Passion of the Christ: Most Beautiful Love Story of all time

[eagleseven]

Now, on the topic of Mel Gibson...

1. I love his movies, and Passion of the Christ is no exception. Granted, you may argue that I cannot feel the full impact of the film as a non-believer, and perhaps this is the case.

2. I would much prefer The Patriot over the Passion.

3. Mel Gibson is most likely anti-semitic. He was raised to hate Jews, there is plenty of ammunition to condemn Jews with in the Bible, and his life has been made miserable by multiple Jewish organizations. I believe his drunken utterances revealed his true feelings, buried underneath years of rationalization and politically-correct repression.

I don't think his racism detracts from his filmography.

 

[JBeukema]

If my arguments can't stand, then why is it that neither of you idiots can refute any of them?

Well, there is a simple refutation of your argument that Jesus was a sinner.

For 90% of Christians, Jesus Christ is God. As God, he is the perfect example of human behavior. Thus, any of his actions that seemingly contradict Jewish morality, or our modern liberal morality, do not reflect poorly upon Jesus, but rather demonstrate the shortcomings of both ancient Jewish morality and modern liberal morality.

Then God is not perfect, for perfection would not change

Thus, Jesus is never wrong. Rather, any moral code that accuses Jesus of sin is false

Then the laws given to moses are false. Thus, we have several possibilities:
-God knowingly gave a law that was immoral
----Then god is immoral and not benevolent
-God gave a moral code thinking it was moral, and was wrong
----Then god is immoral and imperfect
-There is no objective morality,. even define by god
----the entire concept of 'morality' in the classical sense is therefore invalid; it falls to humanists, philosophers, and instinct to guide us, for god's orals are arbitrary and meaningless


Of course, these all mean that 'being moral' is impossible, since there is no consistent objective measure of morality. It merely becomes a matter of ethics and the religious (still) merely obey orders like the soldiers at Abu Graihb, the japanese, and the Nazis inorder to abvoid punishment and seek a reward. In the end, the results are the same as always as far as morality is maintained:
-theists cannnot claim to be moral by obeying their god's orders
-saying jesus is 'sinless' is meaningless, as there are no rules for him -jesus is amoral

There is simply noo way for christians to twist things around in any way that reches any conclusion other than that there entire religion falls apart at the slightest scrutiny and is clearly based on lies.

. Jesus is the benchmark against which all other laws and codes are to be measured.

Is Jesus? Or is 'God the Father'? If they are one being, then how can it give contradictory commands and be considered 'perfect' and benevolent? The entire premise of 'god's law', morality, sin- the very pillars of all the Abrahamist religions- collapse

It is relatively simple logic to follow, and has satisfied millions of believers for nearly two millennia.

It directly contradicts all of their other 'beliefs'. remember, that which satisfies believers is generally ignorance and stupidity; it's the very foundation of their religion.

Again, the scriptures themselves argue against Yeshua. therefore, if jesus is god, then he has refuted and contradicted himself.

 

[eagleseven]

Then God is not perfect, for perfection would not change

Why? You are probably thinking, that if one changes, one can change for the better, and one can change for the worse.

One can also change laterally, however, choosing a different but equal selection. One morality is as perfect as another, but different.

The Universe is constantly changing. It isn't too much of a stretch to believe that the creator of such a dynamic system is also constantly changing, a dynamic entity.

Then the laws given to moses are false. Thus, we have several possibilities:
-God knowingly gave a law that was immoral
----Then god is immoral and not benevolent
-God gave a moral code thinking it was moral, and was wrong
----Then god is immoral and imperfect
-There is no objective morality,. even define by god
----the entire concept of 'morality' in the classical sense is therefore invalid; it falls to humanists, philosophers, and instinct to guide us, for god's orals are arbitrary and meaningless

No. Our objectivity morality is then the morality last relayed to us by God. Eating pork was immoral in 500BC, but not in 500AD.

This may not agree with Plato, but it agrees with the Bible.

