why do you believe in God or...

CorporateWhore

brokendave wrote:

A) You are wrong.

What difference does it make???

Luke 19:27
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

You can tell when someone needs to lie that their ideas are base and false. You need to lie about the parable you are quoting because you have false intentions in regard to its message. If you had read it in context and without a biased agenda, it would be clear what the meaning was.

The character in the parable that says that is a king and he is referring to end times - final judgment. Atheists read the Bible completely literally and ignore traditional interpretation - that's like reading the constitution without reading the federalist papers.

freedomboy

cory wrote:

A. ...I don't think God is telling anybody to start a war...
B. ...Your post has nothing to do with God...
C. ...I think maybe my gigantic biceps and oversized penis gets in the way of my brilliance at times.

A. The bible is riddled with instances where God prepared men for war. There are places in the new testament where God promotes a grand war against unbelievers. Not only that, but Jerry Falwell has said that "We will continue to destroy the terrorists in the name of the Lord." George Bush said that he believes God wanted him to run for president and that the war was preordained by God.

B. This has everything to do with God because there is no clear line where God's law begins, and someone's hidden agenda ends... Anyone can make a case for anything using the Bible the way it is used today. Because they can, they do. (see A)

C. Are you sure it isn't that toxic odor secreting from your armpits that gets in the way? Don't ask who revealed the information cause I'll never tell! Muahhhahhahaha!

angelica

CorporateWhore wrote:

Atheists read the Bible completely literally and ignore traditional interpretation

"The fanatical athiests are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who - in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses' - cannot hear the music of the spheres" ~ Albert Einstein


When athiests are truly beyond bias with religion, they are neutral, and have resolved their issues with religion, which is shown by peace and resolution, WHEN it is shown. When the conflict continues, that is also shown. Until resolution, such athiests continue to be controlled with the religion that has been hard-wired into them through from their life experiences with religion that are not yet resolved, and released. The true solution lies in accepting and resolving the inner battle with the religion within. Not denying it and pretending to be free of it. Until resolution is reached, these battles play out all around one's self in one's experiences for all to see. They can also be resolved all around one, and in one's experiences, thereby changing the inner "hard"-wiring.

freedomboy

CorporateWhore wrote:

You can tell when someone needs to lie that their ideas are base and false. You need to lie about the parable you are quoting because you have false intentions in regard to its message. If you had read it in context and without a biased agenda, it would be clear what the meaning was.

The character in the parable that says that is a king and he is referring to end times - final judgment. Atheists read the Bible completely literally and ignore traditional interpretation - that's like reading the constitution without reading the federalist papers.

A) You are wrong.

Just because it is speaking of "the end times" justifies it's context? If God is perfect, they how come he is a hypocrite, and how come he contradicts himself?

So if God said that in the end times, "You will all come before me and the men will lie with men, and women with women until the end of existence" then that would be okay to you? You would continue to say that homosexuality is bad now, but when God comes it will be all okay?

please explain.

chopitdown

brokendave wrote:

A) You are wrong.

Just because it is speaking of "the end times" justifies it's context? If God is perfect, they how come he is a hypocrite, and how come he contradicts himself?

So if God said that in the end times, "You will all come before me and the men will lie with men, and women with women until the end of existence" then that would be okay to you? You would continue to say that homosexuality is bad now, but when God comes it will be all okay?

please explain.

If God is perfect wouldn't it be impossible for him to be a hypocrite; therefore, the only option left is that either God isn't perfect (then he isn't God) or your interpretation of things is wrong and he isn't hypocritical or contradictory.

freedomboy

angelica wrote:

"The fanatical athiests are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who - in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses' - cannot hear the music of the spheres" ~ Albert Einstein


When athiests are truly beyond bias with religion, they are neutral, and have resolved their issues with religion, which is shown by peace and resolution, WHEN it is shown. When the conflict continues, that is also shown. Until resolution, such athiests continue to be controlled with the religion that has been hard-wired into them through from their life experiences with religion that are not yet resolved, and released. The true solution lies in accepting and resolving the inner battle with the religion within. Not denying it and pretending to be free of it. Until resolution is reached, these battles play out all around one's self in one's experiences for all to see. They can also be resolved all around one, and in one's experiences, thereby changing the inner "hard"-wiring.

That is somewhat true, and somewhat fluffed bullshit. I do NOT care if any you want to believe in God, Santy Clause, Alah, Cows or whatever... However, I do care when you begin to affect my life via social and political constructs. That IS the conflict, and that will ALWAYS be THE CONFLICT until people of the religious end accept that no everyone believes what they believe.

