i believe that all of scripture should be interpreted literally. God isnt metaphorical, nor is he a deciever. If he says something is happening or happened or will happen. then it will.
Religion is only for the highest and most evolved animals.
Posts
Total:
52
-->
@Tradesecret
It is clear that only humans have developed a religious perspective on this planet.Other animal and life forms simply are not evolved enough to be able to consider let alone relate to a religious being or religion.It is ironic therefore that there are some, nominally called atheists that reject this evolution, preferring to live wild like animals and a yesteryear.Consider for instance - the curiosities that the so called elitists consider culture: living in the wild, eating vegetable, eating rare meat, eating raw meat, living like savages, living free spirited, without control or rules or social norms. Each of these is a desire, so it seems to revert back to animalism. to a time before they were enlightened, spiritually awakened, evolved. eat whatever, copulate with whatever, crap wherever, and the most obvious form of animal thinking, dispense with logical thinking.
LOL, is that what atheists do? I guess I wasn’t paying attention, tell memore, do they grow horns and a tail too? You have quite the imagination.
Atheism is therefore obviously a non-progressive form of thinking. It's not progressive, it's not conservative, it is simply a revert back to the most primitive means of living.You told us you do not believe in evolution, and now you are speaking about how religion has evolved in humans and not in animals, and claiming therefore Atheists are not as evolved as Theists. So you don't believe in evolution unless it's useful to make a point?It is funny that you think that what I say on a different topic which is completely isolated and distinct from this topic has anything to do with this topic.
It’s funny that you think integritydoesn’t matter, so this post is about atheists. If they are atheists on some posts and Christians on other posts, dothey only sometimes devolve into wild animals living in the woods?
What sort of ad hominin argument is that?
It’s not any sort of ad hominem argument.
I never said I don't believe in evolution absolutely. For the record, I do believe in what some people call "microevolution". In any event, my argument is straightforward. Humans are the most evolved creatures on our planet. Humanity is also the only one that practices religion. Hence, it is ipso facto a reasonable conclusion to draw.
Your premise is not necessarily true,and even if it were true, your conclusion doesn’t follow.
To disagree with this - prove a more primitive animal than humanity has religion.You guys sure do misuse the idea of burden of proof, it is not valid to make an argument and wrap up with if you don't agree the burden of proof is on you, that's just not how logical arguments work. It's also not valid to specify the manner in which one is allowed to disagree.Hmmm. This is an interesting diversionary tactic that I see here on this site more and more. Please explain how the burden of proof ought to sit with me?
No thanks, seeing as I didn’t sayanything even resembling that, I’ll pass on explaining it.
I love how you guys think the debate isabout the debate rather than the subject supposedly being debated. Burden ofproof, new definitions of the words, ad hominem arguments, all these nonsense tacticsused to avoid actually discussing the subject are uninteresting. I’m done discussing the BoP with all you cluelessgoofballs, go ahead and play your inane BoP game without me.
I made an assertion. Therefore I need to provide an argument to support that assertion. This I have done. More than that I have provided anyone who opposes me as least one avenue to falsify my assertion. Hence, arguments commence with an assertion. An argument is provided by that proponent. Then the discussion moves to the other side to refute and falsify if they are able. That is logically how discussions and arguments work. What however it looks like you are doing is this. You want me to make an assertion. Then you want me to provide a reason. Then you want to me provide another reason and then another reason. All the time while you sit back on your seat and simply pretend that there is no burden for you to respond. Now the fact is - you don't have to respond. But all that demonstrates is that either you don't care enough to respond, which incidentally, by your speedy response refutes, or that you don't know how to respond. I think the latter explains it. As for valid means of disagreeing. You can disagree in any fashion that you want. My suggestion was simply to help the plebs such as yourself.
LOL, you seem to be able to have a discussionwith me all by yourself, you don’t really need me to respond to argue with me. Please, go on ahead, I’ll watch you continueto discuss this with me, I find it entertaining.
