[quote]ZEB wrote:
You can’t even understand this…wow. It’s a simple courtesy that I’m paying to DD. He, like everyone else, should be made aware that you are a total fraud. [/quote]
Actually, I find it refreshing to talk with someone that is actually coherent.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You can’t even understand this…wow. It’s a simple courtesy that I’m paying to DD. He, like everyone else, should be made aware that you are a total fraud. [/quote]
Actually, I find it refreshing to talk with someone that is actually coherent. [/quote]
Well, he is consistent I’ll give you that.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Please read AC’s long list of crimes and war crimes committed in the name of God.[/quote]
There you go again committing the same old logical fallacies on yet another thread. One more time genius; far more wars were begun by non-Christians than Christians. Therefore, do you now want to become a Christian because they’ve far caused less pain in the world?
All people are sinners try to get that through that granite block you call a head.
[/quote]
I’m sorry the point seems to fly about your head.[/quote]
The only thing that’s been flying about my head are the flies that you attract by the worthless crap that you post.
And yet again you show your complete ignorance. How can man rise about what he is you buffoon. Religion does not purify a man. Even a bottom feeder like you should understand this.
I gave you the same answer that I’m giving you now. But you were too dumb then to understand. Shall I post it for what is probably the 7th time?
Man is a sinner. There really is nothing further to explain in order to help you comprehend this most basic assertion. The most uneducated and ignorant person would understand this, so you have a shot at it.
If man gets involved in religion he is still a sinner.
If man is agnostic he is a sinner.
If man is an atheist he is a sinner.
If man plays baseball he’s a sinner.
You are a dope, and a sinner. And on top of that a highly entertaining fraud.
Carry on.
[/quote]
You see, THIS is EXACTLY my problem with Christianity: How can everyone be a sinner? My three year old son has not reached the age of reason yet. He has never formed a malicious thought in his brain. HOW IS HE A SINNER? Because YOU say so? BULLSHIT!
The ONLY purpose of this doctrine that says, “EVERYONE is a sinner, but JEEEEESUS is the SALVATION!” is so that common, ignorant people feel shame and guilt, stay in line, raise “good little Christians”, don’t use birth control so that they can breed as many “good little Christians” as possible and pay the TITHE. THAT’S what it’s about - It all comes back to the fucking MONEY. Read through the list of atrocities I provided about half way through it details an incident where over eleven THOUSAND people were put to death for not paying church taxes.
The “sinner” concept is just BASIC marketing/advertising strategy. Today, commercials send out a message that if you want to be beautiful/popular/wealthy/high status you have to use “XYZ” product. In other words, they CREATE a problem/perceived shortcoming and in the same fell swoop, provide the CURE! SAME WITH CHRISTIANITY! The message is: you are a sinner. The cure is: subscribe to this belief and you will have everlasting life in the kingdom of heaven (although we can’t really PROVE it…). They just took it one step further and KILLED everyone who disagreed with them.
That’s like Budweiser KILLING every one who drinks Coors Light! It’s fucking ridiculous!
Spot on, AC.
Ok DD, how about you use an example.
Please give me an example of a belief about the nature of existence, and why that belief must come from “stupid faith”
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ok DD, how about you use an example.
Please give me an example of a belief about the nature of existence, and why that belief must come from “stupid faith”[/quote]
I already gave you a list and already explained why.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ok DD, how about you use an example.
Please give me an example of a belief about the nature of existence, and why that belief must come from “stupid faith”[/quote]
I already gave you a list and already explained why.[/quote]
No. You gave me a list of similar terms.
I give up. Take care.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ok DD, how about you use an example.
Please give me an example of a belief about the nature of existence, and why that belief must come from “stupid faith”[/quote]
I already gave you a list and already explained why.[/quote]
No. You gave me a list of similar terms.
I give up. Take care.[/quote]
several were similar terms. several where examples. It’s pretty clear.
Maybe if you weren’t too busy with your outrage over pink unicorns you’d have noticed that I already wrote the things you are demanding of me. I noticed, you also never took issue with the fact that I explained why.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You can’t even understand this…wow. It’s a simple courtesy that I’m paying to DD. He, like everyone else, should be made aware that you are a total fraud. [/quote]
You’re a chorus of one ZEB. And a broken record of strawmen and ad hominems. You’re brilliant! But What Would Jesus Do?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Please read AC’s long list of crimes and war crimes committed in the name of God.[/quote]
There you go again committing the same old logical fallacies on yet another thread. One more time genius; far more wars were begun by non-Christians than Christians. Therefore, do you now want to become a Christian because they’ve far caused less pain in the world?
All people are sinners try to get that through that granite block you call a head.
[/quote]
I’m sorry the point seems to fly about your head.[/quote]
The only thing that’s been flying about my head are the flies that you attract by the worthless crap that you post.