Spin it anyway you want... the truth still remains that "the moral majority" got Bush the legitimate votes he did actually get, and they are the one's who lobbied for this war on Iraq... and they are the one's limiting people's rights... and they are the ones responsible for the complete farce of "intelligent design"... and they are the one's responsible for holding back stem-cell research... and they are the one's impeding on women's rights.

chopitdown

brokendave wrote:

Spin it anyway you want... the truth still remains that "the moral majority" got Bush the legitimate votes he did actually get, and they are the one's who lobbied for this war on Iraq... and they are the one's limiting people's rights... and they are the ones responsible for the complete farce of "intelligent design"... and they are the one's responsible for holding back stem-cell research... and they are the one's impeding on women's rights.

More than just "the moral majority" voted for Bush, you know. If it's nice and easy for you to pick them as scapegoats, go ahead. But if you think there is an easy answer to all of those issues, you don't grasp the depth of the issues and blaming religion or the religious for those issues is extremely narrow minded and short sighted. Yes, the religious tend to make the loudest noise in some of those issues but there are those who aren't religious who have those same views.

freedomboy

chopitdown wrote:

More than just "the moral majority" voted for Bush, you know. If it's nice and easy for you to pick them as scapegoats, go ahead. But if you think there is an easy answer to all of those issues, you don't grasp the depth of the issues and blaming religion or the religious for those issues is extremely narrow minded and short sighted. Yes, the religious tend to make the loudest noise in some of those issues but there are those who aren't religious who have those same views.

No, you are shortsighted for not seeing that what I am saying is simple. Religion plays a huge factor into these atrocities, and you are right in saying that they are not solely responsible. That doesn't matter much when they are the largest contributor though; in fact, they boast it.

Btw, do you get all of your "big words" from songs? "short sighted" "narrow minded"... yellow bellied hypocritic... just a coincidence probably.

freedomboy

chopitdown wrote:

If God is perfect wouldn't it be impossible for him to be a hypocrite; therefore, the only option left is that either God isn't perfect (then he isn't God) or your interpretation of things is wrong and he isn't hypocritical or contradictory.

My interperetation of things aren't wrong. You preach peace, and you preach understanding... At the same time you preach that I will be slayed when Jesus returns for not believing in him and that I will BURN FOR ETERNITY in a fuck lake of fire!

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

SLAY THEM BEFORE ME

That isn't out of context, it is just a fucking contradiction of morals, and it is hypocritical... God is telling you not to kill... unless someone doesn't believe in me.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT IS IN THE FUTURE, SAME RULE STILL STANDS!

chopitdown

brokendave wrote:

No, you are shortsighted for not seeing that what I am saying is simple. Religion plays a huge factor into these atrocities, and you are right in saying that they are not solely responsible. That doesn't matter much when they are the largest contributor though; in fact, they boast it.

Btw, do you get all of your "big words" from songs? "short sighted" "narrow minded"... yellow bellied hypocritic... just a coincidence probably.

religion has played a role in atrocities, to pretend it hasn't is ridiculous. People wield any tool they can to get control...religion, lack of religion, music, education etc...

I made certain to use those words b/c I wanted to make sure you could follow everything

deadnothingbetter

brokendave wrote:

My interperetation of things aren't wrong. You preach peace, and you preach understanding... At the same time you preach that I will be slayed when Jesus returns for not believing in him and that I will BURN FOR ETERNITY in a fuck lake of fire!

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

SLAY THEM BEFORE ME

That isn't out of context, it is just a fucking contradiction of morals, and it is hypocritical... God is telling you not to kill... unless someone doesn't believe in me.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT IS IN THE FUTURE, SAME RULE STILL STANDS!

actually, it is out of context.... "slay them before" he's talking about the parable and the austere man (whatever an austere is ) the whole context doesn't even fit to what you're saying.

freedomboy

chopitdown wrote:

A) OK, show me using educated reasons why I'm wrong (literary styles, historical context etc...) No offense but you saying I'm wrong about this doesn't really mean anything.

The difference is God vs man judging and God is not telling man to go kill people. It's a parable.

I prove you are wrong by showing the source. If you refute it by saying it is a parable, please explain. Although, you don't need to because two other people already have... My logic still stands when it is claimed to be a "parable"...

Please explain your definition of a "parable"...

deadnothingbetter

brokendave wrote:

I prove you are wrong by showing the source. If you refute it by saying it is a parable, please explain. Although, you don't need to because two other people already have... My logic still stands when it is claimed to be a "parable"...

Please explain your definition of a "parable"...

par·a·ble 1. a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.
2. a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like.


in this case, if you want to look deeper, what is he conveying at "indirectly"?

angelica

brokendave wrote:

That is somewhat true, and somewhat fluffed bullshit. I do NOT care if any you want to believe in God, Santy Clause, Alah, Cows or whatever... However, I do care when you begin to affect my life via social and political constructs. That IS the conflict, and that will ALWAYS be THE CONFLICT until people of the religious end accept that no everyone believes what they believe.

Spin it anyway you want... the truth still remains that "the moral majority" got Bush the legitimate votes he did actually get, and they are the one's who lobbied for this war on Iraq... and they are the one's limiting people's rights... and they are the ones responsible for the complete farce of "intelligent design"... and they are the one's responsible for holding back stem-cell research... and they are the one's impeding on women's rights.