Of course, these all mean that 'being moral' is impossible, since there is no consistent objective measure of morality. It merely becomes a matter of ethics and the religious (still) merely obey orders like the soldiers at Abu Graihb, the japanese, and the Nazis inorder to abvoid punishment and seek a reward. In the end, the results are the same as always as far as morality is maintained:
-theists cannnot claim to be moral by obeying their god's orders
-saying jesus is 'sinless' is meaningless, as there are no rules for him -jesus is amoral

There is simply noo way for christians to twist things around in any way that reches any conclusion other than that there entire religion falls apart at the slightest scrutiny and is clearly based on lies.

Just because the objective measure moves, does not mean we cannot conform to it. The moral man is he who follows the latest revelation from God concerning morality. In the case of Christianity, this is Jesus. If I were to return to Abrahamic religion, I would be Muslim for the same reason.

There is a reason Nietzsche considered Jesus to be an Ubermensch.

Is Jesus? Or is 'God the Father'? If they are one being, then how can it give contradictory commands and be considered 'perfect' and benevolent? The entire premise of 'god's law', morality, sin- the very pillars of all the Abrahamist religions- collapse

If God is dynamic, like his creation is dynamic, then his morality is dynamic over time. If God is dynamic, than God can be Jesus, and Jesus can be God.

The idea of a static God is falling apart. But the God of Abraham is not static, it is dynamic.

It directly contradicts all of their other 'beliefs'. remember, that which satisfies believers is generally ignorance and stupidity; it's the very foundation of their religion.

Ignorance is also the foundation of all science. Without a state of ignorance, it is impossible to ask the questions necessary for the scientific process.

Religion is one way we deal with our ignorance. Science is another. Both have their uses.

Again, the scriptures themselves argue against Yeshua. therefore, if jesus is god, then he has refuted and contradicted himself.

The scriptures argue against Yeshua? How so? The authors of the Gospels went to great trouble to ensure the connection between Jewish scripture and Jesus. Thus, the constant refrain of Elijah, Isaiah, and the prophets.

It fits almost too nicely.

 

[JBeukema]

One can also change laterally, however, choosing a different but equal selection. One morality is as perfect as another, but different.

Then 'perfection' in this context once again becomes a completely meaningless ter, along with the concept of morality

No. Our objectivity morality is then the morality last relayed to us by God. Eating pork was immoral in 500BC, but not in 500AD.

That's not morality, it is merely 'law'. Morality and permissibility are two separate matters

This may not agree with Plato, but it agrees with the Bible

The bible doesn't matter. it is illogical and threfore invalid.

Just because the objective measure moves, does not mean we cannot conform to it. The moral man is he who follows the latest revelation from God concerning morality.

Incorrect. As was shown in the other thread, obeying god's law has nothing at all to do with morality. Doing that which is ordered by god (as oopposed to what is 'right') is not moral and actually indicative f a less moral character. Whether an order is moral is not effected by who gives the order. 'Just following orders' is not an acceptable excuse.

If God is dynamic, like his creation is dynamic, then his morality is dynamic over time.

If it changes to hjs whims it is once again meaningless and it is not morality, but law 9that which is ordered) and ethics (that which agreed to). Christians have no orality; The abrahamic religions are amoral in their nature.

Ignorance is also the foundation of all science. Without a state of ignorance, it is impossible to ask the questions necessary for the scientific process.

Religion is one way we deal with our ignorance. Science is another. Both have their uses.

Did religion put Man on the moon? Did religion bring us modern farming? Did religion ever restore a lost leg?Religion is an escape for the weak minded, nothing more.n It is a mental illness that people develop and cause in their children, which has had a detrimental net effect on mankind over the last 6000 years of recorded human history

The scriptures argue against Yeshua? How so?

See my earlier posts, which caused JenT to run away and byury her head more deeply


[quote[It fits almost too nicely.[/quote]
Only the obvious lies and self-fulfilling prophecies

 

[eagleseven]

One can also change laterally, however, choosing a different but equal selection. One morality is as perfect as another, but different.

Then 'perfection' in this context once again becomes a completely meaningless ter, along with the concept of morality

Perfection is meaningless in any human context, because humans are imperfect beings.

In the context of a perfect being, having multiple perfect options makes sense. Perfection is not a singularity.

No. Our objectivity morality is then the morality last relayed to us by God. Eating pork was immoral in 500BC, but not in 500AD.

That's not morality, it is merely 'law'. Morality and permissibility are two separate matters

For philosophers, perhaps. For religion, morality is law. Law is morality.