I can make a strong argument that "other animals and life forms" demonstrate rudimentary forms of religious behavior, and I think it can be seen as evidence thatthe spiritual sense has evolved over time and the process involves rudimentary forms of religious behavior in other species in varying degrees. But I suspect that wouled just be a waste of time.Excellent, I look forward to your strong arguments.
Are yousure you need me in this conversation, you had a conversation with me about theBoP without my involvement, perhaps you’d like to discuss my strong argumentswithout hearing them. And remind me, are you wanting me to provide astrong argument for religious behavior in animals or is the debate about thedebate now, are you looking for a strong argument about the rules of this debate game you play?
-->
@Melcharaz
nonsense. nor do you have any proof to make that assumption.you certainly dont have a good enough understanding of scripture to seperate metaphorical discription as a true rendering.i bet you think the psalms are just metaphorical as well.
The Psalms are poetry in the main. It contains many songs. It is what is known as wisdom language.
As for proof, what kind of proof are you looking for?
-->
@Melcharaz
i believe that all of scripture should be interpreted literally. God isnt metaphorical, nor is he a deciever. If he says something is happening or happened or will happen. then it will.
hmmm. People can interpret the language within the Scriptures, as they can with any other piece of literature either literally or allegorically. This is the primary difference between the way theologians in the West interpret it as opposed to the Orthodox in the East. In the East, where they interpret it allegorically, they do so with the idea that the words of any given text have several layers or meanings. In the West, where we use the literal methodology, we mean that the text of meaning has one primary meaning. In other words, we don't have to go looking for other so-called "spiritual" meanings.
Under that understanding, I think, since I live in the West and also because I think words have meanings, that we should use the literal manner of interpretation or understanding words in their context.
Nevertheless, understanding the words are literal is only the first step and for many in the West, a no-brainer. It is then that we need to discern what kind of genre the author was using when he or she wrote the literal text. Was it a historical narrative piece of writing? Was it poetry? Was it wisdom literature? Was it a letter being written to a particular person or group of people? Was it a gospel? Was it apocalyptic writing or even prophetic writing? Authors communicate their ideas in a range of different forms. God is not metaphorical, but sometimes the way he communicates to us is using such a form. That is not deceptive - that is simply using his creativity to communicate ideas. We do it every day in our lives, and it is not deceptive. We use poetry, exaggeration, hyperbole, historical narrative, and so on. We use metaphors and similes. We compare and contrast. We draw conclusions and use reason and logic. And so does God who is the author of language.
None of this makes him a deceiver nor does it mean he doesn't mean what he says. Or that what he promises won't come to pass. But we do need to understand what he is saying. For instance, in Psalm 23, the Lord is called a shepherd. This does not mean that he tends literal sheep, although it is true that David did. When the bible says we all like sheep have gone astray, he is not saying that we are literal sheep. When the Psalmist says that God owns the cattle on 1000 hills, he is not saying that God does not own the cattle on the rest of the hills. When Jesus says if your eye causes you to sin, gauge it out, he is not literally saying gauge your eye out. He is using hyperbole. He is stressing the seriousness of sin. Don't do it he is saying. When he says - you must hate your family more than me, he is talking with hyperbole. He is stressing the notion of priorities, not saying you should literally hate your family.
We need to be careful with the way we understand language. As you said above we need to understand it literally, but then we need to determine what kind of genre it is. Literal is not a genre. Sadly, many people Christians and otherwise never had much of an education and so never learned the difference.
you dont understand what im trying to say. dont worry about it. its more important for you to be saved. have you recieved the Holy Spirit?
-->
@Tradesecret
As demonstrated, you know exactly what I am saying but have no credible way of refuting the argument, other than to cite terminology such as non-sequitur and ad-hominem.
So a magical bloke f**ked a Middle Eastern virgin and sort of created a cloned version himself.
And by the way, this magical bloke created the universe only a few thousand years ago.
It's the creation hypothesis of fantasy.
And something from nothing, for sure it's the big conundrum with no solution.
So, it was a GOD what did it.
