Have you leaned what Jesus and your bible teaches?

[jehanne1431]

Gnostic Christians

>>>That is why I used the bible quotes in the O.P. If you never took a comparative religion course, then that would explain your poor sight.<<<
Only an enemy of God, or a simpleton, would make this “comparative religions” argument as some kind of “silver bullet” to try to discredit Christianity. Seriously, it is a desperate embarrassing maneuver. We have all the facts and evidence we need to stand on our own and dismiss this offering as a “ho hum” matter.

>>>Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. <<<
Totally and utterly false about Christianity. I am not interested in defending Islam.

>>>Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.<<<
Totally and utterly false about Christianity. I am not interested in defending Islam --- but you are wont to include them in your defense because it's your way of making Christianity look evil, which we all know is your salient goal.

>>>Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.<<<
You really have no idea what you are talking about or claiming --- or are you setting yourself up to be "God's judge" of the worth of humans? No wonder you are off on some wild ride into the unknown.

>>>Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.<<<
What you believe in is absolute heresy. And your beliefs have no miracles to bolster its authenticity, unlike Christianity whose entire history is validated with signs and wonders.

>>>As to my obsession and hate of Yahweh and Allah. All moral people will hate them.<<<
So you hate the God of the Bible. And yet, you are adamant He does not exist. I dare say you are a very troubled soul who is looking for help in all the wrong places. Be well.

 

[forkup]

I reject the idea of God in the first place. I don't need a supernatural explanation of my sense of right or wrong. To be honest it was that realization, that made me break from Catholicism and become an atheist. I see the New Testament as at best a tool to learn some lessons of morality but only if you don't think it serious. Much like some fairy tales can hold moral lessons. It seems to me that giving God the credit for being a good person is superfluous and a little bit demeaning.

It seems to me you are uneasy with your decision.

Please do tell, what gives you that idea?

Because you are here discussing something you don't believe exists. If you didn't believe it existed you wouldn't be wasting time talking about it. It's like a cry for help.

Interesting argument. It is of course not possible that I'm on a forum like this because I like to argue? By the way, by that reasoning why are you answering me? You have faith right? Why trying to defend it against me? Uncertain about it's validity, maybe?

Yes, it is an interesting observation

Why do you need to argue about something you don’t believe exists? You can’t make an affirmative case for your belief. You can’t prove a negative.

Yes, I have faith. It doesn’t bother me that you don’t.

You can only defend what is being attacked. Why do you attack it?

-Why do I need to argue? Because I like to argue. Guess what..... we are on a forum that has people arguing all the time. I will even go as far as to say that's the whole point of a place like this.
-Why do I need to attack faith? Same reason as why anyone attacks anything in a setting like this. I don't agree with the assertion. Here I want to add a couple of things though. I'm polite about it. I don't do ad hominem attacks. I don't use hyperbole and I ask you to defend your position rationally. After which I answer. I don't deflect. Engage the premise of the other sides post,and I admit my own faults when they are pointed out. I've even been known to reverse my position when I'm proven wrong. Seems to me that makes me an outlier in the forum in a positive way.
- I haven't asked you or anyone to prove a negative, although it's something that happens all the time. (I can prove it's not December for instance). I simply asked you to give a rational reasoning for you deeming the manuscripts you were referring to as reliable.

 

[ding]

It seems to me you are uneasy with your decision.

Please do tell, what gives you that idea?

Because you are here discussing something you don't believe exists. If you didn't believe it existed you wouldn't be wasting time talking about it. It's like a cry for help.

Interesting argument. It is of course not possible that I'm on a forum like this because I like to argue? By the way, by that reasoning why are you answering me? You have faith right? Why trying to defend it against me? Uncertain about it's validity, maybe?

Yes, it is an interesting observation

Why do you need to argue about something you don’t believe exists? You can’t make an affirmative case for your belief. You can’t prove a negative.

Yes, I have faith. It doesn’t bother me that you don’t.

You can only defend what is being attacked. Why do you attack it?

