Why I hate but respect Christian Fundamentalists

Author: Moozer325

Posts

Total: 33
Topic's author
#1
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,186
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
In short, If I believed that there was an all powerful being that created absolute moral truths, then I would do exactly as the being said to the best of my ability. 

This is why I don’t understand Christian churches that accept gay people and treat women as equals. Not that those are bad things, but if you believe that the Bible is the word of god, then you should follow its teachings.

I hate Christian’s who demean women and gays, but I respect them more than I do liberal Christians.
#2
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Moozer325
This is why I don’t understand Christian churches that accept gay people
This is a dishonest framing. Christianity is, for believers, a religion that centers around how they live. What their actions are. The term "gay person" only exists within the context of homosexual actions. It's not analogous to ethnicity or sex, as you are, say, black or a woman irrespective of your actions. The whole bigotry angle assumes an immutable characteristic that isn't actually there. We're speaking instead of a manner of personal conduct which the religion finds odious.

"But they're predisposed to be gay" First, there's the Kinsey Scale and almost no one is a 6. Second, humans are predisposed to find sex pleasurable and want about as much of it as they can get but we find people who spend every waking hour jerking off deplorable. Merely having a disposition does not translate to an action being inevitable and an immutable characteristic in itself.

and treat women as equals
Christianity, specifically Paul, speaks of men and women being assigned to different roles for the finite amount of time they're alive here on earth. While generally assumed that the male role is "superior", this is but one way of interpreting it. The leadership role is one of heavier responsibility, which is a burden as much as it is a privilege. Indeed, the model leader is Christ, who suffered more than any human being has ever suffered. One could argue it's not truly a privilege at all, and the man who treats it as one is an unworthy leader, as the principal qualification of the job is a willingness to self-sacrifice for his family.

But in any case, unequal roles for a temporary span do not suggest or imply the eternal souls of men and women are of unequal value. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you all are one in Christ." - Galatians 3:28
Topic's author
#3
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,186
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@Swagnarok
The term "gay person" only exists within the context of homosexual actions. It's not analogous to ethnicity or sex, as you are, say, black or a woman irrespective of your actions.
I still don’t get Christian’s that defend homosexuality, because the Bible pretty clearly states that being gay is a sin. 

Also,  why would you say that being gay is not a trait that you are born with. You were born straight I presume, so then why can’t someone be born gay? That’s how I’m interpreting what you said, correct me if I’m wrong.

But in any case, unequal roles for a temporary span do not suggest or imply the eternal souls of men and women are of unequal value.
Okay, but you can’t deny that there are some Christians who teach that women can be any role that they want. This is strictly against the Bible, which according to them is the word of god, so I just can’t understand these people.
#4
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
Also,  why would you say that being gay is not a trait that you are born with.
I have the capacity to spend the rest of my life screaming at the top of my lungs. That does not mean I was born a screamer. Potential to act is just that.

You were born straight I presume
Without getting into my private life, I am not a Kinsey 0, in terms of innate predisposition. Neither are most people; consider how common it is in straight porn made for a male audience for relations between a man and a woman to be depicted, as opposed to the woman being by herself or some kind of lesbian setup. The man in the photo or video contributes something to the end amount of pleasure that the male watcher gets.

If you're neither a 0 or a 6, you are potentially bisexual. If you're mostly straight, there's some hypothetical where you could find intimacy with a member of the same sex pleasurable, albeit it'd be harder to achieve. Same for the opposite sex with mostly gay people. It may be a challenge for a gay man to find sexual and romantic satisfaction in his wife, but not impossible.

And if you really are a 6, then the Christian faith has always assigned an honorable role to celibate people. The person who remains chaste and fights temptation will receive a greater reward in Heaven than the person who got married and enjoyed his relationship with his wife. Jesus even endorsed being a eunuch, albeit the church turned against castration after the first few centuries because normative "family values" took over with it becoming the state religion and all. I personally think being one sounds cool, and I wish it wasn't some taboo idea in our culture.