Ah, but what did GOD?
We seem to be back to square one again.
Magical floaty about Arabian type, or BIG BOOM, or whatever, all rely upon the something from nothing principle.
Because the old eternal GOD thing, is about as non-sequitur as it gets Trade.
-->
@zedvictor4
As demonstrated, you know exactly what I am saying but have no credible way of refuting the argument, other than to cite terminology such as non-sequitur and ad-hominem.
so what is your argument? Read below. Your argument is ridicule and mockery.
So a magical bloke f**ked a Middle Eastern virgin and sort of created a cloned version himself.And by the way, this magical bloke created the universe only a few thousand years ago.It's the creation hypothesis of fantasy.
ibid.
just for the record, Christians don't believe in a magical bloke. We don't believe that God had sexual relations of any description with Mary. We don't think Jesus is a clone of God.
Yes, God created the world. When? I don't know. Was it a few thousand years ago? I don't know. I wasn't there and it CAN'T be confirmed 100% either way. Whatever any person believes about the beginning of the world or the universe MUST be taken on FAITH of some description.
And something from nothing, for sure it's the big conundrum with no solution.
that's your belief - you argue it.
So, it was a GOD what did it.Ah, but what did GOD?
that again is your discussion. I take the view that some things are eternal. We see it even in our temporal world, numbers start in eternity and end in eternity. obviously both start and end are being used figuratively. We think of space - but what is at the end of space?
The problem you have is that what you can apply to numbers, and time and space, you can't apply to a personality. But you don't have an epistemological reason to deny it. just a blind faith.
We seem to be back to square one again.Magical floaty about Arabian type, or BIG BOOM, or whatever, all rely upon the something from nothing principle.Because the old eternal GOD thing, is about as non-sequitur as it gets Trade.
Nope. you are the one who gets back to the circle. Not me.
-->
@Sidewalker
It is clear that only humans have developed a religious perspective on this planet.Other animal and life forms simply are not evolved enough to be able to consider let alone relate to a religious being or religion.It is ironic therefore that there are some, nominally called atheists that reject this evolution, preferring to live wild like animals and a yesteryear.Consider for instance - the curiosities that the so called elitists consider culture: living in the wild, eating vegetable, eating rare meat, eating raw meat, living like savages, living free spirited, without control or rules or social norms. Each of these is a desire, so it seems to revert back to animalism. to a time before they were enlightened, spiritually awakened, evolved. eat whatever, copulate with whatever, crap wherever, and the most obvious form of animal thinking, dispense with logical thinking.LOL, is that what atheists do? I guess I wasn’t paying attention, tell memore, do they grow horns and a tail too? You have quite the imagination.
My point is simple. Atheists do what they want according to their own desires and lusts. Progressives and atheists are often correlated. They prefer culture - at least how they perceive it. Are there exceptions? Of course. But culture and class for the progressive is Green orientated, socialist, vegetarian or more extreme, highly academized, fine wine, fine food, fine everything. Do what you want - live for the day, captain of your own fate.
silly of you to suggest tails and horns. Evolution has its limits.
Atheism is therefore obviously a non-progressive form of thinking. It's not progressive, it's not conservative, it is simply a revert back to the most primitive means of living.You told us you do not believe in evolution, and now you are speaking about how religion has evolved in humans and not in animals, and claiming therefore Atheists are not as evolved as Theists. So you don't believe in evolution unless it's useful to make a point?It is funny that you think that what I say on a different topic which is completely isolated and distinct from this topic has anything to do with this topic.It’s funny that you think integritydoesn’t matter, so this post is about atheists. If they are atheists on some posts and Christians on other posts, dothey only sometimes devolve into wild animals living in the woods?
I never said integrity doesn't matter. In the other string, I was enquiring about the commencement of life. Here I am enquiring about the correlation between religion and evolution. Both are valid enquiries. What I say there in no way discounts what I have said here.
What sort of ad hominin argument is that?It’s not any sort of ad hominem argument.
Really!.
