Questions atheists are sick of answering. Aaaand Biscuits again, of course.

Otacon

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Are you on any medication?... I am seriously beginning to think you are mentally unhinged... I really think you are a complete idiot

I'm sure Sycopat will be along shortly to respond to your arguments. I have not participated in this thread but have been reading through it.

I just wanted to post to say that in your last post alone, you have personally insulted Sycopat at least three times. Why are you doing this? Why do you think it's OK to do this?

Sycopat has been far more obliging than I would have been.

robindch

Sycopat wrote: »

This is a bold faced lie.[...] stating it without an argument is either because you can't back it up, in which case I would view it as worthless posturing, or because you are aware that you can't, making me think it it even more worthless cowardice.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Are you on any medication? [...] I am not looking for you to explain your views, if you have a bigoted point of view I am sure you would give reasons that sounded most plausible... Most bigots do. [...] I am seriously beginning to think you are mentally unhinged...

I'm sure it's the heat outside folks, but tone down the language please, else the forum's cardbox or perhaps even its lusty banhammer will be appearing soon to restore order and calmness to all about I see.

ShowMeTheCash

Otacon wrote: »

I'm sure Sycopat will be along shortly to respond to your arguments. I have not participated in this thread but have been reading through it.

I just wanted to post to say that in your last post alone, you have personally insulted Sycopat at least three times. Why are you doing this? Why do you think it's OK to do this?

Sycopat has been far more obliging than I would have been.

Oh i'm sorry I did not know Sycopat's mother was online I will play nice from now on!

ShowMeTheCash

robindch wrote: »

I'm sure it's the heat outside folks, but tone down the language please, else the forum's cardbox or perhaps even its lusty banhammer will be appearing soon to restore order and calmness to all about I see.

I will drop it... It's a pointless arguement... I retract the medication comment and name calling.

I apologise.

robindch

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I will drop it... It's a pointless arguement... I retract the medication comment and name calling. I apologise.

Much obliged

Sycopat

robindch wrote: »

I'm sure it's the heat outside folks, but tone down the language please, else the forum's cardbox or perhaps even its lusty banhammer will be appearing soon to restore order and calmness to all about I see.

So let it be written, so let it be done. I will keep a more civil tone. If there are any further issues I will abide by the judgement of the mods

Otacon wrote: »

I'm sure Sycopat will be along shortly to respond to your arguments. I have not participated in this thread but have been reading through it.

I just wanted to post to say that in your last post alone, you have personally insulted Sycopat at least three times. Why are you doing this? Why do you think it's OK to do this?

Sycopat has been far more obliging than I would have been.

Thank you kind stranger, although I must admit I have over my last few posts been a bit of a prat.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

No it was just nonsence! As I said before I do not care that you seem to think you are insulting me, but at least have a point!

I had a few points I thought. Most specifically re: your King Jong hypothetical.

I also had a very good one about how Christians believe a range of different things, and a minority of the churches don't even agree with the discriminatory views but that doesn't make the views I take issue with any less "Christian" but I see you've ignored that in favour of yet more straw men:

You use the word Christian as if they are all mindless drones

I have not made a statement towards an entire subset of people

,

I simply do not wish to paint an entire people with the same paint brush as you seem to want to do

These are all misrepresentations of my point of view. I am confident any review will reveal I have been very careful to avoid absolute statements. This is intentional.

I am not looking for you to explain your views,

...

If you have a bigoted view point I would at least like to understand why you have it...

How can you expect to understand why I hold a view if I don't explain why I hold it? Or if you constrain me to specific circumstances and scenarios? I know I cut out a lot here, so it may be simply due to the lost context, but I think these two statements disagree.

if you have a bigoted point of view I am sure you would give reasons that sounded most plausible... Most bigots do.

I would agree, with the addendum that one can usually find a flaw in their thinking if examined thoroughly. Some sort of assumption of manifest destiny is most common in my experience e.g. This is 'our land', we're better than they are, women have smaller brains, it is the will of god etc.

