are among the most accurate.

I mean, we all know the laws of physics didn't exist back then -- you could walk on water, raise the dead, turn water into wine, etc. No, you're right Grumpy... comparing speculation over whether or not some historical figure did something we know to be possible with speculation over whether or not some historical figure did something we know to be impossible is a perfectly fine comparison. You can believe in whatever nonsense you want, and everyone should accept it....

Quote :

"You wouldn't refer to your great-great-grandfather as "it"

My, and everyone else's great-great-grandfather was a human male. God, however, is an "it". Plus, why do you and others who believe in invisible sky daddy capitalize the [male] pronouns you use to refer to Him? That is some seriously dumb shit.

Quote :

"But surely you can understand how "it" would come off as impersonal to someone who did believe in such a God."

Sure, but only if that person not only believed in a god, but also believed that that god is both human/male and sentient.

Quote :

"And each is unbelievably better than you* so sit the fuck down. *Fact."

Haha, how foolish.... Str8Foolish thinks that being "better" is a matter of fact.

Quote :

"However, when you've grown up around an entire social structure (church, family) that reinforces your belief in this, it's a big step to admit that it might be rubbish."

Quote :

"right. b/c no one ever converts to christianity and defends the faith"

Quote :

"And GrumpyGOP, who never went to church a day in his life until he converted at 17. But I'm a pathetic, delusional idiot, in the eyes of more than just Willy Nilly."

Yes... Someone who wasn't raised in a god-following religion, but somehow still managed to delude themself into believing it, is a pathetic, delusional fool.

[Edited on May 9, 2009 at 5:19 AM. Reason : ]

5/9/2009 5:16:55 AM