I never said I don't believe in evolution absolutely. For the record, I do believe in what some people call "microevolution". In any event, my argument is straightforward. Humans are the most evolved creatures on our planet. Humanity is also the only one that practices religion. Hence, it is ipso facto a reasonable conclusion to draw.Your premise is not necessarily true,and even if it were true, your conclusion doesn’t follow.
In other words, you can't follow it. that is what people call a biased conclusion.
To disagree with this - prove a more primitive animal than humanity has religion.You guys sure do misuse the idea of burden of proof, it is not valid to make an argument and wrap up with if you don't agree the burden of proof is on you, that's just not how logical arguments work. It's also not valid to specify the manner in which one is allowed to disagree.Hmmm. This is an interesting diversionary tactic that I see here on this site more and more. Please explain how the burden of proof ought to sit with me?No thanks, seeing as I didn’t sayanything even resembling that, I’ll pass on explaining it.I love how you guys think the debate isabout the debate rather than the subject supposedly being debated. Burden ofproof, new definitions of the words, ad hominem arguments, all these nonsense tacticsused to avoid actually discussing the subject are uninteresting. I’m done discussing the BoP with all you cluelessgoofballs, go ahead and play your inane BoP game without me.
I don't particularly care what you love. That is your issue. Burden of Proof is for the person who asserts. I'm not avoiding the discussion. I asked a reasonable question and it is you who is hiding. And running away.
I made an assertion. Therefore I need to provide an argument to support that assertion. This I have done. More than that I have provided anyone who opposes me as least one avenue to falsify my assertion. Hence, arguments commence with an assertion. An argument is provided by that proponent. Then the discussion moves to the other side to refute and falsify if they are able. That is logically how discussions and arguments work. What however it looks like you are doing is this. You want me to make an assertion. Then you want me to provide a reason. Then you want to me provide another reason and then another reason. All the time while you sit back on your seat and simply pretend that there is no burden for you to respond. Now the fact is - you don't have to respond. But all that demonstrates is that either you don't care enough to respond, which incidentally, by your speedy response refutes, or that you don't know how to respond. I think the latter explains it. As for valid means of disagreeing. You can disagree in any fashion that you want. My suggestion was simply to help the plebs such as yourself.LOL, you seem to be able to have a discussionwith me all by yourself, you don’t really need me to respond to argue with me. Please, go on ahead, I’ll watch you continueto discuss this with me, I find it entertaining.
That's a convenient response. No one asked you to respond. You did it all by yourself.
I can make a strong argument that "other animals and life forms" demonstrate rudimentary forms of religious behavior, and I think it can be seen as evidence thatthe spiritual sense has evolved over time and the process involves rudimentary forms of religious behavior in other species in varying degrees. But I suspect that wouled just be a waste of time.Excellent, I look forward to your strong arguments.Are yousure you need me in this conversation, you had a conversation with me about theBoP without my involvement, perhaps you’d like to discuss my strong argumentswithout hearing them. And remind me, are you wanting me to provide astrong argument for religious behavior in animals or is the debate about thedebate now, are you looking for a strong argument about the rules of this debate game you play?
and who is choosing to hide behind silly rhetoric right now? Give us your best shot.
-->
@Tradesecret
OK. We're getting somewhere.
Christians now think that the Bible tales are a bit of a nonsense.
Especially in respect of GOD, the virgin Mary, the baby Jesus, and Jesus Christ who was not actually GOD.
So how does that affect the Christian hypothesis?
Or is this just the Trade hypothesis?
Trade's version:
Well, even though something cannot come from nothing.
It seemingly did.
In fact, it came from something eternal which we refer to as GOD
And even though we don't know exactly what GOD is, we must nonetheless worship it.
Zed's version:
Well, even though something cannot come from nothing.
It seemingly did.
So, it may have come from something eternal, which I refer to as the GOD principle.
But as I have no idea as to what it might be, I see no need to worship it.
We're not poles apart Trade.
Some people need to worship something, ergo theist.
And some people don't, ergo atheist.
