edit fail
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
@ Cortes
Yes, you’ve been on this site longer than me, but it’s not as though I joined this site for you. In this thread, however, you all have come to me.
[/quote]
This thread is part of a larger conversation we have been engaged in for years. Please don’t flatter yourself. No one here is “coming to you.” Us “coming to you” is the equivalent of the butcher in that video I posted “coming to” the kid because the butcher was the one who called the number.
Setting aside the fact that what you propose is basically impossible, why on earth would you attempt to act in such a selfish, sadistic, abusive manner toward your own child?
[quote]Zooguido wrote:
You have to be one of the most naive people I have ever met. This is why I make it a point to avoid people like you =/ It’s impossible to keep faith in humanity when people like you continue to deface what little is left of its value.[/quote]
Oh the humanity!
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Actually, I have directly answered your question twice now.
Again, you asked: “Why did G-d create Satan?”
Answer: G-d created Satan to tempt us and refine us so that we can be suitable companions with G-d over eternity.[/quote]
The way you Jews write G-d annoys me.
The Jews were also not very original in their writing. Much of the Tanakh was just stolen from the civilizations they leeched off of like the Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians… Sloppy editors too.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
…I’ve already said that assuming these rules only apply if given directly to you, then all of the bible is obsolete…
[/quote]
PittTigerBulllTime, this is the last time I will go over this. If you don’t get it you will be hereby dismissed as far as I am concerned. The shellfish/clothing regulation was given directly to Hebrews and only to Hebrews. I am not Hebrew/Jewish. I am a Gentile. Therefore I am not bound nor ever was to Hebrew civil/ceremonial/hygiene laws.
The fact that I am not nor ever was bound to those laws does not in any shape, form or fashion render the Bible obsolete.
There ARE certain MORAL laws that transcend the Jewish/Gentile distinction and the Old Testament/New Testament partition. Clothing and shellfish regulations are NOT moral laws.
Now I am done with what is so ridiculously elementary that I am completely annoyed I let a squirt whose testicles just dropped into his scrotum a few relatively short moons ago draw me into this.
[/quote]
No need to be so touchy. It’s your own fault for continuing to re-assert the same argument for so long regardless of my counter-point(s).
Okay, so some laws still apply and some don’t. If there is no part of the bible directly outlining which rules still apply and which don’t then you are cherry-picking. End of story.
Keep in mind, I could just as easily say, “being homosexual was only against God’s rules for the Jews at that particular time because God saw that they needed a greater population (or some sort of justification like that). But now that we have such a huge population this rule no longer applies”… And if there’s nothing further in the bible about it then how can you say I’m wrong without being hypocritical?
Sure, you can say that the mixed-fiber rule was specific to the Jews at that time because of mixed fiber clothes being passed off as pure and that since this is no longer a problem we can ignore this rule, but God has said nothing about it. Perhaps this still bothers him and if I where you I wouldn’t be so quick to start ignoring God’s rules without his “OK”. << But this is just my opinion.[/quote]
You had no counterpoints.
I rarely waste my time with Pittbulll and now I have shoved you into the pen with him. You two go ahead enjoy rubbing against each other in the dunce corral.
Adios. [/quote]
I outlined my past counter-point in the very comment you JUST responded to and even added a few additional ones. You’re just too much of a coward to respond to them.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
To which I would say if God’s rules only apply if given directly to you then nothing in the bible applies to us. Or, at least not to me personally, perhaps God has come to you personally and told you what you can and cannot do. [/quote]
The covenent of Mt. Sinai was a contract between Jewish people and G-d. Since you are not Jewish, said contract does not have direct bearing on you, just like the contract sitting on my desk between two oil companies has no bearing on you.
Now, there are parts of the Torah that do apply to all people, most notably the Laws of Noah (which are effectively the 10 Commandments (less Shabbos, and plus a requirement to establish a fair government and courts of law).
First, thank you for bringing some logic to this sea of asininity.
Second, no I’m not particularly interested in the shatnez, I was just using it as an example, but thank you for taking the time to site a source. I may check it out later.
Anyway, I have a few questions given your previous answer.