And yet again you show your complete ignorance. How can man rise about what he is you buffoon. Religion does not purify a man. Even a bottom feeder like you should understand this.
I gave you the same answer that I’m giving you now. But you were too dumb then to understand. Shall I post it for what is probably the 7th time?
Man is a sinner. There really is nothing further to explain in order to help you comprehend this most basic assertion. The most uneducated and ignorant person would understand this, so you have a shot at it.
If man gets involved in religion he is still a sinner.
If man is agnostic he is a sinner.
If man is an atheist he is a sinner.
If man plays baseball he’s a sinner.
You are a dope, and a sinner. And on top of that a highly entertaining fraud.
Carry on.
[/quote]
You’re a pathetic little man. I feel sorry for you. And I’m not joking.
Anyway, yes yes yes, your doctrine teaches you “man is a sinner”. Fine well and dandy but sinner is certainly a relative term only defined by the doctrines you subscribe to. There certainly is no scientific means to establish that man is a “sinner”. You’re making a value judgment, based on your indoctrination to your beliefs. That’s fine for your logical construct, but it doesn’t make it valid.
One more time, because you are slow:
We know you think man is a sinner, and that with our without religion, man will do evil. However, man’s inherent nature in sin (your claim) is far different than when man claims to be following divine doctrine, to commit evil against man. Whenj religious doctrine or instruction is the basis for the evil, WE MUST EXAMINE THE DOCTRINE OR INSTRUCTION, NOT THE MAN YOU FUCKING RETARD.
If you are claiming that man did not believe he was following divine (sinless) doctrine or instruction when he committed some or all of the limited atrocities listed in AC’s post, then please provide your defense. Otherwise, keep being the unintelligent heckler sitting in the cheap seats. Are you saying in each of the atrocities, that man acted of his own accord? If so, provide your defense. Or just keep shooting spitballs you little retard.
WWJD?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Oh, so your claim is that you are evaluating religion by examining the fruit of the tree, but are acknowledging that without the religion the same things could by all means have still happened?
How can war be the fruit of religion when you aren’t claiming that religion has had an impact on the occurrence of war?
And currently most of the main religions (official doctrine) are peaceful.[/quote]
You STILL didn’t answer the questions posed to you. Do that.
I am not acknowledging the “same things” could still have happened. For instance, looking at AC’s list of atrocities (have you?), they were expressly done in the name of religion, under the cloak of religion. Review them, and comment. Stop talking AROUND it.
Without religion, there would still be war. Admitted. But not the point.
You are badly misconstruing judging a tree by its fruit. Badly. It has nothing to do with any other wars. Let’s look at what was done in the name of someone’s God and judge accordingly.
Official doctrine? Well, again, just for example, using AC’s list of atrocities, which doctrine was in play at that point? [/quote]
I don’t understand how it is the fruit of religion if without religion the same things would have happened. In my mind it is clear that if adding or removing religion from the scenario doesn’t affect the result, religion is not an influence on war. If what I’m claiming is correct, then literally and scientifically, religion has no place in the evaluation of war. So, yes, other wars are entirely relevant and to the point.
What I’m talking about is literally DOE (design of experiments). Iâ??m scientifically evaluating religion as a variable in war. And scientifically religion seems to be an extraneous variable. But to do that you need things like controls where religion is known to not be part of the conflict, which is why I introduced them.
Second, you are the one making the claims about the influence of religion. You need to tell me what doctrine are causing all these bad things.[/quote]
I just replied to the class clown as I would reply to the above. Please review it and comment. If man wages evil because he is claiming to follow divine instruction or doctrine, then the examination of that doctrine is fair game. If man goes into war at the instruction of his government, we do not examine the nature of the soldier, but of the policy making of the government that ordered him to war. It’s a simple relationship.
Now, again, review the atrocities and let’s examine the docrtrines behind them. Fruit of the tree, not of man.
You can’t have a man do something in the name of ideology and then claim man is at fault unless of course man corrupted the ideology. Is that the defense? That in each instance listed by AC, that man corrupted the divine instruction or doctrine? If that’s your position, state how and give supporting reference.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You can’t even understand this…wow. It’s a simple courtesy that I’m paying to DD. He, like everyone else, should be made aware that you are a total fraud. [/quote]
Actually, I find it refreshing to talk with someone that is actually coherent. [/quote]
DD, he’s a fucking clown. He’s trying to get you to link on his one man daisy chain. Ever see an image of a man so flexible (without standards or backbone) that he can literally suck his own cock? That’s ZEB. ZEB wants a link in his chain to cosign his utterly ridiculous behavior. Please carry on with the discussion. Fuck him.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
You see, THIS is EXACTLY my problem with Christianity: How can everyone be a sinner? My three year old son has not reached the age of reason yet. He has never formed a malicious thought in his brain. HOW IS HE A SINNER? Because YOU say so? BULLSHIT!