Okay, but you can’t deny that there are some Christians who teach that women can be any role that they want. This is strictly against the Bible, which according to them is the word of god, so I just can’t understand these people.
To my knowledge the Bible doesn't actually say women can't have careers outside the home. But if you're referring to religious ministry, you're correct. Either their options are limited or they just ignore what Paul taught, which seems to be surprisingly common in Pentecostal churches.
#5
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
 if you believe that the Bible is the word of god, then you should follow its teachings.


Indeed. This must be a bit of a dilemma for Christians when a member of the family turns out to be homosexual.



Women.
 There are some  women in the Old Testamant that appear to have served prominent roles as leaders and prophets.  Indeed women play a significant part in the story in all periods. Miriam springs to mind as does Deborah who appears as prophet and a judge.

In Corinthians Paul though seems to relegate women to second class citizens that "should take their teachings from their husbands and be silent  in church", saying it is "disgraceful" for them to do otherwise.

Its my opinion that the authors of the gospels made every attempt to relegate the roles of women and write out the important roles of women altogether. 


You, yourself Moozer325 also (unwittingly perhaps)  contribute and play into the liberalism ideology simply by referring to homosexuals as "gay".  The bible  CLEARLY states that homosexuals should be put to death, are you suggesting that Christians should throw them off a high rise  building with gods blessing and put it all down to simply doing "the lords work"  as does that  barbaric , vile 7th century ideology known to us as Islam still does to this day?

Interesting thread, by the way. Its about time a serious topic was posted here. It been a long time.
#6
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Moozer325
Who wrote the Bible.

Is the modern Bible likely to be the word of an all knowing GOD?

Of course not.

Where is the digital version?

And where are the chapters that relate to the next billion years or so?

Tablets of stone and nailing blokes to posts for my sins.

Don't make me laugh.

HaHa.
#7
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,462
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Moozer325
So women are not 2nd class citizens. They have a different role than men. It doesn’t make them lesser. I actually thing it's exist to see female roles as inferior. 

For example. A woman staying at home and raising her kids is thought of as inferior and looked down upon by a lot of feminists. This right here shows an inherent internalized sexism of feminists for viewing the feminine role of raising a family as inferior to the masculine role of providing. It's similar in these action movies when you see a woman fighting off 5 men. By giving a woman these masculine features to a woman, they are saying that a woman's superior social dynamics is some how inferior to the masculine way of solving problems. It's not and it is sexist to proclaim women are equal to men but only if they can compete with men on their playing field. Simply show they are superior to men on the feminine playing field. 

As far as homosexuality is concerned. They should be welcome in churches. A homosexual lifestyle should be discouraged but these people need God and community like the rest of us. A homosexual has a sinful nature just like I do, but I just struggle with different things. They struggle to not look at men lustfully and I struggle with being a dick. 

I would encourage a homosexual, that if they see the beauty of a male body they should use that to glorify God. Let it remind then of the maker of that body and through that gain even more appreciation of God.

I would also encourage them if they really feel like they can not avoid sex with men to at least remain monogamous and that they are welcome in church. 

I see no point in hatred of somebody with a sinful nature when we literally all have a sinful nature.  We are not better than them, just because their nature is more noticeable.  

It is hypocritical for a Christian to be given the command love one another while being hateful of or looking down on broads or fag's. 
#8
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,638
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Satan will win over all. Its just a matter of time.
Topic's author
#9
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,186
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@zedvictor4
Who wrote the Bible.

Is the modern Bible likely to be the word of an all knowing GOD?

Of course not.
Well yeah, at some point they should take all of this to mean that maybe their god doesn’t exist, but for this thread I’m assuming that I can’t change anyone’s mind.
Topic's author
#10
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,186
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@Stephen
 There are some  women in the Old Testamant that appear to have served prominent roles as leaders and prophets.  Indeed women play a significant part in the story in all periods. Miriam springs to mind as does Deborah who appears as prophet and a judge.

