What if Christians are Wrong?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

Why are you botherin with any of this? You have literally no clue what the bible or the Christian faith is about. You have a 1000% failure rate in every instance where something even remotely related to either has fallen from your lips. The flexors and extensors for a couple of your fingers of one hand are getting overdeveloped by all this keyboard elliptical work you’re doing on the L and O keys. Unless you’re usin both hands?!?!?! We’ll skip that bit of personal information for now. =] Repent. Forsake your own life of darkness, trust everything you are and everything have to the risen Christ for your righteousness before the God who is there and watch His life become yours as yours becomes His.

OR… you can keep making idiotic posts.

362

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Deuteronomy 15:6: “Thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shalt not reign over thee.”

Seeing how the Bible tells Jews how to conquer the world, I think we can conclude that the whole thing is simply evil.[/quote]It’s almost impossible for me to believe that my beautiful Jesus is not drawing you home man. LOL!! If you think I’m just taunting you, you’re wrong. You’re a smart guy and this what you’re reduced to? I won’t even tell anybody here if you come to church with us. They don’t need to know.
[/quote]

  1. Do you believe in the Old Testament?
  2. Do you believe that we should follow God’s dictates?

If so, you must try to rule the world. The Holy Men and Women of the Bible (see the Deut I posted) ordered you and they were inspired by God.

Say, if God spoke to those holy people, how do we know that God didn’t speak to Richard Dawkins?
[/quote]

Once again, you show tremendous carelessness. Deut. 15:6 is part of a blessing formula, not a command formula. The part of Deut. 15:6 that you CONVENIENTLY left out clearly implies that what you mistakenly took as a command is actually an expansion and explanation of the first clause.

Here, I’ll provide a literal translation from the Hebrew and INCLUDE the part of the passage you CONVENIENTLY left out…

Deut. 15:6 - “For Yahweh your God will bless you, just as he told you, so that you will lend to many nations, and you will not borrow, and you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you.”

Next time, use a more accurate translation, or stop pretending to be a scholar. Real scholars are actually familiar with the views of their opponents.[/quote]

So…Yahweh blesses you so that you’ll have a lot of money. You should lend this out so that you can rule others. Uhhhh…okay…

If Yahweh blesses me with money, why would Yahweh also tell me to never borrow? Why would I need borrow if Yahweh (like Obama) gives me money ‘from his stash’?

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!
[/quote]

And again the pseudo-philospher shows he doesn’t really know how to read. Who said Yahweh would bless ME with money? That promise was uttered thousands of years ago to a distinct people group, not to me. And where does the text introduce the prescriptive “should?” Again, you cannot tell the difference between a command and a blessing statement. No where in the text does it COMMAND them to lend to others.

Moreover, where does it say that the purpose of lending is to rule? Those are two different, essentially unrelated facets of the blessing statement. The point of the passage is that God promised such prosperity that they would be capable of giving to others without ever NEEDING to borrow themselves. It is NOT a command against borrowing. It is NOT a command to rule through lending.

Please learn to read. Please. The fact that you so love Rand raises all KINDS of questions about your capacity for mature thought, but if you are not just a bipolar, lonely man trolling, please learn to read.

363

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[
Moreover, where does it say that the purpose of lending is to rule? Those are two different, essentially unrelated facets of the blessing statement. The point of the passage is that God promised such prosperity that they would be capable of giving to others without ever NEEDING to borrow themselves. It is NOT a command against borrowing. It is NOT a command to rule through lending.

Please learn to read. Please. The fact that you so love Rand raises all KINDS of questions about your capacity for mature thought, but if you are not just a bipolar, lonely man trolling, please learn to read.[/quote]

You ‘will lend to many nations’…doesn’t sound like ‘maybe lend’.

You ‘will rule many nations’…sounds like foreign conquest by loans.

Then again, aren’t Christians supposed to give away everything and wear rags? Lend?

Fun to watch people who aren’t used to logic be confronted by the ‘logic’ of their own absurd religion.

This kind of scam might have worked in the 12th century but people around the world are waking up to the new reality: religion is hogwash and that science (when used rationally) has done more good for more people than all the ‘Hosanas’ and ‘Parting of the waters’ nonsense ever could.