-->
@zedvictor4
The Reverend wrote: Religion is only for the highest and most evolved animals.
I can only suppose the Reverend is saying that all atheist are a lower form of animal when compared to the haughty know-it-all theist.
There again, he does admit that this thread was created only to "roast atheists". But no one should be too surprised by this cowardly attack on his opponents that have had both hands tied behind their backs.
The Reverend spells out very clearly what he thinks of the/us lower order of atheist "animals" here.
-->
@Stephen
.
Stephen,
As usual, the #1 Bible ignorant and stupid fool does not give any peered reviewed citations to support the propositions in the initial post regarding Atheists, and again uses hearsay, hypotheticals, and wanting opinions, just like when discussing the Bible, where we and others have easily Bible Slapped Silly®️ the #1 Bible ignorant and stupid fool over the years! LOL!
Can you believe a Christian like the #1 Bible ignorant and stupid fool that believes in evolution, where at the onset, they slap Jesus in the face as God in the contradicting Genesis Creation narratives, where Jesus made man from dust (Genesis 2:7), and the woman from a man's rib (Genesis 2:22), and refigured the earth from a void (Genesis 1:2), and created the universe approximately 6000 years ago! How ungodly and UNCHRISTIAN-LIKE can the #1 Bible ignorant and stupid fool get, which makes this thread meaningless because the #1 Bible ignorant and stupid fool is not even close in being a Christian because in going against God's Creationism in the first place! Therefore, since the #1 Bible ignorant and stupid fool is not a Christian, then they have no authority to spew forth derogatory remarks against the theists foes, the Atheists! Duh!
But, we expected nothing less than the #1 Bible ignorant and stupid fool to make a blatant fool of themselves once again in yet another thread! LOL!
.
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
As usual, the #1 Bible ignorant and stupid fool does not give any peered reviewed citations to support the propositions in the initial post regarding Atheists, and again uses hearsay, hypotheticals, and wanting opinions, just like when discussing the Bible.
10/10 👍 spot on.
-->
@zedvictor4
OK. We're getting somewhere.Christians now think that the Bible tales are a bit of a nonsense.Especially in respect of GOD, the virgin Mary, the baby Jesus, and Jesus Christ who was not actually GOD.So how does that affect the Christian hypothesis?Or is this just the Trade hypothesis?
Christianity is a broad church. As the number of denominations clearly reflects. Yet EVEN within each denomination, there also exists a difference in emphasis of thinking. An example of this difference in thinking is not so much logic and reasoning but the premises by which conclusions are drawn. Is there more of a reliance upon Revelation or more of a reliance on experience? Hence, we have the liberals in one corner, the fundamentalists in another corner, the Charismatics in another corner and the Confessionalists in another corner.
Most Christians I suspect do consider their religion significant or they would leave. Most Christians do believe in God. There are some who don't. Many Christians believe in the reliability of the Scriptures, even if they don't consider them without error. Most would consider that the Scriptures hold great authority in general, even if they don't always consistently apply the bible to themselves individually. Many Christians do hold some images in the bible as purposeful for instruction rather than as prescriptive for life.
Yet despite these differences, Christians still manage to find unity in their faith. Is it perfect? Of course not. Can we find fault? Absolutely. Yet there are relatively few who would simply throw the name of Christ away as nonsense.
Trade's version:Well, even though something cannot come from nothing.It seemingly did.In fact, it came from something eternal which we refer to as GODAnd even though we don't know exactly what GOD is, we must nonetheless worship it.
Hmmm. I don't think something came from nothing. I absolutely hold that God created all things. There is no question in my mind. Despite the "convenient" calculations that some do, the odds and probability of life beginning, let alone getting to the point it is today is so impossible that only a "fool" would seriously consider it worthy of putting on the table. There are many intelligent fools in this world.
God is eternal. This means he has no beginning nor no end. He is also timeless.