It's still "evil" you are against, correct?....

Whether we see it through the lens of religion or through the lens of athiesm. When we see it, we still haven't resolved the age old conflict of good vs bad inside of us. We can "kill" religion and the "evil" will be found elsewhere. The cycles continue, until we resolve the duality of good/bad inside of us, and begin to see things as they are. At least when that happens, we no longer contribute to what we hate and we can begin creating peace.

chopitdown

brokendave wrote:

My interperetation of things aren't wrong. You preach peace, and you preach understanding... At the same time you preach that I will be slayed when Jesus returns for not believing in him and that I will BURN FOR ETERNITY in a fuck lake of fire!

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

SLAY THEM BEFORE ME

That isn't out of context, it is just a fucking contradiction of morals, and it is hypocritical... God is telling you not to kill... unless someone doesn't believe in me.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT IS IN THE FUTURE, SAME RULE STILL STANDS!

no one wants you to burn in a lake of fire.

and it is out of context, and God is not telling anyone to kill; you seem to think that God is telling christians to run around and kill non-christians and that's just not the case. God is the one judging and since God detests sin, that should be no surprise, He will judge it. That is being very consistent with who He is. God has many traits and those that say God is only "x" or only "y" are trying to fit God to what they want Him to be, not what he says he is.

chopitdown

brokendave wrote:

I prove you are wrong by showing the source. If you refute it by saying it is a parable, please explain. Although, you don't need to because two other people already have... My logic still stands when it is claimed to be a "parable"...

Please explain your definition of a "parable"...

i've explained myself plenty. I'm not gonna keep saying the same things over again...it's not worth it. I hope you actually take the time to read contexts and to dig a little deeper and to really explore the history and to learn about it.

freedomboy

deadnothingbetter wrote:

actually, it is out of context.... "slay them before" he's talking about the parable and the austere man (whatever an austere is ) the whole context doesn't even fit to what you're saying.

What are we even talking about? Let me clarify so everyone doesn't waste their time here...

1. I believe in freedom of religion, so believe in a flying spaghetti monster if you want to, I don't care.

2. I have a problem with people imposing their beliefs on me via social and political constructs. If I have to discourage religion to do so, then I will. It seems there is no other way, since you middle of the road Christians won't instill any sense into the "red letter Christians" and then "moral majority"...

3. When I do discourage religion, it will be on the basis of how ridiculous and obvious of a farce it really is. Christianity teaches poor morals when compared to the evolution of societies morals. There is no reason to follow it at all... unless you are afraid to burn forever in a lake of fire, or if you need a big comfy cushion to catch you when you fuck up.

that is my 2 cents for the day... i'm done with all this god talk.

freedomboy

chopitdown wrote:

i've explained myself plenty. I'm not gonna keep saying the same things over again...it's not worth it. I hope you actually take the time to read contexts and to dig a little deeper and to really explore the history and to learn about it.

Chip, I was a christian for 20 years. I've dug as far as I can... that is why I question you... I am wondering if anyone will ever give me something I haven't though of yet... To be honest, I'd love to believe in God because I remember how safe I felt...

freedomboy

chopitdown wrote:

no one wants you to burn in a lake of fire.

and it is out of context, and God is not telling anyone to kill; you seem to think that God is telling christians to run around and kill non-christians and that's just not the case. God is the one judging and since God detests sin, that should be no surprise, He will judge it. That is being very consistent with who He is. God has many traits and those that say God is only "x" or only "y" are trying to fit God to what they want Him to be, not what he says he is.

No, you have issue understanding basic english. In the end times, God will ask his believers to bring the non-believers before him as a judgement of God, and he will ask you to slay them before his feet.

Again, is this or is this not the context of the parable? I believe it is.

If this is so, he is asking that you murder people as part of his divine judgment...

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

SLAY THEM BEFORE ME

contradiction. Judgement doesn't change the contradiction.

chopitdown

brokendave wrote:

No, you have issue understanding basic english. In the end times, God will ask his believers to bring the non-believers before him as a judgement of God, and he will ask you to slay them before his feet.

Again, is this or is this not the context of the parable? I believe it is.

If this is so, he is asking that you murder people as part of his divine judgment...

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

SLAY THEM BEFORE ME

contradiction. Judgement doesn't change the contradiction.

That is not the context. The parable is saying that you are responsible for what you do and if you do nothing (in re: to God) you will be punished by God. God, I don't believe, will ask believers to do this, b/c if he did it would be asking Christians to Murder. Also, dealing with the end times is very controversial, even amongst Christians, as you should know. There are many views. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_eschatology
http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/19_11-27.htm
The listeners in Jericho recalled how King Archelaus slaughtered his enemies, and recognized how the parable was true to life.

This verse you quote is most likely to drive the point home of judgement, and was given as something they could relate to in theory, not an implicit command to Christians.