364

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[
Moreover, where does it say that the purpose of lending is to rule? Those are two different, essentially unrelated facets of the blessing statement. The point of the passage is that God promised such prosperity that they would be capable of giving to others without ever NEEDING to borrow themselves. It is NOT a command against borrowing. It is NOT a command to rule through lending.

Please learn to read. Please. The fact that you so love Rand raises all KINDS of questions about your capacity for mature thought, but if you are not just a bipolar, lonely man trolling, please learn to read.[/quote]

You ‘will lend to many nations’…doesn’t sound like ‘maybe lend’.

You ‘will rule many nations’…sounds like foreign conquest by loans.

Then again, aren’t Christians supposed to give away everything and wear rags? Lend?

Fun to watch people who aren’t used to logic be confronted by the ‘logic’ of their own absurd religion.

This kind of scam might have worked in the 12th century but people around the world are waking up to the new reality: religion is hogwash and that science (when used rationally) has done more good for more people than all the ‘Hosanas’ and ‘Parting of the waters’ nonsense ever could.
[/quote]

Why are you pretending to be so dense? Or should we believe that you really don’t know how to read?

OF COURSE it doesn’t say “maybe lend” - it’s a promise! God is telling them “you will lend and not borrow;” that’s blessing, NOT A COMMAND. He doesn’t say, “You should lend” or “you must lend.” He is talking about the results of the blessing. And again, there is nothing in the statement “you will rule over many nations” that refers to loans except YOUR MISREADING of the preceding section.

Please, confront me with the logic of my own absurd religion. You have failed to present anything even remotely resembling logic; you have simply shown that you lack the interpretive skills most college students possess, once again casting down on your claims of being so knowledge in the field of philosophy.

365

HH,

Thank you for making them hate you more than they hate me.

366

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
HH,

Thank you for making them hate you more than they hate me.[/quote]

Your welcome!

Their religion tells them that God’ll give 'em a lot of money, they should lend it out and encumber other countries with debt so as to rule them. So the subject countries either wind up like Greece, simpering like whipped dogs for a handout, or the subject country attacks its creditors by renegging.

Either one results in pain and suffering for the common people, which is the ultimate intent of their religion.

Want proof of that last one? The Catholic Church condemned the use of aenethesia, because man was put on earth to suffer. People should be operated on, screaming in agony, because this religion says so.

Until 1895, the church had the balls of teen boys cut off, so they’d have high pitched voices in the Vatican choir.

Evil. Just pure evil.

367

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[
Moreover, where does it say that the purpose of lending is to rule? Those are two different, essentially unrelated facets of the blessing statement. The point of the passage is that God promised such prosperity that they would be capable of giving to others without ever NEEDING to borrow themselves. It is NOT a command against borrowing. It is NOT a command to rule through lending.

Please learn to read. Please. The fact that you so love Rand raises all KINDS of questions about your capacity for mature thought, but if you are not just a bipolar, lonely man trolling, please learn to read.[/quote]

You ‘will lend to many nations’…doesn’t sound like ‘maybe lend’.

You ‘will rule many nations’…sounds like foreign conquest by loans.

Then again, aren’t Christians supposed to give away everything and wear rags? Lend?

Fun to watch people who aren’t used to logic be confronted by the ‘logic’ of their own absurd religion.

This kind of scam might have worked in the 12th century but people around the world are waking up to the new reality: religion is hogwash and that science (when used rationally) has done more good for more people than all the ‘Hosanas’ and ‘Parting of the waters’ nonsense ever could.
[/quote]

Why are you pretending to be so dense? Or should we believe that you really don’t know how to read?

OF COURSE it doesn’t say “maybe lend” - it’s a promise! God is telling them “you will lend and not borrow;” that’s blessing, NOT A COMMAND. He doesn’t say, “You should lend” or “you must lend.” He is talking about the results of the blessing. And again, there is nothing in the statement “you will rule over many nations” that refers to loans except YOUR MISREADING of the preceding section.

Please, confront me with the logic of my own absurd religion. You have failed to present anything even remotely resembling logic; you have simply shown that you lack the interpretive skills most college students possess, once again casting down on your claims of being so knowledge in the field of philosophy. [/quote]

You’re reading into this what YOU want…“Nah, our wonderful church couldn’t mean THAT!!”