-Why do I need to argue? Because I like to argue. Guess what..... we are on a forum that has people arguing all the time. I will even go as far as to say that's the whole point of a place like this.
-Why do I need to attack faith? Same reason as why anyone attacks anything in a setting like this. I don't agree with the assertion. Here I want to add a couple of things though. I'm polite about it. I don't do ad hominem attacks. I don't use hyperbole and I ask you to defend your position rationally. After which I answer. I don't deflect. Engage the premise of the other sides post,and I admit my own faults when they are pointed out. I've even been known to reverse my position when I'm proven wrong. Seems to me that makes me an outlier in the forum in a positive way.
- I haven't asked you or anyone to proof a negative, although it's something that happens all the time. (I can prove it's not December for instance). I simply asked you to give a rational reasoning for you deeming the manuscripts you were referring to as reliable.

Sounds like we should be debating in the bull ring. What would you like to debate exactly?

 

[forkup]

Please do tell, what gives you that idea?

Because you are here discussing something you don't believe exists. If you didn't believe it existed you wouldn't be wasting time talking about it. It's like a cry for help.

Interesting argument. It is of course not possible that I'm on a forum like this because I like to argue? By the way, by that reasoning why are you answering me? You have faith right? Why trying to defend it against me? Uncertain about it's validity, maybe?

Yes, it is an interesting observation

Why do you need to argue about something you don’t believe exists? You can’t make an affirmative case for your belief. You can’t prove a negative.

Yes, I have faith. It doesn’t bother me that you don’t.

You can only defend what is being attacked. Why do you attack it?

-Why do I need to argue? Because I like to argue. Guess what..... we are on a forum that has people arguing all the time. I will even go as far as to say that's the whole point of a place like this.
-Why do I need to attack faith? Same reason as why anyone attacks anything in a setting like this. I don't agree with the assertion. Here I want to add a couple of things though. I'm polite about it. I don't do ad hominem attacks. I don't use hyperbole and I ask you to defend your position rationally. After which I answer. I don't deflect. Engage the premise of the other sides post,and I admit my own faults when they are pointed out. I've even been known to reverse my position when I'm proven wrong. Seems to me that makes me an outlier in the forum in a positive way.
- I haven't asked you or anyone to proof a negative, although it's something that happens all the time. (I can prove it's not December for instance). I simply asked you to give a rational reasoning for you deeming the manuscripts you were referring to as reliable.

Sounds like we should be debating in the bull ring. What would you like to debate exactly?

Let's start here.

I simply asked you to give a rational reasoning for you deeming the manuscripts you were referring to as reliable.

It's were we left of last time.

 

[forkup]

Please do tell, what gives you that idea?

Because you are here discussing something you don't believe exists. If you didn't believe it existed you wouldn't be wasting time talking about it. It's like a cry for help.

Interesting argument. It is of course not possible that I'm on a forum like this because I like to argue? By the way, by that reasoning why are you answering me? You have faith right? Why trying to defend it against me? Uncertain about it's validity, maybe?

Yes, it is an interesting observation

Why do you need to argue about something you don’t believe exists? You can’t make an affirmative case for your belief. You can’t prove a negative.

Yes, I have faith. It doesn’t bother me that you don’t.

You can only defend what is being attacked. Why do you attack it?

-Why do I need to argue? Because I like to argue. Guess what..... we are on a forum that has people arguing all the time. I will even go as far as to say that's the whole point of a place like this.
-Why do I need to attack faith? Same reason as why anyone attacks anything in a setting like this. I don't agree with the assertion. Here I want to add a couple of things though. I'm polite about it. I don't do ad hominem attacks. I don't use hyperbole and I ask you to defend your position rationally. After which I answer. I don't deflect. Engage the premise of the other sides post,and I admit my own faults when they are pointed out. I've even been known to reverse my position when I'm proven wrong. Seems to me that makes me an outlier in the forum in a positive way.
- I haven't asked you or anyone to proof a negative, although it's something that happens all the time. (I can prove it's not December for instance). I simply asked you to give a rational reasoning for you deeming the manuscripts you were referring to as reliable.

Sounds like we should be debating in the bull ring. What would you like to debate exactly?

bull ring seems a bit to formalized but I'm willing to give it a go.

 

[ding]

Because you are here discussing something you don't believe exists. If you didn't believe it existed you wouldn't be wasting time talking about it. It's like a cry for help.