Why is murder illegal? Because it is immoral.
Why is murder immoral? Because God has outlawed it.

The bible doesn't matter. it is illogical and threfore invalid.

If you are attempting to discredit the Bible, the Bible is critical to your arguments. The Bible may contradict your logic, but your logic is imperfect.

Do you understand the mind of a believer? Or do you simply dismiss it as below your comprehension?

Incorrect. As was shown in the other thread, obeying god's law has nothing at all to do with morality. Doing that which is ordered by god (as oopposed to what is 'right') is not moral and actually indicative f a less moral character. Whether an order is moral is not effected by who gives the order. 'Just following orders' is not an acceptable excuse.

Your morality is independent of God. This is why, according to Christianity, your morality is wrong.

The law given by God is the correct morality. By questioning that morality, you are already wrong. Understand? Obeying the law of God is the ultimate good.

If it changes to hjs whims it is once again meaningless and it is not morality, but law 9that which is ordered) and ethics (that which agreed to). Christians have no orality; The abrahamic religions are amoral in their nature.

The fact that God does not conform to your preconceptions of morality exposes your imperfect nature. You are a limited being, unable to comprehend the dynamic perfection that is God.

Religion is one way we deal with our ignorance. Science is another. Both have their uses.

Did religion put Man on the moon? Did religion bring us modern farming? Did religion ever restore a lost leg?Religion is an escape for the weak minded, nothing more.n It is a mental illness that people develop and cause in their children, which has had a detrimental net effect on mankind over the last 6000 years of recorded human history

1. Did religion put Man on the Moon? Yes. The physics that NASA used during the Apollo program was initially developed by Muslim scientists studying in Islamic Schools, funded by clerics, during the Middle Ages. In particular, Ibn al-Haytham is the father of modern optics. Thank him the next time you put on a pair of glasses.

2. Did religion bring us modern farming? Yes. All of the benefits gained by modern GMO's can be traced back to Fr. Gregor Mendel, a Catholic priest who single-handedly invented the field of genetics. Without the Church's support of Mendel, genetics would've been set back a century or more.

3. Did religion ever restore a lost leg? Yes. The Ancient Egyptians pioneered the field of medicine and the study of human body. While developing better methods for embalming corpses for the afterlife, they learned far more about the human body than any other civilization, at the time. Next time you break your leg, remember that bone-setting was developed because of an irrational belief in a physical afterlife.

 

[JBeukema]

humans are imperfect beings.

By what standard of measure? Demonstrate perfection and how Mankind might be measured against it.

In the context of a perfect being, having multiple perfect options makes sense. Perfection is not a singular point.

'perfection' is a meaningless word, in context

For philosophers, perhaps. For religion, morality is law. Law is morality.

Religion is built upon stupidity. Reasonably and logically, my point remains valid and your response is no rebuttal

Why is murder illegal? Because it is immoral.

Murder is illegal by definition

Homicide is illegal in some circumstances because the members of society find such a contract mutually beneficial.

Why is murder immoral? Because God has outlawed it.

Demonstrate:
-that god exists
-that the god that exists is the god you speak of
-that this god can give law
that this god's law can be known
-that this god's law condemns 'muder' (a meaningless word, in context)


himicide is generallyy repugnant as a result of the moral instinct, as populations that were less prone to kuilling themselves off were more successful at keeping their numbers up than those trhat went on regular klilliong sprerees. Thus, the moral instint spread just like all instinct.

If you are attempting to discredit the Bible, the Bible is critical to your arguments. The Bible may contradict your logic, but your logic is imperfect.

Incorrect. My logic is simple:

The bible claims to be authoritative and correct, ordained by a perfect and infallible being and therefore infallible. If this premise is assumed true so it can be judged on its own terms, it does not withstand scrutiny. Thus, it cannot be such a source and any of its claims cannot be accepted as true without outside corroboration.

Do you understand the mind of a believer?

Yes, it's undeveloped and inferior

Your morality is independent of God.

as is most neochristians. Else, they would have over their virgin daughter after a raped her and handed them a pound and a half of silver and they wouldn't oppose slavery

This is why, according to Christianity, your morality is wrong.

According to the bible, every form of christianity currently in practice by any number of persons is wrong.

