Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 95
#61
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOUR BLATANT ATTACK UPON JESUS QUOTE:
That is wrong, I am not attacking a quote from Jesus. You however, are mistaken and taking Matthew 18:20 out of context.

Therefore, whatever comes out of your mouth (your personal narrative) does not mean it comes out of the mouth of Jesus. And if you read Matthew 18:19, you'll find you need at least two people in agreement with what you say. 

#62
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
So do you understand the problem I have with your version of things?.....Acceptance without proof...Belief.

It's not that I am saying that your version is incorrect....It's just,  as I see it, your version is but one hypothesis.

Accepting one option and ignoring other possibilities is undoubtedly an easy fix.

So do you accept that other people see things differently?
#63
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
So what about the serious suggestion that a god would not view killing in the same way that we view killing.

We make an assumption and therefore expect a god to comply with our assumption.

Wouldn't it be a tad arrogant to expect this of a god?
#64
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RoderickSpode
I would suggest that the term "nature" applies to everything....As such the term  "super nature" is perhaps inevitable but probably unnecessary.


In an oscillating sequence of universes, god would be a necessary creation that would enable the re-initiation of the sequence.

Create a god to create a new universe, to create a new god to create a new universe etc. 

God would be the ultimate purpose of material evolution.....A flux of knowledge, data and energy.

And so to answer Stephen's question...The superfluous machinations (killings) of an organic enabler (humankind) would be irrelevant and inconsequential.



#65
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Would you assume all created gods to be the same/like-minded? Possibly some having a meaner demeanor than others?

Topic's author
#66
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ATroubledMan
And if you read Matthew 18:19, you'll find you need at least two people in agreement with what you say. 

So I agree with the Brother and I am not sure that Mathew said it was mandatory, obligatory or compulsory for the "need of two others",

here we are

Matthew 18:19 New International Version (NIV)
19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

So in typical form the Christian after painting himself into a corner attempts to rewrite or inject words into the scripture that are not, and have never been there.

Topic's author
#67
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
We make an assumption and therefore expect a god to comply with our assumption.

I expect a god to  practice what he preaches.
#68
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw



.
faux law,

YOUR RUNAWAY QUOTE IN POST #59: "blah, blah, blah. Tell it to someone who actually cares about your mirror through which you see everyone else, but not so well."

Instead of using an embarrassing grade school response to my statements making you the blatant ignorant pseudo-christian that you are, can you be more biblically specific in your answer?  I showed you two examples of Jesus being "Tired relating to His creation," where you said that was not possible, and all you can do is act like a 9 year old in response? 

Fauxlaw, you do realize that DEBATEART is an adult forum, don't you? Yes?  With your inept response above, maybe you would be more comfortable visiting a Christian Children's Forum?  To save you time from furthering your embarrassment within this forum, use the link below for an outlet where you would be more comfortable with children discussing the Bible, okay? You can thank me later.

Christian Youth Forum


.
#69
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Ma gavte la nata
#70
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
@ATroubledMan



ATroubledMan,

YOUR ERRONEOUS QUOTE:  "That is wrong, I am not attacking a quote from Jesus."

Correct, I specifically stated in my post #57 that you attacked Jesus by your quote stating: "Sorry, but you can't include Jesus into your personal narrative as if he were standing there right in front of us," not that you attacked a Jesus quote!  H-E-L-L-O? 

You are obviously having a very hard time in understanding Matthew 18:20 relative to you positing that I can't have Jesus standing right in front of us when I Bible Slap the pseudo-christian like you, where most certainly I can. Jesus stated: "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Matthew 18:20) What part of Jesus stating; "There am I among them" don't you understand where we are gathered in His name, He is there in spirit with us right in front of us?  GET IT?

Maybe you should take the RUNAWAY stance of your equally Bible ignorant Roderick Spode and not even try to address my posts to you like he has done to my post #55 within this thread? It may save you a lot of further grief in thinking that you know the scriptures, when in actuality, you don't in any way whatsoever.  You are just another example of a "pseudo-christian" within this forum.