So Jesus making reference to the "laws" old testement without making reference to any specific part is your argument? OK
Some Christians might argue with you on it being discriminatory with various text on equality from the bible http://www.openbible.info/topics/equality

We also stated earlier in the thread that the bible was written and rewritten in terms of original text we established it is questionable...

It may interest you to know that that Matthew passage I referenced was from the sermon on the mount... You know, "Blessed are the Peace Makers etc. etc."

You challenged me to find direct teachings of Jesus I took issue with. I did so.

And I told you I took exception to doing so also.

And if you'd copy and pasted my link into your browser instead of clicking on it, it would have taken you to an online copy of the bible where you would have seen that in this particular passage Jesus states exactly which parts of the "law" he means, and that those parts are "All of them".(Specifically Matthew 5:18/19, but I am loathe to quote a single piece lest it appear I am taking it out of context. F**k it, here's the whole thing

Jesus wrote:

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

)

You want to believe Christianity is the cause of and reason for why people are racists and bigots...
You are trying to convey the idea that the text of the bible reinforces this belief when in reality you are picking at small amouts of text amoung a vast litnany of passages around equality and selfless acts...

One of the reasons. One of the causes. You are very keen to turn every statement I make into an absolute.

And I'm not picking at small amounts of text. a) You asked me to. b)You restricted me to a subset of the text (A stipulation I note you did not abide by yourself.) c) While I take issue with the content of the bible, I consider how poorly written and boring it is to be much more offensive. It is, to me, a very old work of fiction. I disagree with much of what the greek gods did also, but their stories are at least more entertaining. I also didn't particularly like Rand al'Thor. I take much greater issue with the use of said passages by Christians to justify their own behaviour. I take much greater issue with the actions and teachings of their churches. But I don't pretend they don't base those on the bible. Which is what I'd have told you if you asked me to explain myself instead of to jump through your hoops as you try to defend a 'questionable' (must we still refer to it as such in light of other recent posts in this thread? It seems rude to disregard such convincingly thorough arguments.) book, which is of ever decreasing relevance or interest to me.

I mean I can understand liking the "nice" bits of the bible and disregarding the "nasty" bits, but imo the best thing it can teach you is how to tell the difference. And it's not the only book that can do that.

Also, a and b above are still what make me question your impartiality on this. How do you think it impartial to challenge me to find problematic parts of a text which you know to contain problematic passages, in the subsection most would suspect to contain the least amount of problematic passages. That you then respond to as if these are the totality of my issues with the text as a whole, and simultaneously dismiss them as though they're not important by making reference to the 'questionable' nature of the bible (Something which applies at least as much to every single one of your own quotes as it does to any I produce.) despite them being in the subsection you specifically selected?

Perhaps you are gone and I'll never know, but I think we had probably exchanged as much as was useful some time ago so maybe it's for the best.

ShowMeTheCash

Sycopat wrote: »

Perhaps you are gone and I'll never know, but I think we had probably exchanged as much as was useful some time ago so maybe it's for the best.

Probably

I think perhaps I/we backed ourselves into a corner.
I usually have these heated type debates with people of a Christian point of view and I make many of the arguments you put forward.

This time around I seem to be defending it
My original comments had been around this type of argument and how futile an argument either side of this can be, like a dog chasing it's tail it really cannot go anywhere...

It was never my intention to get bogged down in scripture as already established it is questionable...
From reading the bible however I did not come away thinking this is evil or this is a manual for oppression!

The view point that the bible and christianity is the cause of..<Whatever>...
Was put forward, I dissagree... I think people are utlimately responsible for what they do... I think if Christianity did not come along something else would have...

Some Christians are bigoted just like non Christians I do not think they go hand in hand...

I personally do not see the bible as something to be taken litterally, I am not sure of the events of the time, but I actually do not care nor do I think them important.

I however know people that take comfort in Christianity, I have watched people who have/had circumstances they could not over come and it gave them a kind of strength to deal with what was happening...

I do not think the teachings or even the idea of it to be all bad, even though I do not believe in it myself...

Hope this answers your question from my view point.