Well, English is English and these dictator-mystics have got you by the cajones, dude.

Kick 'em to the curb while you have a shred of intellectual integrity remaining.

368

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Well, English is English and these dictator-mystics have got you by the cajones, dude.
[/quote]

Exactly - English is English, and if you’re actually serious in your previous statements, you obviously have a poor grasp of the English language. I’m open to reasonable discussion over the textual interpretation with someone who can actually read. You have continued to show that you cannot read.

Dictator-mystics? I’m not a Catholic, so I don’t adhere to the interpretations of others a priori. Maybe you had some experience with bad pentecostal teaching of the prosperity gospel, but that is far from a mainstream interpretive community. There is nothing in that passage, which is directed to Israelites several thousand years ago, that applies directly to me today. God did NOT promise to make ME rich. Anyone who can read that passage can see that. You just have your own ridiculous assumptions about what Christians believe, and now you’re trying to shove them down people’s throats.

Prove to me I’m wrong; don’t just keep giving me your reductionistic (not to mention inaccurate) reading of what the passage HAS to mean. Basic English grammar proves you wrong, bro, and if that weren’t sufficient, THE ORIGINAL HEBREW DOES TOO.

369

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Well, English is English and these dictator-mystics have got you by the cajones, dude.
[/quote]

Exactly - English is English, and if you’re actually serious in your previous statements, you obviously have a poor grasp of the English language. I’m open to reasonable discussion over the textual interpretation with someone who can actually read. You have continued to show that you cannot read.

Dictator-mystics? I’m not a Catholic, so I don’t adhere to the interpretations of others a priori. Maybe you had some experience with bad pentecostal teaching of the prosperity gospel, but that is far from a mainstream interpretive community. There is nothing in that passage, which is directed to Israelites several thousand years ago, that applies directly to me today. God did NOT promise to make ME rich. Anyone who can read that passage can see that. You just have your own ridiculous assumptions about what Christians believe, and now you’re trying to shove them down people’s throats.

Prove to me I’m wrong; don’t just keep giving me your reductionistic (not to mention inaccurate) reading of what the passage HAS to mean. Basic English grammar proves you wrong, bro, and if that weren’t sufficient, THE ORIGINAL HEBREW DOES TOO.[/quote]

Okay, let’s play on your ‘home field’: How would most people reading that passage take its meaning? The Bible was written by people inspired by God, for the benefit of all the people, right? Won’t most of them take that to mean what I wrote? (You betcha they would!)

I’ve met many many people like you before. What you believe is so contradictory that you search for ‘the real meaning’. “Its the HOLY BIBLE! It simply CAN’T mean THAT!!!” Well, it does. The people who wrote that steaming pile of contradictions wrote it exactly so that people like you would think: “Wow, that’s so crazy, it MUST be profound!”

Nope. Its just a steaming pile based in hatred for Man and for Man’s reasoning mind. Look at how for so long religion despised philosophy. Think of Galileo being threatened with torture because he wouldn’t deny the evidence of his own eyes and his own mind.

“Deny your mind and FOLLOW ME!” Nope.

370

You and I just have to meet in real life. I’ll have to really get prayed up to watch my attitude, but it’s a must.

371

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You and I just have to meet in real life. I’ll have to really get prayed up to watch my attitude, but it’s a must.[/quote]

Hmmm…since mysticism wouldn’t work, violence would?

The ultimate argument behind the mystics is the club, the gun, the iron maiden and the rack.

Very revealing post, T!

And now I will leave the Christians alone in their solipsism…maybe…XD

372

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You and I just have to meet in real life. I’ll have to really get prayed up to watch my attitude, but it’s a must.[/quote]

Hmmm…since mysticism wouldn’t work, violence would?

The ultimate argument behind the mystics is the club, the gun, the iron maiden and the rack.

Very revealing post, T!