Interesting argument. It is of course not possible that I'm on a forum like this because I like to argue? By the way, by that reasoning why are you answering me? You have faith right? Why trying to defend it against me? Uncertain about it's validity, maybe?

Yes, it is an interesting observation

Why do you need to argue about something you don’t believe exists? You can’t make an affirmative case for your belief. You can’t prove a negative.

Yes, I have faith. It doesn’t bother me that you don’t.

You can only defend what is being attacked. Why do you attack it?

-Why do I need to argue? Because I like to argue. Guess what..... we are on a forum that has people arguing all the time. I will even go as far as to say that's the whole point of a place like this.
-Why do I need to attack faith? Same reason as why anyone attacks anything in a setting like this. I don't agree with the assertion. Here I want to add a couple of things though. I'm polite about it. I don't do ad hominem attacks. I don't use hyperbole and I ask you to defend your position rationally. After which I answer. I don't deflect. Engage the premise of the other sides post,and I admit my own faults when they are pointed out. I've even been known to reverse my position when I'm proven wrong. Seems to me that makes me an outlier in the forum in a positive way.
- I haven't asked you or anyone to proof a negative, although it's something that happens all the time. (I can prove it's not December for instance). I simply asked you to give a rational reasoning for you deeming the manuscripts you were referring to as reliable.

Sounds like we should be debating in the bull ring. What would you like to debate exactly?

bull ring seems a bit to formalized but I'm willing to give it a go.

It’s not formal. It’s informal. It removes the clutter and noise.

 

[ding]

Because you are here discussing something you don't believe exists. If you didn't believe it existed you wouldn't be wasting time talking about it. It's like a cry for help.

Interesting argument. It is of course not possible that I'm on a forum like this because I like to argue? By the way, by that reasoning why are you answering me? You have faith right? Why trying to defend it against me? Uncertain about it's validity, maybe?

Yes, it is an interesting observation

Why do you need to argue about something you don’t believe exists? You can’t make an affirmative case for your belief. You can’t prove a negative.

Yes, I have faith. It doesn’t bother me that you don’t.

You can only defend what is being attacked. Why do you attack it?

-Why do I need to argue? Because I like to argue. Guess what..... we are on a forum that has people arguing all the time. I will even go as far as to say that's the whole point of a place like this.
-Why do I need to attack faith? Same reason as why anyone attacks anything in a setting like this. I don't agree with the assertion. Here I want to add a couple of things though. I'm polite about it. I don't do ad hominem attacks. I don't use hyperbole and I ask you to defend your position rationally. After which I answer. I don't deflect. Engage the premise of the other sides post,and I admit my own faults when they are pointed out. I've even been known to reverse my position when I'm proven wrong. Seems to me that makes me an outlier in the forum in a positive way.
- I haven't asked you or anyone to proof a negative, although it's something that happens all the time. (I can prove it's not December for instance). I simply asked you to give a rational reasoning for you deeming the manuscripts you were referring to as reliable.

Sounds like we should be debating in the bull ring. What would you like to debate exactly?

Let's start here.

I simply asked you to give a rational reasoning for you deeming the manuscripts you were referring to as reliable.

It's were we left of last time.

I don’t see the thread on manuscripts in this stream. And I don’t recall discussing that with you. Are you sure it was me?

This is a perfect example of the clutter and noise I was talking about.

 

[forkup]

Interesting argument. It is of course not possible that I'm on a forum like this because I like to argue? By the way, by that reasoning why are you answering me? You have faith right? Why trying to defend it against me? Uncertain about it's validity, maybe?

Yes, it is an interesting observation

Why do you need to argue about something you don’t believe exists? You can’t make an affirmative case for your belief. You can’t prove a negative.

Yes, I have faith. It doesn’t bother me that you don’t.

You can only defend what is being attacked. Why do you attack it?