-
Is homosexuality a sin for non-Jews even though non-Jews had no hand in the covenant of Sinai
-
Are contemporary Jews mandatory held to the same standards (no mixed-fiber clothing, no shellfish etc.) even though they did not personally have anything to do with this contract?
I’m not asking to lure you into any particular counter-argument, just an honest answer as, from what I understand about Judaism, you don’t believe I’m going to Hell and you do believe that non-Jews get into heaven. Though, this may not be your personal believe and please correct me if this is not the case.
[quote]forlife wrote:<<<I’ve read, >>>[/quote]Maybe. [quote]forlife wrote:<<< and have a fair understanding of, both the old and new testaments. >>>[/quote] No you do not. You on occasion demonstrate a cursory grasp of some elementary data and concepts. I mean that with no vitriol or sarcasm whatsoever. B.B. Warfield had a “fair” understanding of both the old and new testaments =] http://www.bibleteacher.org/BBW10.htm
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
@ Cortes
Yes, you’ve been on this site longer than me, but it’s not as though I joined this site for you. In this thread, however, you all have come to me.
[/quote]
This thread is part of a larger conversation we have been engaged in for years. Please don’t flatter yourself. No one here is “coming to you.” Us “coming to you” is the equivalent of the butcher in that video I posted “coming to” the kid because the butcher was the one who called the number.
Setting aside the fact that what you propose is basically impossible, why on earth would you attempt to act in such a selfish, sadistic, abusive manner toward your own child?
[/quote]
I left a comment here about my opinion and that was it. I didn’t come here and write a response to anyone and I didn’t even know the lot of you existed until you started responding to me. You’re twisting logic here to make it seem like I came here to lecture you. I’ve done no such thing.
Why is it impossible? Perhaps YOU are incapable of going any significant amount of time without preaching to someone, but I assure you that I can. Also, what exactly is selfish and sadistic about giving my child ideological freedom?
I’m honestly trying to reach some common ground with you, but you throwing out such an absurd string of insults is not helping.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The lonely, misguided, greedy, twisted, black men (or any color men for that matter) who demand money NOW for the sins of folks who preceded him by hundreds of years were also not very original in their writing. Blackmail in various forms has been around for millenia.
[/quote]
It’s not blackmail, it’s justice. But our government would rather piss away tax dollars on the Middle-East than help their own citizens.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Well, google tells me that these laws aren’t decreed obsolete in the bible and you’re cherry picking which verses to follow… but I doubt that’s what you wanted me to find 
[/quote]
Google nor anyone else told you any such thing, DisingenuousTime. You know it. I know it. Your mom knows it.
The only cherry picker is Tony-the-pseudo-Bible-scholar-Tiger. Your posts and mine reflect that. You have no idea what you’re talking about it; you’re simply arguing because you’re on the internet. You’re throwing stuff up hoping it will stick. You’re certainly more capable talking about medieval Irish history but you’re hopelessly out of your league here.
[/quote]
http://www.atheistperspective.net/p/bible-verses.html << Oh well, you can’t win em all…
Seriously though, you can find any expressed opinion on Google… It just wasn’t a smart move to try and call me out on something than could be shown to be true simply by using Google to find a site that suggests Christians cherry-pick.
I don’t know why you’re trying to make it out as though I came here to argue with you. YOU responded to ME. I’m not forcing you to respond to my comments and you’re free to not respond to me anytime.
This is a very simple game of logic; God has condemned wearing clothes with mixed fibers, eating shellfish, etc. You say these laws are obsolete so I ask you were in the bible these laws have been decreed as such. If this can’t be done (and I don’t think it can) then I guess these things are still banned as far as God’s concerned. [/quote]
Have you ever read the bible? Or are you criticizing something you’ve never read? I am guessing the latter…I had the feeling this was another set up. Another pseudo genius atheist who thinks he found reason in the unreasonable tenet of atheism.
I’ll give you the one main reason atheism is flawed at it’s very core. It posits that something can come from nothing and the things can happen for no reason what so ever. Now, what makes it even more ridiculous with all this belief and trust in science is that there is not a single solitary mircofragment of evidence to even remotely support such a ridiculous notion.