We don't need to know exactly what God is to worship God. We know enough, however, even as he himself has revealed himself so that we are without excuse. What makes someone worthy of respect? Isn't that the question that people ask and demand in our day and age? I won't respect someone unless they prove themselves. Yet it is nonsense of a statement.
Imagine, you go down and speed in your car. Suddenly in your mirror, you see blue lights. Will you stop? Yes. But why? Respect. Respect this police officer has never proved. He just wears a uniform. You end up in court. The judge sentences you to 3 months in custody. What do you do? Give him the finger. He or she has never proved they deserve your respect or submission or obedience. And yet you are given no choice. You will respect them or face consequences.
The correct way of understanding who to give respect to is more complex than simply repeating the nonsense statement that respect has to be proved. There are some people and things that deserve respect whether they have proved it or not. And they do so because of their position, because of their nature, because of their character, because of their uniform, and what they represent. Police deserve respect, judges, deserve respect, parents deserve respect, governments deserve respect, armies deserve respect, firefighters deserve respect. They don't have to earn it. It is theirs implicitly. Even the North Korean president deserves respect.
Of course, all of these people can lose respect. Yet even if we lose respect for them individually, and even if we lose respect for what they represent, we still will respect their power and the things that they can certainly do.
The same applies to God. God created the world and the universe. That is supreme power and has a deserved respect implicitly. Not believing in justice doesn't mean that you are not subject to the laws of the land. Even the ultimate anarchist in the great state of America is still subject to the laws of the land. Some things are inescapable.
God has done far more than simply create a world. He has put into place the laws of logic and reason and science so that you can use your brain in the first instance, and the things about you. He gives you breath every day just so that you can have the option of breathing out words of hate towards him. He isn't afraid of you. He doesn't need you. Yet he has still given you life, perhaps to see if you can figure out how to reason properly. perhaps to see if you might humble yourself. perhaps to see if there is more to you than just your own feelings.
Zed's version:Well, even though something cannot come from nothing.It seemingly did.So, it may have come from something eternal, which I refer to as the GOD principle.But as I have no idea as to what it might be, I see no need to worship it.
We don't worship what we understand perfectly. We worship the creator God of this universe who holds each one of us in his hands and who loves us even though many of us hate him.
Worship doesn't mean getting on your knees and pouring out your tears to him. It can mean that, but it doesn't only mean that. In your case it would simply be an acknowledgment that you don't know EVERYTHING, and that there are some things bigger than you, including God. God is not only the creator, he is the judge. And interestingly, along the way, he became for those who don't want to represent themselves, their lawyer. The first rule of law, the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.
We're not poles apart Trade.Some people need to worship something, ergo theist.And some people don't, ergo atheist.
You're right. We are both broken people. And neither of us can fix ourselves by ourselves. Everyone needs to eat and drink and breathe. When it comes to worship, the same is true and ALL of us worship. IT is never a matter of worship or no worship, but rather WHO we worship. Everyone has a god. Even if that god is called zed, or Trade, or the God of the Bible. Hence, there really is no such thing as an atheist. The one who does not worship the True God just worships another god. The so-called atheist worships himself. He alone is worthy of respect and understanding. He alone is the most important person for that person. He alone is his own greatest authority.
-->
@Tradesecret
I’m pretty sure you could probably teach an ape which knows sign language about a monster that lives up a hill. And maybe teach it ritualistic practices to prevent it from coming for them. But that would probably be considered abuse. You would also probably have to teach them when they’re young so it sticks with them.
-->
@Reece101
I’m pretty sure you could probably teach an ape which knows sign language about a monster that lives up a hill. And maybe teach it ritualistic practices to prevent it from coming for them. But that would probably be considered abuse. You would also probably have to teach them when they’re young so it sticks with them.
It wouldn't be abuse if it were true. In fact, if it's true, it would be reckless, vindictive, and cruel not to teach it about the monster.
The Reverend that also claims to be a lawyer wrote:#43
The first rule of law, the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.
Fk me. For someone that also claims to be a lawyer himself, one would have thought he would get that famous adage correct.