-Why do I need to argue? Because I like to argue. Guess what..... we are on a forum that has people arguing all the time. I will even go as far as to say that's the whole point of a place like this.
-Why do I need to attack faith? Same reason as why anyone attacks anything in a setting like this. I don't agree with the assertion. Here I want to add a couple of things though. I'm polite about it. I don't do ad hominem attacks. I don't use hyperbole and I ask you to defend your position rationally. After which I answer. I don't deflect. Engage the premise of the other sides post,and I admit my own faults when they are pointed out. I've even been known to reverse my position when I'm proven wrong. Seems to me that makes me an outlier in the forum in a positive way.
- I haven't asked you or anyone to proof a negative, although it's something that happens all the time. (I can prove it's not December for instance). I simply asked you to give a rational reasoning for you deeming the manuscripts you were referring to as reliable.

Sounds like we should be debating in the bull ring. What would you like to debate exactly?

Let's start here.

I simply asked you to give a rational reasoning for you deeming the manuscripts you were referring to as reliable.

It's were we left of last time.

I don’t see the thread on manuscripts in this stream. And I don’t recall discussing that with you. Are you sure it was me?

This is a perfect example of the clutter and noise I was talking about.

24,000 written manuscripts say otherwise.

Anyway, what do I want to discuss? Let's try Social Democracy vs the American system and the virtues thereof?
If you do, I want to give you a heads up though. My wife is American and I'm Belgian so it might give me an advantage. If you have a different idea, your welcome to put it forward.

 

[Meriweather]

Let's try Social Democracy vs the American system and the virtues thereof?

Why can't we try people learning independence and how to fend for themselves? If the choice is beg or find another way to bring in income at least it is a start. Second, it is better for individual--not a bureaucracy--to take responsibility for those who cannot even beg. By cutting out the bureaucratic middleman, more funds might actually make it to those in need.

Interesting study: Scandinavian countries claim with their 60% tax rate starting with middle class incomes, no one there is really poor. However, a study of middle class Scandinavians who moved to America it was found that no one is "really poor" here either. In fact the not "really poor" Scandinavians in America have more than the not "really poor" in Scandinavia under their social democracy.

 

[forkup]

Let's try Social Democracy vs the American system and the virtues thereof?

Why can't we try people learning independence and how to fend for themselves? If the choice is beg or find another way to bring in income at least it is a start. Second, it is better for individual--not a bureaucracy--to take responsibility for those who cannot even beg. By cutting out the bureaucratic middleman, more funds might actually make it to those in need.

Interesting study: Scandinavian countries claim with their 60% tax rate starting with middle class incomes, no one there is really poor. However, a study of middle class Scandinavians who moved to America it was found that no one is "really poor" here either. In fact the not "really poor" Scandinavians in America have more than the not "really poor" in Scandinavia under their social democracy.

Merri not to be impolite but I was talking to ding about choosing a topic in the bull ring. That was my choice. It would completely derail this OP. In the religious section. Perfectly happy to discuss it in an appropriate setting. Start an OP and Ill be there, or you can go in the bull ring and I'll play or for that matter you and ding can team up.

 

[Meriweather]

Merri not to be impolite but I was talking to ding about choosing a topic in the bull ring. That was my choice. It would completely derail this OP. In the religious section. Perfectly happy to discuss it in an appropriate setting. Start an OP and Ill be there, or you can go in the bull ring and I'll play or for that matter you and ding can team up.

You are not being impolite. Quite the contrary.

 

[ding]

Yes, it is an interesting observation

Why do you need to argue about something you don’t believe exists? You can’t make an affirmative case for your belief. You can’t prove a negative.

Yes, I have faith. It doesn’t bother me that you don’t.

You can only defend what is being attacked. Why do you attack it?

-Why do I need to argue? Because I like to argue. Guess what..... we are on a forum that has people arguing all the time. I will even go as far as to say that's the whole point of a place like this.
-Why do I need to attack faith? Same reason as why anyone attacks anything in a setting like this. I don't agree with the assertion. Here I want to add a couple of things though. I'm polite about it. I don't do ad hominem attacks. I don't use hyperbole and I ask you to defend your position rationally. After which I answer. I don't deflect. Engage the premise of the other sides post,and I admit my own faults when they are pointed out. I've even been known to reverse my position when I'm proven wrong. Seems to me that makes me an outlier in the forum in a positive way.
- I haven't asked you or anyone to proof a negative, although it's something that happens all the time. (I can prove it's not December for instance). I simply asked you to give a rational reasoning for you deeming the manuscripts you were referring to as reliable.