In Corinthians Paul though seems to relegate women to second class citizens that "should take their teachings from their husbands and be silent  in church", saying it is "disgraceful" for them to do otherwise
This is the kind of contradiction that makes me skeptical of Christianity. I don’t think it’s right to say “no, women can be equal in the Bible. Look at Marian for example.” When it also clearly says in Paul that women are made to be servants. You can’t really pick and choose with the word of god, you have to take it as a whole.

The bible  CLEARLY states that homosexuals should be put to death, are you suggesting that Christians should throw them off a high rise  building with gods blessing and put it all down to simply doing "the lords work"  as does that  barbaric , vile 7th century ideology known to us as Islam still does to this day?
I’m not sure I’ve ever heard that this was in the Bible, so a cite would be nice, but I believe you. In that case, then Ideally this leads the Christians to see that their god can’t be all-loving and sanction this, but once people dig in their heels it’s very hard to get them to change. 

If I did see any Christian fundamentalist doing this, I would obviously call 911 and try to stop it, and I would be very mad at them, (almost to the point of hate), but I would still understand their logic and respect it more than a liberal church.
#11
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Moozer325
How does one re-programme an organic database?

Chinese style re-education camps, perhaps.
#12
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,638
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Chinese style re-education camps, perhaps.
No offense to any users here, but everyone in China is mentally retarded now. 

They literally work 12 hours a day and eat dogs.

They beat the shit out of their children for every bad grade.

Should US nuke China?

Topic's author
#13
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,186
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@WyIted
So women are not 2nd class citizens. They have a different role than men. It doesn’t make them lesser. I actually thing it's exist to see female roles as inferior. 
I’ve heard this said a lot. I think the problem is that these roles have been “mandated” and so cannot be chose. I have an aunt who is a stay-at-home mom, and she is a feminist like any other. A man should also be able to choose to be a stay-at-home dad, and that’s fine. The point is that the people get to choose, and that’s what the church doesn’t allow.

For example. A woman staying at home and raising her kids is thought of as inferior and looked down upon by a lot of feminists.
A woman being forced to stay at home and raise her kids is thought of as inferior. The whole point of feminism is a woman’s right to choose her own life, whether that be career or home, or neither.

A homosexual has a sinful nature just like I do, but I just struggle with different things. They struggle to not look at men lustfully and I struggle with being a dick.
So you’re saying that being gay is a choice, not something you’re born as? I’ve never understood this. I was born straight, why can’t someone else be born gay? It’s in my DNA to be attracted to women, so why can’t it be in the DNA of someone else to be attracted to men?
Topic's author
#14
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,186
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@Best.Korea
Genuinely asking, how have you not been banned from this site yet?

#15
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,638
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Moozer325
My wife is a doctor.
#16
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,462
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Moozer325
I’ve heard this said a lot. I think the problem is that these roles have been “mandated” and so cannot be chose
That applies to men as well though, so it can't be sexist.

man should also be able to choose to be a stay-at-home dad, and that’s fine. The point is that the people get to choose, and that’s what the church doesn’t allow.
That's what every civilization for the last 10,000 years has decided and it's unreasonable and actually very arrogant to think we are the civilization that got things right and everyone for the last 10,000 years were significantly dumber than us. 

Perhaps there is a reason why civilizations that gave men the workloads have survived and ones that didn't, have not and are no longer in the genetic record. 

A woman being forced to stay at home and raise her kids is thought of as inferior.
That wouldn't make them inferior. The fact they are better suited for it, actually makes them superior. 


The whole point of feminism is a woman’s right to choose her own life, whether that be career or home, or neither
You would think so given the modern propaganda, but the real reason is to drive down wages by having more people in the workforce to compete for jobs and studies show trad wives are happier and better off mentally than feminists,  so this data shows us that feminism despite its claims and how many non feminists it has tricked into identifying as feminists, real motives is to help out greedy capitalists who want to drive down wages. In the 1950s a man could support his entire family on 1 income from a factory, and now that people are co.peting for jobs instead of visa versa, wages have went down significantly. 

So you’re saying that being gay is a choice, not something you’re born as? I’ve never understood this. I was born straight, why can’t someone else be born gay? It’s in my DNA to be attracted to women, so why can’t it be in the DNA of someone else to be attracted to men?