The difference between you and I is that believe in something that is actually possible and you believe in something that is verifiable impossible…Now that you let the cat out of the bag of your true intentions, let’s see how smart you are:
Prove something can come from nothing, as an atheist you MUST believe this to be true or you are not an atheist. It’s that simple…
I won’t be holding my breath.[/quote]
That’s great and all but… where exactly did I say I was an atheist again?
I won’t be holding my breath. ;)[/quote]
You said you don’t believe in God, so, same thing.[/quote]
And where did I say that?[/quote]
“TigerTime wrote:
I cannot believe in any such God.”
[/quote]
You’re deliberately taking this quote out of context. Even within what you’ve quoted anyone can see I’ve added the qualifier “such” as in reference to “such” a God who would eternally punish a man for a finite infraction.
I see now that this conversation is going nowhere. Please, go bother somebody else. [/quote]
I actually took this quote from somebody else who apparently took your quote out of context.
So do you believe in God or not?
You still haven’t answered the question, did you read the bible? But I will take you lack of answer your young age to mean no …And I’ll bother who I please, your not the boss of me. You have the freedom to ignore me. You have the freedom to criticize a book you’ve never read.
But how can you comment intelligently on something you actually have no real knowledge about? [/quote]
Alright, your questions are fair, so I’ll let you bother me a little while longer.
First, you’ll have to define God. In your own words of course.
Yes I read the bible. My grandfather died four years ago and I got his bible. I’ve read it and re-read it and continue to re-read it as needed (though the internet has largely removed the need to read any hard-copy). Sorry, I know you were REALLY looking for another reason to dismiss my points (regardless of if they are actually correct or not), but it looks like not this time.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Why is it impossible? Perhaps YOU are incapable of going any significant amount of time without preaching to someone, but I assure you that I can.
[/quote]
Lol. Seriously? Hold on I need to check something. Yep, this is still the PWI forum.
Histrionic accusations of “preaching” aside, your claim is about the most ironic thing I’ve ever read. You’re telling me, given your posting history, here, in the Politics and World Issues Forum, no less, that you will go head to head with a bunch of strangers on the internet, whose respect you have no use for, whom you care not a whit about; yet, with your own child, you are suddenly going to magically become indifferent about all matters ideological? You’ll excuse me if I can’t keep from ROTFLMFAO.
Well, perhaps the fact that your kid is not going to know what to do, who to believe, what to believe, the difference between right or wrong, or the answers to any of the hard questions that those of us who’ve been gracefully provided with a strong moral and ethical foundation are fortunate enough to have the wherewithal to tackle?
I’ll offer an example. Let’s say some Jehova’s Witnesses come to the door one day with their message. Being that (in our clearly fictional situation) you have provided absolutely no moral foundation to your child in his development up to this point, there is a good chance that your child, being human, will desire answers to many of these questions that you have withheld from him. The Jehova’s Witnesses are masters at providing exactly these kinds of answers and a support system and sense of safety to just such people who have up to then not been provided with such.
So now, to stay consistent, you must agree that if your child decides that the Jehova’s Witnesses have The Answer, that you will not offer any ideological opinion or influence on his decision one way or the other. Please answer honestly. Yes or no?
[quote]
I’m honestly trying to reach some common ground with you, but you throwing out such an absurd string of insults is not helping.[/quote]
You were insulted by my insinuation that what your proposed plan to withhold any ideological guidance to the child you chose to bring into the world is selfish, sadistic, and abusive?
You felt insulted by this?
Wait, shh! Do you hear that? The music, from the tiny, tiny violin…
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Why is it impossible? Perhaps YOU are incapable of going any significant amount of time without preaching to someone, but I assure you that I can.
[/quote]
Lol. Seriously? Hold on I need to check something. Yep, this is still the PWI forum.
Histrionic accusations of “preaching” aside, your claim is about the most ironic thing I’ve ever read. You’re telling me, given your posting history, here, in the Politics and World Issues Forum, no less, that you will go head to head with a bunch of strangers on the internet, whose respect you have no use for, whom you care not a whit about; yet, with your own child, you are suddenly going to magically become indifferent about all matters ideological? You’ll excuse me if I can’t keep from ROTFLMFAO.