.

#71
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw



.
Fauxlaw,

YOUR RUNAWAY QUOTE FROM YOUR BIBLE IGNORANCE TO MY POST #68: "Ma gavte la nata"

Regarding you stepping in the proverbial poo once again, the correct term in Italian is "Ma levati il tappo" where the inference is in no way relative to my presence upon this forum because I can back up my propositions with biblical axioms, whereas your presence in this forum, is to run away from them in embarrassment.

Your ignorance outside of your Bible ignorance is duly noted.


.

#72
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Well, BrotherBelbo, aren't we ignorant of Italian dialects. From Turin, if you must know. Must read Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum to find it's most ardent user.
Must also find a synonym for 'ignorant,' It's getting old.
Glad you can make note of something because you can put a cork in your singing, friar.

#73
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Would you be willing to discuss some biblical topics in order to exegete them? 

#74
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Correct, I specifically stated in my post #57 that you attacked Jesus
No, I never attacked Jesus, I was talking directly to you. I mentioned that Jesus does not support whatever you say, Jesus only supports what Jesus says. You can claim to be upset with people who don't agree with you, but that doesn't mean Jesus is also upset. It's just you and no one else.

You are obviously having a very hard time in understanding Matthew 18:20 relative to you positing that I can't have Jesus standing right in front of us when I Bible Slap the pseudo-christian like you, where most certainly I can.
You can Bible Slap whoever you want, but that doesn't mean you know what you're talking about ( you don't) nor does it mean Jesus is Bible Slapping along with you. You are talking by yourself here on these forums, Jesus is not talking with you.

So, the next time you quote the Bible, try and understand what it is you're quoting before you do.
#75
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@fauxlaw
"Must read Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum to find it's most ardent user."

Fantastic book -- possibly my favorite. Read it for the first time in college and a couple of times since then. I'm still sure I have missed major chunks of meaning and reference. But still, the best.
#76
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@rosends
Thanks. It is my favorite novel of all time. Plus, I've been top many of the places Eco takes us.
Yes, it takes several reads for just the text. The chapter headings are a great challenge, and I'm fluent in Italian, and French, but the rest I just ignore. Eco was a trie linguist. I had a professor once who taught ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs grammar who was like that. Lectured in English, French Italian, Greek, German, Spanish, Arabic... and expected we understood his seamless dialogue.
#77
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
So how do you know what a god preaches?

When have you ever witnessed a god preaching?
#78
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RoderickSpode
I just think that it is not necessary to personify a god principle in this way.

Attributing human characteristics to something that is probably non-human.

Meanness is a human character trait, which is something that I cannot apply to what I conceive to be a god principle.
Topic's author
#79
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
So how do you know what a god preaches?

The bible and I think that should past tense i.e once preached-  according to theist

When have you ever witnessed a god preaching?

Never, but I am not into your semantics vic. In the  bible, which as you know is a book, god says quite a lot. I know this because I have this very book. It is a real  book and I can read what all of these mythical or not characters have to say and what they have supposed to have done.  I can't see your point in going over old ground here vic.  I appreciate your don't accept any of it and believe it all to be mythical but as I have explained, the bible is a book like any other and is up for discussion, ....in my book.

I refer you to my earlier post#25

Discussions of many so called "mythical" subjects and fantasies are discussed and studied all around the world in every school collage and university. Billions of Books have been written on these "mythical" beings and what is believed about them by different peoples past and present  and by theists and atheist alike.

Shakespeare's  works are for ever boring pupils and students all around the world, they are not true, factual stories. But they are discussed and studied even in non speaking English countries.  



Are you telling me that these mythical gods and their individual religions  should never be discussed at all, anywhere, ever? 

It is my contention that these subjects should be discussed weather or not one believes "gods" existed or not. The point you are missing is that millions of people over millions of years have worshiped these beings in one form or another and millions simply do not believe as such but it doesn't stop them discussing these subjects.  Theists  write and speak as if they existed or still exist. It is up to the atheist then,  should he wish to , to challenge what it is that these sycophantic fawning theist actually believe in .