Two things

1. Being Gay is not a choice. Fucking men is. That is the point. They cannot help their sinful nature anymore than I can help my own.

2. It's more environmental than genetic as can be seen by the famous mouse experiments, not to say there is zero genetic component but it's like how American like cheeseburgers and Chinese people like rice. I don't like cheeseburgers because of genetics, I like it because of the environment I was introduced to. Chinese people do not prefer rice based on genetic factors. 

That is not to say it can be helped. I suspect one cannot fix being gay, just like I cannot fix liking burgers or midget porn. It's who they are now, but certainly ly they are humans and can control their animal urges by not acting on them
#17
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,638
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@WyIted
You would think so given the modern propaganda, but the real reason is to drive down wages by having more people in the workforce to compete for jobs and studies show trad wives are happier and better off mentally than feminists,  so this data shows us that feminism despite its claims and how many non feminists it has tricked into identifying as feminists, real motives is to help out greedy capitalists who want to drive down wages. In the 1950s a man could support his entire family on 1 income from a factory, and now that people are co.peting for jobs instead of visa versa, wages have went down significantly
Its even worse than that.

In the past, women used to care for children, cook for children, clean house...ect.

But once women went into workforce, children now must be left at babysitters or daycare, which costs lots of money.

Parents spend much less time with their children, and women dont know how to cook anymore, so children are forced to eat junk food.

Since children are under less supervision, more abuse happens.

Its truly a brilliant play by the capitalists to make themselves richer and increase their profit rates, while ruining society along the way.

And its even worse due to divorce rates, since now many children are basically without parents and raised by babysitters and daycare who dont even care about them.
Topic's author
#18
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,186
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@WyIted
That's what every civilization for the last 10,000 years has decided and it's unreasonable and actually very arrogant to think we are the civilization that got things right and everyone for the last 10,000 years were significantly dumber than us. 
Well lots of civilizations in the past supported slavery. That’s kind of a bandwagon/false appeal to authority  fallacy. Just because something was done a certain way in the past doesn’t mean that it’s correct, that’s why we have something called progress. If we kept everything exactly how it was in the past then we would still just be cavemen, but we are not because we are continually trying to improve our world compared to the world we had yesterday.

That wouldn't make them inferior. The fact they are better suited for it, actually makes them superior.
I would agree that some women are better suited to being housewives and some men are better suited to be the bread earners, but it’s not fair to generalize the whole sex based on some examples. There are many women who are better suited to working, and many men better suited to staying home, and that’s why we should let them decide. Because their sex doesn’t perfectly determine what they are made for, so we should believe them when they say that they are better suited for something else.

That applies to men as well though, so it can't be sexist.
Alright, maybe it’s not sexist, but we should still let people choose what they want, right? Sometimes they are wrong about what they are made for, but this system gets it right more than just assigning roles based on gender.
#19
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
I like how they've have , FUN and MENTAL in their ummmm, title. 
Fundamentalist. 
Oh and, (  A MEN FUN LIST )  
Hang on. 
( FUN DENTAL MIST ) yeah. 

No but ummmm , 
fundermentlist. 
 
Actully ,  when you think of a " mental list " or a  " A list of mentals " Christians are the first thing to mind.   


( i think It'll be FUN putting CHRISTIANS  on a,  MENTAL LIST ) 

Ok, ok.  ill stop now. 
But what im gonna have you guys do is. 

Try to Use the word ( fundermentlist )  4 times over the weekend. 
Also,   use it once incorrectly. 

Good luck. 
Ya bunch of fucken mental lists.  


 
#20
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
 There are some  women in the Old Testamant that appear to have served prominent roles as leaders and prophets.  Indeed women play a significant part in the story in all periods. Miriam springs to mind as does Deborah who appears as prophet and a judge.

In Corinthians Paul though seems to relegate women to second class citizens that "should take their teachings from their husbands and be silent  in church", saying it is "disgraceful" for them to do otherwise
This is the kind of contradiction that makes me skeptical of Christianity. I don’t think it’s right to say “no, women can be equal in the Bible.