Well, perhaps the fact that your kid is not going to know what to do, who to believe, what to believe, the difference between right or wrong, or the answers to any of the hard questions that those of us who’ve been gracefully provided with a strong moral and ethical foundation are fortunate enough to have the wherewithal to tackle?
I’ll offer an example. Let’s say some Jehova’s Witnesses come to the door one day with their message. Being that (in our clearly fictional situation) you have provided absolutely no moral foundation to your child in his development up to this point, there is a good chance that your child, being human, will desire answers to many of these questions that you have withheld from him. The Jehova’s Witnesses are masters at providing exactly these kinds of answers and a support system and sense of safety to just such people who have up to then not been provided with such.
So now, to stay consistent, you must agree that if your child decides that the Jehova’s Witnesses have The Answer, that you will not offer any ideological opinion or influence on his decision one way or the other. Please answer honestly. Yes or no?
I’m not here because I feel the compulsive need to be here, Cortes. I’m here because I find debating to be entertaining. I feel no compulsion to impose my beliefs on anyone, even the people I know IRL. Maybe this isn’t the case with you, but I’m not you.
Did you miss the part where I was talking about prefacing my advice? There’s a difference between imposing your own ideology onto your kids (intellectual violence) and offering advice. It’s the same difference as shoving a chicken wing down someone’s throat vs. asking them what they’d like to eat. The former, I would call abusive, selfish and sadistic. Even given what you assumed I meant, the worst you could honestly call me would be neglectful.
No, I’m not offended, but I do find it ironic that you all seem to think I need to “adjust my attitude” while I’m expected to just put up with this kind of silly shit.
I suppose I’m just asking for a little maturity from my “older and wiser” peers on this site.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Did you miss the part where I was talking about prefacing my advice? There’s a difference between imposing your own ideology onto your kids (intellectual violence) and offering advice. It’s the same difference as shoving a chicken wing down someone’s throat vs. asking them what they’d like to eat. The former, I would call abusive, selfish and sadistic. Even given what you assumed I meant, the worst you could honestly call me would be neglectful.
[/quote]
Okay, so please explain to me how you would handle the situation I proposed.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Did you miss the part where I was talking about prefacing my advice? There’s a difference between imposing your own ideology onto your kids (intellectual violence) and offering advice. It’s the same difference as shoving a chicken wing down someone’s throat vs. asking them what they’d like to eat. The former, I would call abusive, selfish and sadistic. Even given what you assumed I meant, the worst you could honestly call me would be neglectful.
[/quote]
Okay, so please explain to me how you would handle the situation I proposed.
[/quote]
Well it wouldn’t exactly be the same situation given that I don’t plan on ignoring my kids ideologically speaking, but If I am to take the core of your example (J/W coming to my door giving answers and my kids begin to listen) then I suppose all I could do is warn them if they’ll give me the time of day and let them do what they think is best.
I don’t agree with you either, but if my kids grew up to be Christian that would be okay with me. They aren’t my property, I have no right to tell them what they can and cannot think.
Perhaps they would debate me as you all have debated me here and maybe I change their minds, maybe I don’t, it doesn’t matter because they are people in their own right and I respect their right to make decisions for themselves. The same goes for anyone else I know IRL. I don’t go around looking for an opportunity to wage intellectual war on other people.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
…I don’t want to live forever. It was a horrifying thought as child and it still is.[/quote]
Why?
I have heard some arguments that it would be boring but I think that reasoning does not follow for a few reason. If we were made to by God to take enjoyment in having communion and learning about him than it stands to follow that any other pursuit we humans do in a fallen state to fill the void left by not seeking God would ultimately in the end be unsatisfying. In seeking God that void is filled yet there is always more to learn about him.[/quote]
Because my mind is not made for eternity and sleep is a bliss. I can’t say neither yes or no to you, my experiences are not enough. I had communion a month ago.[/quote]
Oh well, I hope you change your mind someday. I will pray for you.
[quote]Dbol123 wrote:
isn’t it hilarious how some people, in this day and age, actually believe the bible to be something more than fictional allegories… especially after it’s be refuted time after time[/quote]
What do you mean?