Brian Shanahan wrote: » You see it is this kind of stuff that has stopped us believing, the fact that we have to employ doublethink constantly just to hold the belief in our heads doesn't sit well with us.
Brian Shanahan wrote: » It's not so much your motives as his fear of being found out believing in something that he knows he has no valid reason for believing in. When people of festus' type of belief get defensive over their beliefs being shown into the light and examined, it is generally because the penny has finally dropped, and (to use the expression) their particular emperor has no clothes. They realise that their beliefs are without foundation, and it scares them.
Festus wrote: » Atheists only exist because God does. Double think that.
Harika wrote: » Atheist exist because a believe in god(s) exist, if any god could be proven to exist Atheist wouldn't exist.
Festus wrote: » You cherry picked and quoted one section out of context. Why did you not also include the part before that that is part of the same law? The section you referred to applies to a woman who has done wrong not only against the family she was born to but also to the family she was married into.[13] If a man marry a wife, and afterwards hate her, [14] And seek occasions to put her away, laying to her charge a very ill name, and say: I took this woman to wife, and going in to her, I found her not a virgin: [15] Her father and mother shall take her, and shall bring with them the tokens of her virginity to the ancients of the city that are in the gate: [16] And the father shall say: I gave my daughter unto this man to wife: and because he hateth her, [17] He layeth to her charge a very ill name, so as to say: I found not thy daughter a virgin: and behold these are the tokens of my daughter' s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the ancients of the city: [18] And the ancients of that city shall take that man, and beat him, [19] Condemning him besides in a hundred sides of silver, which he shall give to the damsel' s father, because he hath defamed by a very ill name a virgin of Israel: and he shall have her to wife, and may not put her away all the days of his life. [20] But if what he charged her with be true, and virginity be not found in the damsel: [21] They shall cast her out of the doors of her father' s house, and the men of the city shall stone her to death, and she shall die: because she hath done a wicked thing in Israel, to play the whore in her father' s house: and thou shalt take away the evil out of the midst of thee. You do filter. You post only what suits you when taken out of context. Here is the rest of that law [22] If a man lie with another man' s wife, they shall both die, that is to say, the adulterer and the adulteress: and thou shalt take away the evil out of Israel. [23] If a man have espoused a damsel that is a virgin, and some one find her in the city, and lie with her, [24] Thou shalt bring them both out to the gate of that city, and they shall be stoned: the damsel, because she cried not out, being in the city: the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour' s wife. And thou shalt take away the evil from the midst of thee. [25] But if a man find a damsel that is betrothed, in the field, and taking hold of her, lie with her, he alone shall die: [26] The damsel shall suffer nothing, neither is she guilty of death: for as a robber riseth against his brother, and taketh away his life, so also did the damsel suffer: [27] She was alone in the field: she cried, and there was no man to help her. [28] If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: [29] He that lay with her shall give to the father of the maid fifty sides of silver, and shall have her to wife, because he hath humbled her: he may not put her away all the days of his life. As for opinions - I think being honest and truthful is more important. BTW, don't neglect to consider my response to another poster regarding only those who have kept all the laws and are without sin can cast stones.
Festus wrote: » Some, if not all, atheists believe they are their own god in which case their very existence proves they do not exist. But that is not the point. Can you exist without God and if so how? If at any point you do not know how or why something occurs or occurred please do not use a future knowledge fallacy.
Festus wrote: » You cherry picked and quoted one section out of context. Why did you not also include the part before that that is part of the same law? The section you referred to applies to a woman who has done wrong not only against the family she was born to but also to the family she was married into.[13] If a man marry a wife, and afterwards hate her, [14] And seek occasions to put her away, laying to her charge a very ill name, and say: I took this woman to wife, and going in to her, I found her not a virgin: [15] Her father and mother shall take her, and shall bring with them the tokens of her virginity to the ancients of the city that are in the gate: [16] And the father shall say: I gave my daughter unto this man to wife: and because he hateth her, [17] He layeth to her charge a very ill name, so as to say: I found not thy daughter a virgin: and behold these are the tokens of my daughter' s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the ancients of the city: [18] And the ancients of that city shall take that man, and beat him, [19] Condemning him besides in a hundred sides of silver, which he shall give to the damsel' s father, because he hath defamed by a very ill name a virgin of Israel: and he shall have her to wife, and may not put her away all the days of his life. [20] But if what he charged her with be true, and virginity be not found in the damsel: [21] They shall cast her out of the doors of her father' s house, and the men of the city shall stone her to death, and she shall die: because she hath done a wicked thing in Israel, to play the whore in her father' s house: and thou shalt take away the evil out of the midst of thee. You do filter. You post only what suits you when taken out of context. Here is the rest of that law [22] If a man lie with another man' s wife, they shall both die, that is to say, the adulterer and the adulteress: and thou shalt take away the evil out of Israel. [23] If a man have espoused a damsel that is a virgin, and some one find her in the city, and lie with her, [24] Thou shalt bring them both out to the gate of that city, and they shall be stoned: the damsel, because she cried not out, being in the city: the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour' s wife. And thou shalt take away the evil from the midst of thee. [25] But if a man find a damsel that is betrothed, in the field, and taking hold of her, lie with her, he alone shall die: [26] The damsel shall suffer nothing, neither is she guilty of death: for as a robber riseth against his brother, and taketh away his life, so also did the damsel suffer: [27] She was alone in the field: she cried, and there was no man to help her. [28] If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: [29] He that lay with her shall give to the father of the maid fifty sides of silver, and shall have her to wife, because he hath humbled her: he may not put her away all the days of his life.