Well that will be the Christian view as pushed by the church especially the Roman church. They seem to deny the fact that Jesus had a very large following of women in his entourage but they have clearly played down if not completely written out the rolls of women in Jesus life and ministry. Indeed Mary the mother of  Jesus appears only in two fleeting parts of the life of her son in the whole of the New Testament .  It was a woman that anointed Jesus on two occasions if the bible is to be believed. It was the women that stood at the foot of the cross, not a single disciple in sight  and it was women that had visited the tomb of Jesus first..... depending on which gospel you choose to take as , well...gospel truth.

In my opinion and put simply, the state in which the gospels and acts have come down to us and have been preached by exceptionally dumb pastors and priests from their high and mighty pulpits is frankly.. bullshit. 



The bible  CLEARLY states that homosexuals should be put to death, are you suggesting that Christians should throw them off a high rise  building with gods blessing and put it all down to simply doing "the lords work"  as does that  barbaric , vile 7th century ideology known to us as Islam still does to this day?
I’m not sure I’ve ever heard that this was in the Bible, so a cite would be nice, but I believe you.
Well there are many such BIBLICAL  verses that make it clear that the penalty for homosexuality is death. As it is for men that wear women's clothes; transvestites.
Here's one of many> Leviticus 20:13



In that case, then Ideally this leads the Christians to see that their god can’t be all-loving and sanction this,
I have challenged almost every single god fearing theist here on this forum to start a thread that shows me anything in the BIBLE showing gods love on display or an act of kindness. We are talking here about a god that will murder all the children his MOST loyal servant...... for a wager and his own ego. Read the sad sorry story of Job , here>> Job 1:6-22.  One would think that was bad enough but it gets worse,  Read this absolute savagery and lunacy>> Judges 11:30-40


but once people dig in their heels it’s very hard to get them to change. 
In my experience I have found that to be a waste of time trying. Is all one can do is challenge their own arguments using there own scriptures, which I have done many times on many of the threads that I have created here over the years.


If I did see any Christian fundamentalist doing this, I would obviously call 911 and try to stop it, and I would be very mad at them, (almost to the point of hate), but I would still understand their logic and respect it more than a liberal church.
My point was that Christians will not put to death a person for being a homosexual  or for practicing homosexuality. Christianity has dragged itself into modern times many years ago with the reformation. This of course throws a very large spanner in their beliefs and how they practice their religion because their religion now goes against the laws and teachings of their own god and what is written in their own book. The same can't be said for Muslims and their vile book that we know as the Quran.
#21
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,462
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Moozer325
If we kept everything exactly how it was in the past then we would still just be cavemen, but we are not because we are continually trying to improve our world compared to the world we had yesterday
You are not understanding the argument. Societies have tried to do it your way over the last 10k years but it always failed. So it really is doing what we know works vs doing what has made thousands of societies crumble in the past and has had zero success ever. 

it’s not fair to generalize the whole sex based on some examples

Are we debating truth here or what is fair? Sure it's not fair that some men would be happier to be at home all the time while the woman protects the house from intruders, but things are the way they are and denying reality makes everyone worse off. 

Alright, maybe it’s not sexist, but we should still let people choose what they want, right? Sometimes they are wrong about what they are made for, but this system gets it right more than just assigning roles based on gender.

This societies gets it wrong more often than the ones of the past as several studies on female happiness levels have determined, but obviously we shouldn't enshrined these principles into the law. It's just better if we personally behave in ethical ways. 
#22
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 303
0
2
5
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
0
2
5
-->
@Stephen
@Moozer325
I'm jumping in late, but . . .

Nobody is born gay.  It is completely against any type of genesis of man.  If you believe in the Biblical God, then he would not create a human already condemned as an abomination.  If you believe in evolution and the "gay gene", it will be extinct very soon since the person will be driven to not procreate with the other sex.

If any man would mention an attraction to the same sex, usually it's because of some sort of traumatic background.  Any other sexual deviation we will call perversion EXCEPT homosexuality.  Why is it allowed and being counted as okay now?

