Political Crossfire Forums

[LetsGetReal]

The existence of the Universe isn't going to be found by dog crap websites and anti-christian authors who make up all of their so called claims. If you would like some actual respect post something credible and worthy of a response. And please if you don't know the context of the verse don't post it.

[toddytodd]

mODULAR mAN wrote: If this is the quality of apology you can muster within your conscience, I will take it.

You may not like what I say, but I'm under no obligation to take your Religious text seriously, literally, metaphorically or dogmatically. If I have an odd interpretation, ask for sources, instead of attacking the messanger.

Many Theists have become atheists (and, visa versa, to be fair). The jury is not in on any of it, and we will never know until after death.

Look, post your strongest points, keep hammering on them and working them - Heck, I'll even give you good arguments. But just be prepared to have reasonable answers.

Whether we live forvever or not, we all only get one life on Earth like this one - lets not be ***holes. Lets discuss things rationally (or, if you would like don't engage in the convo).

I will say some controversial things, but they are based in real reasearch or humor. If I am wrong , I will admit it - possibly begrudgingly, or with a caveat, but I will admit it.

I come from a perspecive: I am opposed to Religion, and Nationalism (I see them as similar emotional ploys). I don't believe in the supernatural, but believe in mans ability to create meaningful mythology. I am a Secular Humanist, wealthy, for Democratic Socialism but understand brute force, spirituality and Nationalism are concepts people believe in strongly.

If you have a problem with what I say, ask for a reference or explanation. I will ask the same of you.


There is no reason we need to be at odds in discovering more about our existence in the Universe.

Quote: There is no reason we need to be at odds in discovering more about our existence in the Universe.

Excellent point. Going even further, I never understood why some people (particularly christians, being this is a christian thread) don't like to ask questions or question what they are told. That is how we learn. If someone believes in God, they must know he has all the answers, even if they/we don't. If one believes in God, no matter how old the universe is or isn't, no matter how creatures came into being, no matter we evolved or not, (etc)doesn't change the fact that God made and controls it all, per ones belief. To me, christians should be asking the most questions and questioning more than any other group, as learning should be bringing them closer to God.
If one has enough faith in God, the questions nor the answers to those questions should sway their faith.

[mODULAR mAN]

LetsGetReal wrote: The existence of the Universe isn't going to be found by dog crap websites and anti-christian authors who make up all of their so called claims.
1. I try to post articles or other published work by well-known and respected thinkers. Infidel.org has a wonderful Library.

Maybe you've heard of some of these authors:

Aletheia, M. D.
Allen, Ethan
Avery, Martin
Baker, I. Newton
Birkhead, Rev. L. M.
Bradlaugh, Charles
Burbank, Luther
Clifford, W. K.
Cohen, Chapman
Conway, Moncure D.
Crowley, Jeremiah J.
Darrow, Clarence
Darwin, Charles
Dreiser, Theodore
Einstein, Albert
Epicurus
Floyd, William
Foote, George W.
Fulks, Clay
Gardener, Helen H.
Gauvin, Marshall
Goldberg, Issac
Goldman, Emma
Graves, Kersey
Gunn, John W.
Haldeman-Julius, E.
Historicus
Hobbes, Thomas
Holbach, Baron d'
Hughes, Rupert
Hume, David
Huxley, Thomas
Ingersoll, Robert G.
Jefferson, Thomas
Johnson, James Hervey
Kessler, John J.
Kittredge, Herman E.
La Mettrie, Julien Offray de
Lewis, Joseph
Locke, John
Madison, James
Mangasarian, M. M.
McCabe, Joseph
McGee, John Edwin
McLaren, A. D.
Nietzsche, Friedrich
Paine, Thomas
Patterson, J. H.
Potter, Charles F.
Remsburg, John E.
Reade, William W.
Renan, Ernest
Robinson, Richard
Runyon, Vincent
Russell, Bertrand
Shelley, Percy Bysshe
Sinclair, Upton
Spinoza, Benedict
Stanton, Elizabeth
Steiner, Franklin
Teller, Woolsey
Twain, Mark
Voltaire
Waite, Edgar
Wallace, Alfred Russell
Washburn, Lemuel K.
Watts, Charles
Wheless, Joseph
White, Andrew Dickson