And now I will leave the Christians alone in their solipsism…maybe…XD
[/quote]I just saw this. Who said anything about violence Skippy. I’m talking about talking. I’d have to get prayed up to prevent myself from manhandling you in a face to face debate in very arrogant and counterproductive manner. Not because you’re unintelligent, but because you are intellectually careless and undisciplined. You have allowed Ayn Rand a wholly undeserved perch on the throne of your mind that has done you a grave disservice. I would welcome the opportunity to charitably yet decisively “help” you with that.

373

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Deuteronomy 15:6: “Thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shalt not reign over thee.”

Seeing how the Bible tells Jews how to conquer the world, I think we can conclude that the whole thing is simply evil.[/quote]It’s almost impossible for me to believe that my beautiful Jesus is not drawing you home man. LOL!! If you think I’m just taunting you, you’re wrong. You’re a smart guy and this what you’re reduced to? I won’t even tell anybody here if you come to church with us. They don’t need to know.
[/quote]

  1. Do you believe in the Old Testament?
  2. Do you believe that we should follow God’s dictates?

If so, you must try to rule the world. The Holy Men and Women of the Bible (see the Deut I posted) ordered you and they were inspired by God.

Say, if God spoke to those holy people, how do we know that God didn’t speak to Richard Dawkins?
[/quote]

Once again, you show tremendous carelessness. Deut. 15:6 is part of a blessing formula, not a command formula. The part of Deut. 15:6 that you CONVENIENTLY left out clearly implies that what you mistakenly took as a command is actually an expansion and explanation of the first clause.

Here, I’ll provide a literal translation from the Hebrew and INCLUDE the part of the passage you CONVENIENTLY left out…

Deut. 15:6 - “For Yahweh your God will bless you, just as he told you, so that you will lend to many nations, and you will not borrow, and you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you.”

Next time, use a more accurate translation, or stop pretending to be a scholar. Real scholars are actually familiar with the views of their opponents.[/quote]

So…Yahweh blesses you so that you’ll have a lot of money. You should lend this out so that you can rule others. Uhhhh…okay…

If Yahweh blesses me with money, why would Yahweh also tell me to never borrow? Why would I need borrow if Yahweh (like Obama) gives me money ‘from his stash’?

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!
[/quote]

And again the pseudo-philospher shows he doesn’t really know how to read. Who said Yahweh would bless ME with money? That promise was uttered thousands of years ago to a distinct people group, not to me. And where does the text introduce the prescriptive “should?” Again, you cannot tell the difference between a command and a blessing statement. No where in the text does it COMMAND them to lend to others.

Moreover, where does it say that the purpose of lending is to rule? Those are two different, essentially unrelated facets of the blessing statement. The point of the passage is that God promised such prosperity that they would be capable of giving to others without ever NEEDING to borrow themselves. It is NOT a command against borrowing. It is NOT a command to rule through lending.

Please learn to read. Please. The fact that you so love Rand raises all KINDS of questions about your capacity for mature thought, but if you are not just a bipolar, lonely man trolling, please learn to read.[/quote]

Thou shalt not feed the troll.

374

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You and I just have to meet in real life. I’ll have to really get prayed up to watch my attitude, but it’s a must.[/quote]

Hmmm…since mysticism wouldn’t work, violence would?

The ultimate argument behind the mystics is the club, the gun, the iron maiden and the rack.

Very revealing post, T!

And now I will leave the Christians alone in their solipsism…maybe…XD
[/quote]I just saw this. Who said anything about violence Skippy. I’m talking about talking. I’d have to get prayed up to prevent myself from manhandling you in a face to face debate in very arrogant and counterproductive manner. Not because you’re unintelligent, but because you are intellectually careless and undisciplined. You have allowed Ayn Rand a wholly undeserved perch on the throne of your mind that has done you a grave disservice. I would welcome the opportunity to charitably yet decisively “help” you with that.
[/quote]

Violence. You would lose your temper and ‘manhandle’ me. Yup…

You couldn’t win an argument because your premises are based on faith. Therefore you would do what all mystics do when confronted by reason…you become irrational. You become violent.

You would then say that the Lord told me to smite this sinner…after you woke up in the hospital.

375

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Deuteronomy 15:6: “Thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shalt not reign over thee.”