And it is not "the 1st rule of law" either. It is simply an adage. A simple truthful observation attributed to Abe Lincoln.
The 1st rule of law is that ; No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
Those poor clients.
-->
@Tradesecret
#25.
Logical realism says - that nothing can come from nothing. It requires something to create something and to cause something.
Well, not exactly sure about the first bit.
I would say that primarily logical realism says - that something cannot come from nothing. Though experience compels us to conclude otherwise.
And then several billion years later, or several thousand depending on who you listen to, and according to a compilation of Middle Eastern folk tales.
We finally knew exactly what happened, and therefore must worship the son of a virgin.
Logical realism for sure Trade.
Nope as an atheist I simply cannot concur with such a naive hypothesis awash with illogic.
-->
@Stephen
.
Stephen,
As explicitly shown before in my revealing post #41, the #1 Bible ignorant and stupid fool IS NOT A CHRISTIAN in any way whatsoever and has sinned against Jesus as God and will pay the price upon Judgment Day as shown below. This is because of the content of the #1 Bible ignorant and stupid fool’s initial and following posts in being the following ungodly entities:
NOT RIGHTEOUS; not in accordance with right or justice; unfair or unjust, because the #1 Bible ignorant and stupid fool believes in evolution over creationism in the Christian Bible, that slaps Jesus in the face!
A REVILER is a person who uses words to damage, control, or insult someone’s character or reputation, as shown in their describing Atheists.
COWARDLY, lacking courage, in blocking and therefore running away from members that outright own the #1 Bible ignorant and stupid fools Christianity, over their child-like knowledge of same.
DETESTABLE; arousing or deserving strong dislike, abominable, because of not following ALL of the Bible’s inspired words by Jesus as shown over the years.
LIAR; to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive as shown in initial post without citing peered reviewed references.
NOT RIGHTEOUS; not in accordance with right or justice; unfair or unjust, because the #1 Bible ignorant and stupid fool believes in evolution over creationism in the Christian Bible, that slaps Jesus in the face!
A REVILER is a person who uses words to damage, control, or insult someone’s character or reputation, as shown in their describing Atheists.
COWARDLY, lacking courage, in blocking and therefore running away from members that outright own the #1 Bible ignorant and stupid fools Christianity, over their child-like knowledge of same.
DETESTABLE; arousing or deserving strong dislike, abominable, because of not following ALL of the Bible’s inspired words by Jesus as shown over the years.
LIAR; to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive as shown in initial post without citing peered reviewed references.
Therefore, this is the fate of the #1 Bible ignorant and stupid fool will have upon Judgment Day herewith:
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
“But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)
The #1 Bible ignorant and stupid fool never understood that Jesus didn’t create HELL and not plan on using it in the first place, that goes against the Forgiveness Doctrine where there is no incentive not to sin if Jesus always forgives, BUT, then this passages comes into view: "For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins," (Hebrews 10:26):
WHO WANTS TO BE THE NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE "THE #1 BIBLE IGNORANT AND STUPID FOOL" THAT TRIPS UP AGAIN BY MAKING A THREAD THAT ASSURES THEY ARE HELL BOUND UPON THEIR DEMISE, WILL BE ...?
.
-->
@zedvictor4
.
zedvictor4,
YOUR QUOTE OF DESPAIR RELATING TO JESUS BEING BORN OF A VIRGIN: "We finally knew exactly what happened, and therefore must worship the son of a virgin."
Lest you forget, the #1 Bible ignorant and stupid fool pseudo-christian, has to biblically accept that when Jesus is considered to be the Jewish Yahweh god incarnate, as many Trinitarians believe, then Jesus “Celestially Impregnated” his own mother Mary in an “incestuous way,” not only to be her son, but His own father as well! This is barring the Hebrew Tradition that since Joseph was not the paternal father, then Jesus would be considered to be a "bastard child!" This embarrassed poor ol’ Joseph so much, that he wanted to divorce Mary to save face. “Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly” (Matthew 1:19)
What an embarrassing beginning to start the religion of Christianity! I have learned as the ONLY TRUE Christian upon this Religion Forum , that I have to accept the above Bible FACTS, and just move on in the best way that I can. :(
.