If you wish to discuss  everything else but the topic of my thread, it would be decent and polite of you if you started your own thread. Rather than continue to repeat yourself over and over thereby clogging up my thread with your well known opinions on why no one should be discussing god or the bible..



Incidentally. It may have actually  escaped your notice that while I agree that there is no real and factual evidence for the Christian god ever existing, the bible does indeed itself exist and,  there-for it  is up for discussion. As would be, and is, any book discussed in book clubs AND internet forums around the globe.   
 
But it is my guess that you have never even considered this although here you are, discussing and opineing to what shouldn't be discussed.



#80
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
But don't you realise that a god doesn't say anything in a book.

People write things in books, that other people then repeat.

And the very fact that I am communicating on this site should indicate that I very much enjoy discussing such issues.


"I agree that there is no real or factual evidence for the Christian god ever existing".... I appreciate your honesty.


Do you appreciate my take on "Thou Shalt Not Kill"...The inconsequence of humanity in the eyes (figuratively speaking) of a universal god.




#81
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
Gods do a book FULL STOP

It's always good when you start believing in god and then realize that the god you where believing in just so happens to be  a " Make-a-book " god. 

If i was able to be a Christian. I'd be still blown away by god doing a book for us.
I'd use it as 100% proof of gods existence.  
I feel that they don't really believe in God. Ya cant 87.3 % believe god. 






Topic's author
#82
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4





People write things in books, that other people then repeat.[...............] I very much enjoy discussing such issues.

And I quite enjoy discussing what it is that people are repeating  and also what people have written in books, including and especially the book titled the Bible.
I treat it just as I would any other ancient tome. 


#83
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@ATroubledMan


ATroubledMan,


YOUR PREVIOUS QUOTE: "Sorry, but you can't include Jesus into your personal narrative as if he were standing there right in front of us," 

MY QUOTE SHOWING THAT JESUS STANDS WITH ME IN SPIRIT:  "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Matthew 18:20)

With the biblical axiom in Matthew 18:20, Jesus does stand right in front of us when I Bible Slapped your Biblical ignorance! Therefore, your vain attempt to say otherwise in futile, period!

2+2=4, oil and water don't mix, and you are vying to be one of the most Bible ignorant pseudo-christians on DEBATEART Religion forum!


May I be of service to you, in the fact that you need to take an online Reading Comprehension class post haste, okay? Here is a link that you need to go to as soon as possible to save yourself further embarrassment if you plan to camp out on this forum, understood?

READING COMPREHENSION 101


#84
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw



.
Fauxlaw,

In your revealing post #72, you are now down to grade school name calling relative to my moniker which is the first sign of defeat of your perceived intellect by taking the route "look over here at this shiny thing" because I have to try and get out of the predicament that the Brother D has put me in!  Why an I not surprised?

The rest of your gobbledygook in your statement is only showing that you should have just remained silent to me correcting you again, to save what face you have left.

I couldn't help but notice that in other threads your biblical ignorance continues without bounds!  Jesus and I cannot believe some of the Devil Speak that you have expounded upon, therefore be ready for more embarrassing biblical correction in your behalf, okay?  


.

#85
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@BrotherDThomas
bring it
#86
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Barney
@fauxlaw


.
faux law,

Barring your macho man statement of "bring it," especially at your age, you conveniently didn't address the main part of my post #84, obviously because you were too embarrassed to continue of the facts it contained!  Good move on your part, you are learning to STFU to save further embarrassment!

Because of the "plethora" of blatant biblical ignorance that you pervade in other threads, I will be a busy TRUE Christian!

I am in the hopes of our moderator Ragnar will let me correct your incorrect biblical thinking, and not take this act as "harassing you" in any way. We shall see.


.
#87
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Yes, thank you for providing that link to a reading comprehension course. What I don't understand is why you didn't take the course yourself? It seems pretty clear that you have not comprehended the verse to which you refer. Allow me to explain it for you. The verse states: 

"For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."