The law given by God is the correct morality

I already showed that to be fallacious

Obeying the law of God is the ultimate good.

incorrect, it is merely self-interest and an attempt to be rewarded instead of punished for disobeying. Christians have no claim to morality, as their religion is inherently amoral

The fact that God does not conform to your preconceptions of morality exposes your imperfect nature. You are a limited being, unable to comprehend the dynamic perfection that is God.

if man cannot comprehend perfection, he cannot know that god is perfect

yet more self-contradiction to show the very principles of christianity to be fallacious and wrong

1. Did religion put Man on the Moon? Yes. The physics that NASA used during the Apollo program was initially developed by Muslim scientists studying in Islamic Schools, funded by clerics, during the Middle Ages. In particular, Ibn al-Haytham is the father of modern optics. Thank him the next time you put on a pair of glasses.

Religion did not put man on the moon. Science did that. The scientist might also have been religious, but it was his religious endeavors, not his personal belief in deity that brought success

Your claim was simply dishonest

2. Did religion bring us modern farming? Yes. All of the benefits gained by modern GMO's can be traced back to Fr. Gregor Mendel, a Catholic priest who single-handedly invented the field of genetics. Without the Church's support of Mendel, genetics would've been set back a century or more.

Demonstrate that his religion did anything to further Mankind. I cite his scientific adva ements and methodology to support my assertion that he helped as a scientist and his religion did nothing to further genetics


When did you become so intellectually dishonest?

3. Did religion ever restore a lost leg? Yes. The Ancient Egyptians pioneered the field of medicine and the study of human body.

Through scientific methods

While developing better methods for embalming corpses for the afterlife, they learned far more about the human body than any other civilization, at the time

Regardless of their motivations, the methodology and approach was science, not religion

 

[eagleseven]

Demonstrate:
-that god exists
-that the god that exists is the god you speak of
-that this god can give law
that this god's law can be known
-that this god's law condemns 'muder' (a meaningless word, in context)

You are asking me to demonstrate the existence of a God I don't believe in???

This has been a fun intellectual exercise, but I'm afraid you are taking this far too seriously, insulting my intelligence and education.

No need to be a feral dog.

 

[JBeukema]

If the arguments you posit are to b valid, then the deity must be demonstrated

Every argument you put forth has been refuted and revealed as fallacious and dishonest in their nature

 

[eagleseven]

If the arguments you posit are to b valid, then the deity must be demonstrated

Every argument you put forth has been refuted and revealed as fallacious and dishonest in their nature

As Thomas Aquinas said...

I believe in one God, the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth...Among all the things which the faithful must to believe, this is the first thing that they must believe, because it is obvious there is one God... God exhibits this title: because he himself is nothing other than the ruler and provider of all things.

...first you must believe. God cannot be proven or disproven, only believed.

If you believe, all my above arguments make perfect sense. If you do not believe, all my above arguments are nonsense.



To believe, or not to believe, that is a personal question.

 

[Toro]

Didn't watch it.

 

[JBeukema]

As Thomas Aquinas said...

I believe in one God, the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth...Among all the things which the faithful must to believe, this is the first thing that they must believe, because it is obvious there is one God... God exhibits this title: because he himself is nothing other than the ruler and provider of all things.

...first you must believe.

If it's so obvious, then a demonstration should be easy to provide.

God cannot be proven or disproven, only believed.

Then one can reasonably conclude there is no god, just as there is no purple elephant on your head, teapot orbiting Uranus, are working brain ion the sjull of a YEC

If you believe, all my above arguments make perfect sense. If you do not believe, all my above arguments are nonsense.

Incorrect. All of your arguments are strictly nonsense. Belief does not make then valid, it merely means one is too stupid to realize that they are nonsense

Since there is no evidence for one's belief, it serves as evidence against their ability to reason.


To believe in foolishness makes one a fool

 

[del]

Didn't watch it.

it wasn't a patch on davey and goliath.

 

[eagleseven]

As Thomas Aquinas said...

I believe in one God, the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth...Among all the things which the faithful must to believe, this is the first thing that they must believe, because it is obvious there is one God... God exhibits this title: because he himself is nothing other than the ruler and provider of all things.

...first you must believe.

If it's so obvious, then a demonstration should be easy to provide.

God cannot be proven or disproven, only believed.