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Lest you forget, the #1 Bible ignorant and stupid fool pseudo-christian, has to biblically accept that when Jesus is considered to be the Jewish Yahweh god incarnate, as many Trinitarians believe, then Jesus “Celestially Impregnated” his own mother Mary in an “incestuous way,” not only to be her son, but His own father as well! This is barring the Hebrew Tradition that since Joseph was not the paternal father, then Jesus would be considered to be a "bastard child!" This embarrassed poor ol’ Joseph so much, that he wanted to divorce Mary to save face. “Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly” (Matthew 1:19)What an embarrassing beginning to start the religion of Christianity! I have learned as the ONLY TRUE Christian upon this Religion Forum , that I have to accept the above Bible FACTS, and just move on in the best way that I can. :(
An embarrassing beginning indeed Brother D. It must be the most unstable foundation and corner stone ever laid.
I had a discussion a few days ago with someone who told me that many very smart people he knew were also religious. I thought about that for a minute, and after reflection I just couldn’t agree. I don’t think one can be really smart and religious at the same time.
Yes, I know that some people who are academically smart and who have done great things, like Newton, were and are deeply religious. But in the old days you had no choice about being religious: you imbibed faith with your mother’s milk. And there was little chance to think for oneself, for it was either a death sentence or permanent ostracism if you questioned religion, and there were few ways to find like-minded souls.
Now, however, it’s different, for—except in some benighted lands—there is far more freedom to learn about nonbelief and hear the arguments against God; parents and society aren’t so insistent about instilling religion in young folks; and you face less ostracism if you’re a nonbeliever. (Of course it’s always easier if you keep that to yourself.)
And many public intellectuals—and virtually all accomplished scientists—are atheists. Why? Because there’s no credible evidence for God. It’s palpably and painfully obvious that religion is a human construct and that the tenets of different faiths are not reconcilable. The things that the faithful say they believe are simply ludicrous. I cringe, for example, when I hear a “smart” person like Rabbi Sacks or the Archbishop of Canterbury profess such stuff.
To me, this means that someone, regardless of how “smart” they seem, is at the very least irrational if they believe in God or the attendant superstitions. It is as if their brain is a jigsaw puzzle with one crucial piece missing: the piece that accepts important propositions in proportion to the evidence supporting them. And to me that kind of irrationality is a form of stupidity, which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as “dullness or slowness of apprehension; gross want of intelligence.” It’s not that they’re totally stupid; just partially stupid.
Yes, I know that some people who are academically smart and who have done great things, like Newton, were and are deeply religious. But in the old days you had no choice about being religious: you imbibed faith with your mother’s milk. And there was little chance to think for oneself, for it was either a death sentence or permanent ostracism if you questioned religion, and there were few ways to find like-minded souls.
Now, however, it’s different, for—except in some benighted lands—there is far more freedom to learn about nonbelief and hear the arguments against God; parents and society aren’t so insistent about instilling religion in young folks; and you face less ostracism if you’re a nonbeliever. (Of course it’s always easier if you keep that to yourself.)
And many public intellectuals—and virtually all accomplished scientists—are atheists. Why? Because there’s no credible evidence for God. It’s palpably and painfully obvious that religion is a human construct and that the tenets of different faiths are not reconcilable. The things that the faithful say they believe are simply ludicrous. I cringe, for example, when I hear a “smart” person like Rabbi Sacks or the Archbishop of Canterbury profess such stuff.
To me, this means that someone, regardless of how “smart” they seem, is at the very least irrational if they believe in God or the attendant superstitions. It is as if their brain is a jigsaw puzzle with one crucial piece missing: the piece that accepts important propositions in proportion to the evidence supporting them. And to me that kind of irrationality is a form of stupidity, which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as “dullness or slowness of apprehension; gross want of intelligence.” It’s not that they’re totally stupid; just partially stupid.