Seeing how the Bible tells Jews how to conquer the world, I think we can conclude that the whole thing is simply evil.[/quote]It’s almost impossible for me to believe that my beautiful Jesus is not drawing you home man. LOL!! If you think I’m just taunting you, you’re wrong. You’re a smart guy and this what you’re reduced to? I won’t even tell anybody here if you come to church with us. They don’t need to know.
[/quote]

  1. Do you believe in the Old Testament?
  2. Do you believe that we should follow God’s dictates?

If so, you must try to rule the world. The Holy Men and Women of the Bible (see the Deut I posted) ordered you and they were inspired by God.

Say, if God spoke to those holy people, how do we know that God didn’t speak to Richard Dawkins?
[/quote]

Once again, you show tremendous carelessness. Deut. 15:6 is part of a blessing formula, not a command formula. The part of Deut. 15:6 that you CONVENIENTLY left out clearly implies that what you mistakenly took as a command is actually an expansion and explanation of the first clause.

Here, I’ll provide a literal translation from the Hebrew and INCLUDE the part of the passage you CONVENIENTLY left out…

Deut. 15:6 - “For Yahweh your God will bless you, just as he told you, so that you will lend to many nations, and you will not borrow, and you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you.”

Next time, use a more accurate translation, or stop pretending to be a scholar. Real scholars are actually familiar with the views of their opponents.[/quote]

So…Yahweh blesses you so that you’ll have a lot of money. You should lend this out so that you can rule others. Uhhhh…okay…

If Yahweh blesses me with money, why would Yahweh also tell me to never borrow? Why would I need borrow if Yahweh (like Obama) gives me money ‘from his stash’?

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!
[/quote]

And again the pseudo-philospher shows he doesn’t really know how to read. Who said Yahweh would bless ME with money? That promise was uttered thousands of years ago to a distinct people group, not to me. And where does the text introduce the prescriptive “should?” Again, you cannot tell the difference between a command and a blessing statement. No where in the text does it COMMAND them to lend to others.

Moreover, where does it say that the purpose of lending is to rule? Those are two different, essentially unrelated facets of the blessing statement. The point of the passage is that God promised such prosperity that they would be capable of giving to others without ever NEEDING to borrow themselves. It is NOT a command against borrowing. It is NOT a command to rule through lending.

Please learn to read. Please. The fact that you so love Rand raises all KINDS of questions about your capacity for mature thought, but if you are not just a bipolar, lonely man trolling, please learn to read.[/quote]

Thou shalt not feed the troll.[/quote]

Thou shalt not try to be rational, based on the irrational (faith).

376

[quote]Headhunter wrote:<<< Thou shalt not try to be rational, based on the irrational (faith).
[/quote]Alright we’ll try it here. Describe this rationality to me if you would please. I’m going to graciously ignore your truly stupid post about violence above. It was never my intent and I will not continue to entertain it.

377

1078×835 610 KB

[quote]Headhunter wrote:<<< Thou shalt not try to be rational, based on the irrational (faith).
[/quote]

378

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Ahhhh yes, traditional marriage, as defined by the “good book”.[/quote]

Great, reductionism. It’s like I’m talking to a fundamentalist now. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/06/ridicule-reductionism-ridicule-and-red-herrings.html [/quote]

Hey, I’m just quoting for you what your holy book says. Not my fault that it says the awful shit that it says.

Words mean things, and it says what it says. Christians seem to spend ALOT of time trying to justify and argue away what’s written in the bible.

[/quote]

Great point, “Words mean things.” Then you turn around and get upset that Christians try and make distinctions and put things into context. Strange fellow you are. I think that’s called hypocrisy when you have a double standard. [/quote]

No, what most christians are guilty of, is spin, not contextual explanation. This is why your bible has “evolved” over the years with new interpretations and such. What version of the bible do you subscribe to? Isn’t there like 26 versions of it?

And when a christian comes along saying that the bible says what it says, then you’ll denounce them as “fundamentalist”.

LOL…Trying to apologize and spin away the shit in the bible must be what it’s like as a PR person in charge of handling Joe Biden. “No no, what Biden really meant was…”
[/quote]

I think it’s hilarious when people who have never read the bible try to claim to know what the bible says! LOL!

Hey I never read ‘War and Peace’ but I know it talks about war!