RikuoAmero wrote: » I think you're in the wrong thread, dude. If I'm not mistaken, I said that in the Origin of Specious Nonsense thread. Of course what I said is just as valid here (since it relates to my points for there being a lack of a good justification for a belief in god), but let's not mix up what people said in other threads here.
Safehands wrote: » If ever you wanted evidence that God did not inspire the writing of the old Testament then this is it. As I said before, if God did not inspire these writings then the whole thing is just made up, as I believe it is.
Harika wrote: » Yes e.g. Satanists believe they are their own god, what now comes down to the definition what a god is, so what is a god for you? Also when you state yourself that you are a god, does that mean you are a god_ Same if I claim that I am Festus, does that mean I am Festus? We exist very likely without a god, and as you know we cannot prove that there is no god and on the other side there is no proof that there is a or several god (s), that would have godlike powers to create an universe. We have come a long way to understand that thunder and lightning are not caused by god(s) but from physics, if you think that there is something that is yet unexplained feel free to use your god as helper until we figure out how it can be explained by science.
Festus wrote: » You didn't answer the question and you used the fallacy of relying on future knowledge while admitting to being agnostic. I understand some atheists would call that a fail.
Festus wrote: » The Bible is either true or it is not. If it is true then it was written by people who believe in God and who believed they were inspired by God. If that is not true then the people who wrote it knowing it to be false could not have believed in God. I think there were called atheists at one point. The only other way to explain the Bible without God involves a conspiracy theory on an epic, dare I say biblical scale. So which is it according to you - the bible was written by atheists or you subscribe to a conspiracy theory you cannot explain adequately? Or do you have another full and detailed explanation for the Bible?
Festus wrote: » The Bible is either true or it is not. <-snip-> Or do you have another full and detailed explanation for the Bible?
Festus wrote: » The Bible is either true or it is not. If it is true then it was written by people who believe in God and who believed they were inspired by God. If that is not true then the people who wrote it knowing it to be false could not have believed in God. I think there were called atheists at one point.
Harika wrote: » Made up by some hustlers to control people. So when was the bible exactly written down again? Isn't it the case the bible is a compilation of stories originating from different sources hundreds of years in difference? The process of compilation again was controlled by those hustlers by cherry picking what they thought was right. Over the decades it was heavily adapted again to fit the needs of the reigning people. That process was again made up and controlled by the same religious hustlers, Mohammed then used the same process to create islam, as he needed something to gather people behind them with the reward again only after death. So convenient.
Festus wrote: » So you are saying it is a conspiracy.
Safehands wrote: » I think you are leaving out the most likely scenario; It was written by people who genuinely believed, wrongly, that they were inspired by God. I think they genuinely believed in God but were seriously misguided.
Safehands wrote: » Festus, are you going to tell me that a loving God encouraged men to behave like this. Can you tell me that it was justifiable to kill people in this way, because God told them to do it? I am genuinely interested to hear what you have to say about this.
Harika wrote: » That is why, also seen here, discussions about bible passages let your brain spin so hard, because of the affords religious people have to go through to cover and justify the flaws of the bible.
Festus wrote: » What flaws in the Bible? Do you mean spelling mistakes?
It is rather interesting to read what people believe to be conspiracies that aren't (e.g. most corporations are not actively conspiring with each other against the public, it is simply a result of corporate priorities - to maximize profits - that requires no coordination at all), and what actual conspiracies that do exist that people deny (e.g. energy companies working together to create federal policies that favor themselves and push through lobbying / political connections). Organized religions, IMHO, are pretty much the same as corporations. They exist to maximize profits, but each religion / corporation has their own marketplace and target audience. Each religion / corporation has their own PR initiatives designed to make their competitors look bad and to reinforce that their own customers made the best possible choice (e.g. think about the Microsoft / Apple PR or Xbox / PS PR or Christian / Muslim PR). None of this requires conspiracy, but just a devotion to keeping their business operating.
Festus wrote: » who is without sin, then or now.
Harika wrote: » Contradictions in what is stated.
Harika wrote: » So short, religion is no conspiracy theory, but a business that maximizes it's profit.
lazygal wrote: » My children have never committed a sin in their lives.
Festus wrote: » What contradictions?
Festus wrote: » Even if that were true that still doesn't explain why the Bible is the way it is and says what it says.
Harika wrote: » You know which parts I mean, else it is find able easy by google.
Harika wrote: » Oh it explains everything, every part has its own meaning and it makes sense when looking at maximizing its "profit". Throw examples and I will link it why it is beneficial to have it that way.
Festus wrote: » Acts 7:51-53
Festus wrote: » Matthew 10:39
Festus wrote: » 1 Peter 4:3-4
Festus wrote: » 2 Timothy 3:12
Festus wrote: » John 15:18-19
Harika wrote: » So all advertisement ala "I am the one and only" that binds customers to the brand of Catholicism.
Festus wrote: » What about you?
Festus wrote: » Public Relations costs money - it doesn't make any profit of itself. If you believe it is about profit tell me how this makes money? As for Catholicism - PR doesn't seem to be much use at the moment. The less people are told about sin and Hell the faster they leave. So less money. Why is that? Some parishes are telling people about Hell and sin and their flocks are increasing but there aren't many and those that do are being shut down by the bishops so less money. Why is that? What about other Christians or are you only against Catholics?
lazygal wrote: » What about me? You said "who is without sin, then or now." My children are without sin. How could two toddlers have any sins?
Harika wrote: » They are doing the same, just are tweaking things differently to justify their being. Who would take a "New improved Catholic church" seriously that reads the bible the same way? So some people unhappy with their religion forked it and created their own with enough brand change to be recognized as own entity but already a broad foundation to stand on.