Women were not treated as lesser people.  They had their role and there had to be a leader.  That was the man.  It everything to do with harmony in the home or church so everyone had a place.

As for roles, look up the whole Alpha Male thing.  Women are programmed to respond to manly men and vice versa for guys.  It is a thing inside all human male and females.  Also, I'm not saying that a woman CANNOT do what a man can and vice versa.  I'm saying that the home and society will run better when the male and female, husband and wife, are in their respective places.

So society can carry on with things out of place, but it's like riding a bike with flat tires.  You'll get down the road, but not very well.

As for Stephen's account that no one can prove the love of God, he just won't listen.  He is hell-bent on believing that God is a murderous and dreadful person full of spite and malice.  Selective hearing I guess.  Look for the bad and you'll find it.  It all over the Bible about the love and judgment of God alike.  Just make sure you are on his good side.
#23
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@DavidAZZ
As for Stephen's account that no one can prove the love of God,

Where have I said "no one can prove the love of god"? 



he [Stephen] just won't listen. 

Listen to who? And to what?



He is hell-bent on believing that God is a murderous and dreadful person full of spite and malice.

Well I shall yet again ask you to show me different. You disappeared from the thread the last time you attempted to show me gods love, tolerance , humility, fairness, justness.  Or have you forgotten this thread created under your other user name already? Well I haven't.

Author:DavidAZ1 year ago

Is the God of the Bible "good" or "wicked"?

So whenever you feel ready to put your case for an all loving god I shall welcome it. 




#24
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 303
0
2
5
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
0
2
5
-->
@Stephen
Where have I said "no one can prove the love of god"? 
post #20 -"I have challenged almost every single god fearing theist here on this forum to start a thread that shows me anything in the BIBLE showing gods love on display or an act of kindness."

Was I reading too much into this statement?

Well I shall yet again ask you to show me different.
Show you?  Read the rest of the bible and you'll find it just like you cherry pick the judgement scriptures too.

You just ignore it and then rant on how much God is bad.

You disappeared from the thread the last time you attempted to show me gods love, tolerance , humility, fairness, justness.  Or have you forgotten this thread created under your other user name already? Well I haven't.
I usually disappear from forums for a while because I have better things to do than to beat my head against another hard head.  Not worth my time.  I can't prove something to anyone who already has their mind made up and especially from someone who is so annoying to read.  Your voice is real nasal and whiney whenever I read your posts.   Discourse with you is like drinking from a toilet.  I suppose I got what I wanted, but not sure if I like the process.

You are smart and sometimes engaging, but wow, you are annoying.
#25
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@DavidAZZ
Where have I said "no one can prove the love of god"? 
post #20 -"I have challenged almost every single god fearing theist here on this forum to start a thread that shows me anything in the BIBLE showing gods love on display or an act of kindness." 
Was I reading too much into this statement?

No. You were not reading it at all. 


You just ignore it and then rant on how much God is bad.

Well again I ask you to show me anything from the BIBLE where god shows anyone  his love, tolerance , humility, fairness, justness. IN FACT! the only SINGLE time the OT god even mentions the word - love,  is when he commands a father to slaughter  his son that he dearly loves. YES twat, the only single time!!!😂 Notice it is the fathers love for his son this god is talking about and not love that he himself holds for anyone.  



I usually disappear from forums for a while because I have better things to do than to beat my head against another hard head.

 Then you may as well disappear again, you have nothing to offer this thread and you certainly won't be showing anyone gods love, tolerance , humility, fairness, justness.  

I can't prove something to anyone

  I didn't ask for you to prove anything but simply show us where in the bible god displays his love, tolerance , humility, fairness, justness.  


 Your voice is real nasal and whiney whenever I read your posts.

😂 my "voice"!?  You fkn idiot! THEN DON'T FKN READ THEM, you absolute CLOWN!😂

You are smart and sometimes engaging, but wow, you are annoying.

Read carefully, twat. What you believe of me or assume of me is of no relevance. Simply do not engage or refer to me or reply to me. Its not fkn hard to do. 