You should do a book club with the rule that you don’t actually read the books, then talk about the books with authority! That will make you look like a fucking genius![/quote]

I think it’s hilarious how upset christians get when atheists point out all the immoral, evil verses in the bible. First thing out of their mouth; “you don’t undersand it!”, or “that’s out of context!”

I also think it’s hilarious that you’re constantly accusing atheists of not understanding christianity, when you clearly do not understand atheism. At least atheists read the holy books of many religions; they make an effort to understand the minds of the religious. How many atheist authors have you read?
[/quote]

I have actually studied quite a few since philosophy was a formal study, I was require to study atheists and theists alike. Hume was my favorite atheist of all time.
That being said, what I don’t claim is intricate knowledge of books I didn’t read, which is what you are doing.
Refuting atheist philosophy is not a challenge for me, I have been doing it for many years…
Bring your freshest thinking, I will cheerfully explain why you’re wrong. All of this shit is nothing new, it is in fact very old, actually it’s eternal if you understand anything about metaphysics.
[/quote]

I’ve never claimed such intricate knowledge either, however I do often quote atheists with such intricate knowledge, as well as direct quotes from the bible itself. Never once have I personally claimed to be a biblical expert. Interesting though that your defense of the bible always seems to end at “You don’t KNOW the bible!”, or “You’ve never read the bible cover to cover!”.

However I HAVE read the bible, albiet never cover to cover. Not that it would matter if I did; you’d just say that I never understood it, or that I read the wrong interpretation, or that it’s not a book for atheists, or blah blah blah whatever else excuse you’d pull out of your ass.

Perhaps I should start reading the ol’ good book again; I enjoy Greek mythology, why wouldn’t I enjoy christian mythology?

379

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Ahhhh yes, traditional marriage, as defined by the “good book”.[/quote]

Great, reductionism. It’s like I’m talking to a fundamentalist now. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/06/ridicule-reductionism-ridicule-and-red-herrings.html [/quote]

Hey, I’m just quoting for you what your holy book says. Not my fault that it says the awful shit that it says.

Words mean things, and it says what it says. Christians seem to spend ALOT of time trying to justify and argue away what’s written in the bible.

[/quote]

Great point, “Words mean things.” Then you turn around and get upset that Christians try and make distinctions and put things into context. Strange fellow you are. I think that’s called hypocrisy when you have a double standard. [/quote]

No, what most christians are guilty of, is spin, not contextual explanation. This is why your bible has “evolved” over the years with new interpretations and such. What version of the bible do you subscribe to? Isn’t there like 26 versions of it?

And when a christian comes along saying that the bible says what it says, then you’ll denounce them as “fundamentalist”.

LOL…Trying to apologize and spin away the shit in the bible must be what it’s like as a PR person in charge of handling Joe Biden. “No no, what Biden really meant was…”
[/quote]

What most atheists are guilty of is tortured reasoning and an utter lack of reason and logic…The sad part is they think they have it, but they cannot reason anything to it’s logical end, because their logic fails. It’s all ego in the end.[/quote]

Yea, that’s it, the ATHEISTS just aren’t big fans of reason and logic. Tell me again about the talking snake…
[/quote]
Sure, when you tell me how nothing makes something.

Why are you interested in it if you think it’s so stupid… Things I think are stupid I don’t waste my time with. Is there a ‘love for stupidity’ gene in the atheist brain? Must be.[/quote]

C’mon man, don’t cop out on me NOW! I think with a little more effort, perhaps you can come up with the answer. Think about it, why would atheists interest themselves in the religions of the world? Why would that be important?

380

[quote]bigflamer wrote:<<< Perhaps I should start reading the ol’ good book again >>>[/quote]I couldn’t possibly recommend this most splendid course of action highly enough Sparky. try this for a computer based outfit that’s totally free and utterly first rate. Grab the ESV translation as that is also free and very reliable. http://www.theword.net/bin/get.php/esv2011.ontx.exe For different reasons, I don’t view Pat as very much more reliable on what the bible says than you are. However he’s right. You don’t understand it. It is ancient literature that as such requires a bit more than the Dr. Seuss/entirely ill informed, hack hater site method to grasp. That said? Those who DO take the time TO understand it, despite some significant differences, come to astonishingly similar conclusions.