Then one can reasonably conclude there is no god, just as there is no purple elephant on your head, teapot orbiting Uranus, are working brain ion the sjull of a YEC

If you believe, all my above arguments make perfect sense. If you do not believe, all my above arguments are nonsense.

Incorrect. All of your arguments are strictly nonsense. Belief does not make then valid, it merely means one is too stupid to realize that they are nonsense

Since there is no evidence for one's belief, it serves as evidence against their ability to reason.

This is why you fail.

All of math is dependent upon the proposition that 1=1. If in your mind 1=2, you can go around calling mathmaticians stupid and declare all of mathematics invalid.

It still doesn't change the fact that for mathmaticians, 1=1. And it doesn't eliminate all the engineering performed under the assumption that 1=1.

 

[JBeukema]

you equate fairy tales with mathematics- the highest form of proof?

I can't even bother wasting time with someone so stupid and dishonest as try that one

It's like talking to PCS

 

[eagleseven]

you equate fairy tales with mathematics- the highest form of proof?

I can't even bother wasting time with someone so stupid and dishonest as try that one

It's like talking to PCS

If you cannot see the relationship between the axioms underlying mathematics and the axioms underlying all religion, perhaps I have been overestimating you. My apologies.

For mathmaticians, 1=1 is self-evident. For theists, God's existence is self-evident. I don't expect you to ever understand this.

 

[JBeukema]

take one coin. take another coin. You will end up with two coins every single time. This can be demonstrated forever and you will always get the same result.

religion is built around that which can never be demonstrated and is almost never truly defined


I grossly overestimated your intelligence, it is clear. Like I said, go try that shit at LoR

 

[eagleseven]

take one coin. take another coin. You will end up with two coins every single time. This can be demonstrated forever and you will always get the same result.

religion is built around that which can never be demonstrated and is almost never truly defined


I grossly overestimated your intelligence, it is clear. Like I said, go try that shit at LoR

Try what shit? You seemed to finally get my point.

For believers, the evidence of God is everywhere. It's the "prime mover" argument. Existence itself is proof of a creator.

All theistic religion is built upon that intrinsic sense of the creator. As you lack that intrinsic sense, you will never find religion. Nothing you say will eliminate that intrinsic sense, and nothing said to you will generate that intrinsic sense. Religion is valid if you have that intrinsic sense, and it is invalid if you lack that intrinsic sense. Simple as that.

This is why you and Jen will never agree. You lack that sense of the creator, and so religion is always invalid in your logic. Jen has that sense of the creator, and so religion is always valid in her logic.

So, you attack her with pseudo-psycho-analysis and stories about rape, thus appearing rabid to an outsider, such as myself. So I stepped in, to defend her.

This is also why I asked you "What do you value in a man, besides intelligence?" Because even if someone is a rape victim, it is NEVER right to use that fact against them in an argument.

 

[JBeukema]

For believers, the evidence of God is everywhere. It's the "prime mover" argument. Existence itself is proof of a creator.

that argument is logically fallacious and has been shown to be such repeatedly; all your doing is repeating my point that theists are ignorant, illogical, unreasoning simpletons

This is why you and Jen will never agree. You lack that sense of the creator, and so religion is always invalid in your logic. Jen has that sense of the creator, and so religion is always valid in her logic.

Her 'logic' is illogical and invalid

I never used assault against her, I cited her own admission that this led her to turn to these delusions as a coping mechanism as highlighting her own confession that nothing she thinks or says is based on reason and her religion is a mental illness

 

[eagleseven]

I never used assault against her, I cited her own admission that this led her to turn to these delusions as a coping mechanism as highlighting her own confession that nothing she thinks or says is based on reason and her religion is a mental illness

You are claiming that her being raped has led her to develop a mental illness?

Not only do you have no credentials to make such a claim, but that's just plain cruel. Below the belt. Uncalled for. Wrong.

 

[del]

I never used assault against her, I cited her own admission that this led her to turn to these delusions as a coping mechanism as highlighting her own confession that nothing she thinks or says is based on reason and her religion is a mental illness

You are claiming that her being raped has led her to develop a mental illness?

Not only do you have no credentials to make such a claim, but that's just plain cruel. Below the belt. Uncalled for. Wrong.

he's funny that way.