Off you go now. You are derailing someone else's interesting and engaging thread. 
#26
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 303
0
2
5
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
0
2
5
-->
@Stephen
I think you proved my point on your annoyance.

the only SINGLE time the OT god even mentions the word - love,  is when he commands a father to slaughter  his son that he dearly loves. YES twat, the only single time!!!

I think you proved my point again. (selective reading) A quick google search shows that the word love first appears in the Bible with Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, BUT there is another passage that refers to God's love.

Nehemiah 9:17
You are a God ready to forgive, gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and did not forsake them.

Not Good enough?  How about this?

Isaiah 54:10
“For the mountains may depart
   and the hills be removed,
but my steadfast love shall not depart from you,
   and my covenant of peace shall not be removed,”
   says the Lord, who has compassion on you.
Or is this not God speaking and it's only man's concept of God?

How about the actual Hebrew word being used for love "ahavah"? (not that I am an expert in Hebrew) This would be the best word to describe love or care.

Jeremiah 31:3 
3 The LORD appeared to us in the past, saying: “I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with unfailing kindness.

How about Hosea chapter 11?:

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
2 As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images.
3 I taught Ephraim also to go, taking them by their arms; but they knew not that I healed them.
4 I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them.

Again, selective reading and a nasal whiney voice coming through the screen.  "God is so mean!" says Stephen.

You are derailing someone else's interesting and engaging thread. 

Derailing the thread?  You brought it up, retard.  
#27
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@DavidAZZ

You just can't help yourself can you. That's your great big massive sense of self importance raising its ugly  head.

Not Good enough?  How about this?
Nehemiah 9:17You are a God ready to forgive, gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and did not forsake them.
They aren't good enough PERIOD!
These are not an examples of god's of  love, tolerance , humility, fairness, justness on display, you idiot! 😂 That is an idiot just like you simply claiming god loves us without showing an example. 


FFS learn to understand what  it is that you are actually reading and in particular, who it was that wrote it. 


You are derailing someone else's interesting and engaging thread. 

Derailing the thread?  You brought it up, retard.  

Nope. Go back and read your post #22  where you claim -  "I'm jumping in late, but . . .", and then go on to claim I said something that  I hadn't.


 Your voice is real nasal and whiney whenever I read your posts.

😂 my "voice"!?  You fkn idiot! THEN DON'T FKN READ THEM, you absolute CLOWN!😂




Off you go now, you sad, sorry attention seeking little twat.😂😂




#28
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 303
0
2
5
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
0
2
5
-->
@Stephen
They aren't good enough PERIOD!
Again, you just refuse to see.  

These are not an examples of god's of  love, tolerance , humility, fairness, justness on display, you idiot!
Hmmm . . . I'm curious to know what you would claim is "love, tolerance, humility, fairness justness on display".  Apparently we are not talking about the same displays, but I would assume that these do show love:

called my son out of Egypt - showing at least enough care to reach for someone he loves.
I taught Ephraim also to go - Teaching someone that he refers to as "his son" AFTER they worshiped idols, tolerance 
I drew them with cords of a man - He would stoop so low as to act kind to man.  Humility
but they knew not that I healed them - This one I would agree is unfair.  They deserved judgement but God was merciful - Fairness

I would argue justness in the same sense as the last example above.

So here you go.  It's on display just in one passage.  I'm sure there are plenty more examples, but I don't have time to argue with a nasal whiney fool that have stompy fits that say "God is a meanie!" and blow everything off that is shown to them.

Go back and read your post #22 
Go back and read your post #20. Just responding to your post.



#29
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@DavidAZZ
Go back and read your post #22 
Go back and read your post #20. Just responding to your post.

I know, by telling lies.


So here you go.  It's on display just in one passage.

Nope.  Wrong again, Tradesecret..   Off you go know. 

9 days later

#30
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@Moozer325
Women and men are equals in (Orthodox) Christianity. The problem is that westerners live in a longhoused, misandrist society. So they believe that equality between men and wonen is sexist, since their status quo is misandry.