The ONLY purpose of this doctrine that says, “EVERYONE is a sinner, but JEEEEESUS is the SALVATION!” is so that common, ignorant people feel shame and guilt, stay in line, raise “good little Christians”, don’t use birth control so that they can breed as many “good little Christians” as possible and pay the TITHE. THAT’S what it’s about - It all comes back to the fucking MONEY. Read through the list of atrocities I provided about half way through it details an incident where over eleven THOUSAND people were put to death for not paying church taxes.
The “sinner” concept is just BASIC marketing/advertising strategy. Today, commercials send out a message that if you want to be beautiful/popular/wealthy/high status you have to use “XYZ” product. In other words, they CREATE a problem/perceived shortcoming and in the same fell swoop, provide the CURE! SAME WITH CHRISTIANITY! The message is: you are a sinner. The cure is: subscribe to this belief and you will have everlasting life in the kingdom of heaven (although we can’t really PROVE it…). They just took it one step further and KILLED everyone who disagreed with them.
That’s like Budweiser KILLING every one who drinks Coors Light! It’s fucking ridiculous![/quote]
Great post. I wish people thought this way a thousand years ago. We would be much better off today.
Babies and children are not sinners. I don’t know who told you that but they are wrong. ALL children are precious in God’s sight and are blameless.
The problem I have with ignorant atheists is that they’re…ignorant.
I don’t know about all these killings that have happened as a result of “Christians” but let me tell you something:
If I have a text that absolutely says nothing about killing because someone didn’t tithe, and then do it claiming that they text said so, who’s abusing who? Is the author the nut job? Or is it the interpreter who twists the text out of its original context or worse, adds stuff that wasn’t there to begin with?
[quote]forbes wrote:
The problem I have with ignorant atheists is that they’re…ignorant.
I don’t know about all these killings that have happened as a result of “Christians” but let me tell you something:
If I have a text that absolutely says nothing about killing because someone didn’t tithe, and then do it claiming that they text said so, who’s abusing who? Is the author the nut job? Or is it the interpreter who twists the text out of its original context or worse, adds stuff that wasn’t there to begin with? [/quote]
This is pretty empty unless you’re willing to go to the list of atrocities and explain how man corrupted the alleged divine doctrine or instruction.
I believe one such atrocity was committed by at least one Pope. Inasmuch as the Pope is alleged to speak for God on earth, have fun defending that atrocity.
If you’re going to make this argument (and I’m not saying it’s not valid), at least cull from AC’s list and give us some sound rebuttal that these were the actions of men, not acting on an alleged divine doctrine or instruction.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Oh, so your claim is that you are evaluating religion by examining the fruit of the tree, but are acknowledging that without the religion the same things could by all means have still happened?
How can war be the fruit of religion when you aren’t claiming that religion has had an impact on the occurrence of war?
And currently most of the main religions (official doctrine) are peaceful.[/quote]
You STILL didn’t answer the questions posed to you. Do that.
I am not acknowledging the “same things” could still have happened. For instance, looking at AC’s list of atrocities (have you?), they were expressly done in the name of religion, under the cloak of religion. Review them, and comment. Stop talking AROUND it.
Without religion, there would still be war. Admitted. But not the point.
You are badly misconstruing judging a tree by its fruit. Badly. It has nothing to do with any other wars. Let’s look at what was done in the name of someone’s God and judge accordingly.
Official doctrine? Well, again, just for example, using AC’s list of atrocities, which doctrine was in play at that point? [/quote]
I don’t understand how it is the fruit of religion if without religion the same things would have happened. In my mind it is clear that if adding or removing religion from the scenario doesn’t affect the result, religion is not an influence on war. If what I’m claiming is correct, then literally and scientifically, religion has no place in the evaluation of war. So, yes, other wars are entirely relevant and to the point.
What I’m talking about is literally DOE (design of experiments). IÃ??Ã?¢??m scientifically evaluating religion as a variable in war. And scientifically religion seems to be an extraneous variable. But to do that you need things like controls where religion is known to not be part of the conflict, which is why I introduced them.
Second, you are the one making the claims about the influence of religion. You need to tell me what doctrine are causing all these bad things.[/quote]
I just replied to the class clown as I would reply to the above. Please review it and comment. If man wages evil because he is claiming to follow divine instruction or doctrine, then the examination of that doctrine is fair game. If man goes into war at the instruction of his government, we do not examine the nature of the soldier, but of the policy making of the government that ordered him to war. It’s a simple relationship.