You even put in bold the relevant part of which you are confused. The word "Among" means, 'surrounded by; in the company of, being a member or members of (a larger set). 

You shouted obnoxiously: "MY QUOTE SHOWING THAT JESUS STANDS WITH ME IN SPIRIT"

You are mistakenly conflating the word 'among' with the phrase 'stand with me' which have two completely different meanings. People can stand among themselves in a group, but that doesn't mean they all stand together for one another. Jesus did not state that he is standing with you and what you say, he only stated that he is standing among you. 

Better go back and check out that link yourself, you need the course more than I.
#88
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7


.
ATroubledMan,

YOUR SEALING YOUR FATE QUOTE: "You even put in bold the relevant part of which you are confused. The word "Among" means, 'surrounded by; in the company of, being a member or members of (a larger set). "

You are taking semantics to an embarrassing low level to try in vain to remove your biblical ignorance, because myself, Jesus in spirit, and in behalf of others that would correct you as well in this respect, the word "among" holds true.  Besides, as if Jesus wouldn't stand by me if only I was present in my easily Bible Slapping you silly, instead of two or three, or even a multitude was there, as the passage in question so states! 

YOUR CONTINUED EMBARRASSING QUOTE: Jesus did not state that he is standing with you and what you say."

"For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Matthew 18:20). First off, you are denying Jesus' statement of "there am I among them" which deduces to Jesus' spirit.  In turn, you are having an embarrassing time of understanding the term "spirit" of Jesus standing with me, where once again you slap Jesus in the face by denying His spirt! When does your insolence towards Jesus ever stop???!!!


Pseudo-christians like you, in name only, just don't know when to STFU to save further embarrassment, but would rather grasp for the proverbial straws that are just not there to begin with. Sad indeed.


Have you signed up for the Reading Comprehension 101 Class yet? Please do so, okay?


You are excused, for now.


#89
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@BrotherDThomas
you conveniently didn't address the main part of my post #84,

Why address what is not there? 

"Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing." - Macbeth V, v

There's your #84, metaphorically. Like I said, bring it.
Since you delay [for a purpose, I presume], tell me, o one whose endowment of wisdom is as corked as mine is of lack of it [then if I lack, I have no need of a cork, yeah?]
Tell why we learn from Genesis 1:27, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them..."
Why, then, do men have nipples, having no use of them, for no one wise ever gave a babe for suck to a man? Meanwhile we are told in Ecclesiastes 3: 17  "I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work."

#90
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Barney
@fauxlaw



faux law,

YOU CONTINUE TO RUN FROM ME, WHY?

Here is what you didn't address in my posts to you, other than you giving a statement by Macbeth that is not relative to your running away like a little boy, to wit:

In your revealing post #72, you are now down to grade school name calling relative to my moniker which is the first sign of defeat of your perceived intellect by taking the route "look over here at this shiny thing" because I have to try and get out of the predicament that the Brother D has put me in!  Why an I not surprised? 

The rest of your gobbledygook in your statement is only showing that you should have just remained silent to me correcting you again, to save what face you have left.

Barring your macho man statement of "bring it," especially at your age, you conveniently didn't address the main part of my post #84, obviously because you were too embarrassed to continue of the facts it contained!  Good move on your part, you are learning to STFU to save further embarrassment!

Because of the "plethora" of blatant biblical ignorance that you pervade in other threads, I will be a busy TRUE Christian!



Do not fret, you are defiantly on my list to show what an ignorant pseudo-christian you are. This will be easily accomplished when I deal with a few others of your ilk and type in other forums, understood?  When I engage you, DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT run from my posts like you have done with the statements above. You don't want to leave DEBATEART sheepishly and then come back with another moniker to save face, do you? 


Ragnar, as you can see, when I Bible Slap fauxlaw in the name of Jesus, this is NOT harassment that I was allegedly guilty of before, agreed?