Sounds like we should be debating in the bull ring. What would you like to debate exactly?

Let's start here.

I simply asked you to give a rational reasoning for you deeming the manuscripts you were referring to as reliable.

It's were we left of last time.

I don’t see the thread on manuscripts in this stream. And I don’t recall discussing that with you. Are you sure it was me?

This is a perfect example of the clutter and noise I was talking about.

24,000 written manuscripts say otherwise.

Anyway, what do I want to discuss? Let's try Social Democracy vs the American system and the virtues thereof?
If you do, I want to give you a heads up though. My wife is American and I'm Belgian so it might give me an advantage. If you have a different idea, your welcome to put it forward.

How about absolute morals versus moral relativism?

You can debate the position that morals are relative.

 

[fncceo]

Have you leaned what Jesus and your bible teaches?

Is it this?

 

[forkup]

-Why do I need to argue? Because I like to argue. Guess what..... we are on a forum that has people arguing all the time. I will even go as far as to say that's the whole point of a place like this.
-Why do I need to attack faith? Same reason as why anyone attacks anything in a setting like this. I don't agree with the assertion. Here I want to add a couple of things though. I'm polite about it. I don't do ad hominem attacks. I don't use hyperbole and I ask you to defend your position rationally. After which I answer. I don't deflect. Engage the premise of the other sides post,and I admit my own faults when they are pointed out. I've even been known to reverse my position when I'm proven wrong. Seems to me that makes me an outlier in the forum in a positive way.
- I haven't asked you or anyone to proof a negative, although it's something that happens all the time. (I can prove it's not December for instance). I simply asked you to give a rational reasoning for you deeming the manuscripts you were referring to as reliable.

Sounds like we should be debating in the bull ring. What would you like to debate exactly?

Let's start here.

I simply asked you to give a rational reasoning for you deeming the manuscripts you were referring to as reliable.

It's were we left of last time.

I don’t see the thread on manuscripts in this stream. And I don’t recall discussing that with you. Are you sure it was me?

This is a perfect example of the clutter and noise I was talking about.

24,000 written manuscripts say otherwise.

Anyway, what do I want to discuss? Let's try Social Democracy vs the American system and the virtues thereof?
If you do, I want to give you a heads up though. My wife is American and I'm Belgian so it might give me an advantage. If you have a different idea, your welcome to put it forward.

How about absolute morals versus moral relativism?

You can debate the position that morals are relative.

Sure

 

[ding]

Sounds like we should be debating in the bull ring. What would you like to debate exactly?

Let's start here.

I simply asked you to give a rational reasoning for you deeming the manuscripts you were referring to as reliable.

It's were we left of last time.

I don’t see the thread on manuscripts in this stream. And I don’t recall discussing that with you. Are you sure it was me?

This is a perfect example of the clutter and noise I was talking about.

24,000 written manuscripts say otherwise.

Anyway, what do I want to discuss? Let's try Social Democracy vs the American system and the virtues thereof?
If you do, I want to give you a heads up though. My wife is American and I'm Belgian so it might give me an advantage. If you have a different idea, your welcome to put it forward.

How about absolute morals versus moral relativism?

You can debate the position that morals are relative.

Sure

Agreed. My argument is pretty short. I’ll set it up. Do you want judges?

 

[forkup]

Let's start here.
It's were we left of last time.

I don’t see the thread on manuscripts in this stream. And I don’t recall discussing that with you. Are you sure it was me?

This is a perfect example of the clutter and noise I was talking about.

24,000 written manuscripts say otherwise.

Anyway, what do I want to discuss? Let's try Social Democracy vs the American system and the virtues thereof?
If you do, I want to give you a heads up though. My wife is American and I'm Belgian so it might give me an advantage. If you have a different idea, your welcome to put it forward.

How about absolute morals versus moral relativism?

You can debate the position that morals are relative.

Sure

Agreed. My argument is pretty short. I’ll set it up. Do you want judges?

First time in the bull ring, so I'll leave that to your discretion to. I'm at work now probably will run into overtime to. So I don't know how much time I can spend here. My wife won't allow me to much of the few hours I'll probably be awake after I get home on a forum arguing with people if you know what I mean.