Now, again, review the atrocities and let’s examine the docrtrines behind them. Fruit of the tree, not of man.
You can’t have a man do something in the name of ideology and then claim man is at fault unless of course man corrupted the ideology. Is that the defense? That in each instance listed by AC, that man corrupted the divine instruction or doctrine? If that’s your position, state how and give supporting reference. [/quote]
“If man wages evil because he is claiming to follow divine instruction or doctrine…”
Bold mine. This is where I think we are having the break in communication. I’m contending that claiming to do something for religion and actually doing it for religion are two different things.
I think man does things he wants to and uses a variety of excuses including religion. The excuse is not the cause.
If I go kill someone then claim I was motivated by atheism, is that a negative reflection on atheism, or am I just a bad person?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Oh, so your claim is that you are evaluating religion by examining the fruit of the tree, but are acknowledging that without the religion the same things could by all means have still happened?
How can war be the fruit of religion when you aren’t claiming that religion has had an impact on the occurrence of war?
And currently most of the main religions (official doctrine) are peaceful.[/quote]
You STILL didn’t answer the questions posed to you. Do that.
I am not acknowledging the “same things” could still have happened. For instance, looking at AC’s list of atrocities (have you?), they were expressly done in the name of religion, under the cloak of religion. Review them, and comment. Stop talking AROUND it.
Without religion, there would still be war. Admitted. But not the point.
You are badly misconstruing judging a tree by its fruit. Badly. It has nothing to do with any other wars. Let’s look at what was done in the name of someone’s God and judge accordingly.
Official doctrine? Well, again, just for example, using AC’s list of atrocities, which doctrine was in play at that point? [/quote]
I don’t understand how it is the fruit of religion if without religion the same things would have happened. In my mind it is clear that if adding or removing religion from the scenario doesn’t affect the result, religion is not an influence on war. If what I’m claiming is correct, then literally and scientifically, religion has no place in the evaluation of war. So, yes, other wars are entirely relevant and to the point.
What I’m talking about is literally DOE (design of experiments). IÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??m scientifically evaluating religion as a variable in war. And scientifically religion seems to be an extraneous variable. But to do that you need things like controls where religion is known to not be part of the conflict, which is why I introduced them.
Second, you are the one making the claims about the influence of religion. You need to tell me what doctrine are causing all these bad things.[/quote]
I just replied to the class clown as I would reply to the above. Please review it and comment. If man wages evil because he is claiming to follow divine instruction or doctrine, then the examination of that doctrine is fair game. If man goes into war at the instruction of his government, we do not examine the nature of the soldier, but of the policy making of the government that ordered him to war. It’s a simple relationship.
Now, again, review the atrocities and let’s examine the docrtrines behind them. Fruit of the tree, not of man.
You can’t have a man do something in the name of ideology and then claim man is at fault unless of course man corrupted the ideology. Is that the defense? That in each instance listed by AC, that man corrupted the divine instruction or doctrine? If that’s your position, state how and give supporting reference. [/quote]
“If man wages evil because he is claiming to follow divine instruction or doctrine…”
Bold mine. This is where I think we are having the break in communication. I’m contending that claiming to do something for religion and actually doing it for religion are two different things.
I think man does things he wants to and uses a variety of excuses including religion. The excuse is not the cause.
If I go kill someone then claim I was motivated by atheism, is that a negative reflection on atheism, or am I just a bad person?[/quote]
DD you’re arguing yourself to nowhere. I knew exactly what you’re trying to defend. Okay, now go to the list of atrocities and tell me how man disobeyed, corrupted, or otherwise confused the divine instruction or doctrine. Go to AC’s list of atrocities and defend a few to prove me wrong - prove to me man corrupted the message. Why don’t you start with the atrocities committed by the Pope and Papal Infallability.
This is very simple. If man corrupted the doctrine, state your specific reasons why and how.
If man followed the doctrine or instruction, he was acting under the color of religion, and examining the religion itself (and not man) is therefore fair game.
DD, let me start with the 1st Crusade, ordered by Pope Urban II:
Was the 1st Crusade “just”? If so, why. History seems to disagree as to the true motivation and a political element seems undeniable (is God concerned with politics?). If Papal Infallibility is indeed true, then the 1st Crusade was on divine order from God. Correct?
If Papal Infallibility is a legitimate doctrine, the 1st Crusade was ordered by God, not man.
It therefore could not be corrupted by man.
The 1st Crusade therefore must be considered “just”.
I bet a bunch of Muslims might disagree 
And what of the Jews that were collaterally damaged (1st Holocaust)?
Is it not fair to judge the “fruits” of the 1st Crusade based on the tree of religion, and not man the alleged “sinner”?
And how about this “infallible” character and representative of God on earth?
Let’s discuss his career and legacy.