Aijaz, Imran
Aliet, Jacob
Arsel, Ilhan
Atkins, Peter
Augustine, Keith
Babinski, Ed
Baggini, Julian
Ball, Mark
Barker, Dan
Berggren, Niclas
Berry, Robby
Blackham, H. J.
Borchandt, Jerry
Bradley, Raymond D.
Buckner, Ed
Buckner, Michael
Campbell, Anthony
Carlson, Paul
Clark, Thomas
Carr, Steven
Carrier, Richard
Chesworth, Amanda
Collins, Lorence G.
Conifer, Steven
Cooke, Bill
Copan, Paul
Corbett, Cale
Dawkins, Richard
Deardorff, James
Deimel, Guido
Denneson, Travis J.
Doherty, Earl
Doland, Paul
Drange, Theodore M.
Echelbarger, Charles
Edis, Taner
Edwords, Fred
Everitt, Nicholas
Fales, Evan
Fields, Emmett F.
Fitelson, Branden
Flew, Antony
Flynn, Tom
Forrest, Barbara
Gale, Richard
Garrett, Anthony
Gaunillo II
Gaylor, Annie Laurie
Gerkin, Kyle J.
Gill, Mohammad
Giron, Denis
Goldstein, Mathew
Gould, Stephen Jay
Green, Sid
Grünbaum, Adolf
Guminski, Arnold T.
Hannam, James
Haught, James A.
Herrick, Paul
Hindu Woman, A
Hiorth, Finngeir
Ho, Eugene
Holtz, Brian
Hurben, Michael
Hutchins, Mark
Jayawardena, Leonard
Jesseph, Doug
Kaminer, Wendy
Katz, Bernard
Kelly, Kyle
Kirby, Peter
Krause, Kenneth
Krueger, Doug
Kuchar, Philip
Kuphaldt, Tony
Kurtz, Paul
Larue, Gerald A.
Laupot, Eric
Lippard, James J.
Lowder, Jeffery Jay
Lüdemann, Gerd
Madigan, Tim
mathew
Martin, Michael
Matson, Dave E.
Matulich, Alex
McKown, Delos
McNally, Robert
Meritt, Jim
Midling, Jack
Moore, Michael
Morem, Sally
Morgan, Donald
Murphy, John Patrick Michael
Murray, Jon G.
Murray-O'Hair, Madalyn
Nagasawa, Yujin
Nath, Ramendra
Narveson, Jan
Nickell, Joe
O'Brien, Paul
Oppy, Graham
Oser, Scott
Packham, Richard
Palmisano, Frank
Parrish, Stephen
Parsons, Keith
Pence, Todd M.
Perkins, John L.
Perry, Jim
Petraitis, Richard
Pietruszewski, Brian
Pigliucci, Massimo
Plugaru, Horia George
Posner, Gary
Price, James D.
Price, Robert M.
Rachels, James
Ragoonanan, Balgrim
Rankin, John
al-Rawandi, Ibn
Reppert, Victor
Riggins, Robert
Robbins, J. Wesley
Roth, Jennifer
Russell, Bruce
Sabella, Joseph A.
Saladin, Ken
Schafersman, Steven D.
Schick, Theodore, Jr.
Schultz, Bill
Scorzo, Greg
Shanks, Niall
Shaver, Doug
Sheehan, Thomas
Smith, George H.
Smith, Quentin
Sotnak, Eric
Stein, Gordon S.
Stenger, Vic
Still, James
Stretton, Dean
Sullivan, Stephen
Tabash, Edward
Tal, Shlomi
Tattersall, Nicholas
Taylor, Larry A.
Till, Farrell
van den Heuvel, Curt
Vitzthum, Richard
Voron, David A.
Vuletic, Mark
Wagenet, Ralph C.
Wanchick, Tom
Washington, Corey
Weisberger, Andrea
Wells, G.A.
Wilson, Edwin
Wilson, Peter
Wunder, Tyler
Young, William Henry
Zaitzeff, David
Zindler, Frank

I would hardly call it "dog crap" that a site is compiling this impressive body of work. In fact, you again are being rude and "baiting". Just becuase you believe in ONE Book, doesn't make any difference to me, and it doesn't give you the final "say" as to what is good or "dog crap".


As for , "making up their claims": Everyone either relates someone elses claims, or makes their own claim. Duh.


Quote: If you would like some actual respect post something credible and worthy of a response.

Please! I want no respect from you. It would be meaningless to me; possibly even insulting. You have shown yourself to be disingenuous and petty. I don't need your approval.

I consider your outbursts and lack of sourcing, or not providing links, to be childish.

Quote: And please if you don't know the context of the verse don't post it.
Am I to understand, then, that you aspouse the larger context of Existentialism of Ayn Rand's John Galt character in "Atlas Shrugged", since you are quoting it in your signature?





P.S.: This is an excellent example of why I think you are petty. I wrote "discovering more about our existence in the Universe."

And you responded by writing "The existence of the Universe isn't going to be found by dog crap websites and anti-christian authors who make up all of their so called claims".

You didn't even read properly! How can you know I'm wrong when you're not even understanding what I am writing?

Discovering more about OUR existence IN the Universe is totally different to "claims ABOUT the existence of the Universe".

Please, respect yourself enough to read through what you post, to exercize restraint and to use the "edit" function.

[LetsGetReal]

Well it won't be found in any of your "dog crap" websites or your anit-christian authors whos soul wish is to destroy religion. And this isn't about me personally so I will not discuss what I have in my signature if you would like to discuss via PM I will be more then happy to. Unless it gets taken to a part in the debate where it is like this and all I get are conspiracy/radical theories with no proof for their assertations.

[mODULAR mAN]

Just put me on your "ignore list". For everyone's sake.



ANYHOW! Back to the topic.

Regarding the "Law of Man" vs. "God's Law":

Here is an interesting article. http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/aah/sierichs_13_3.htm

Here are quotes from Xians before the US Revloution.

Quote: R.H. Rivers, professor of moral philosophy at Wesleyan College, Alabama, claimed in an 1860 book, Elements of Moral Philosophy, that his god established slavery. He wrote: “We maintain that God’s law is always right, and that whatever God established is right, not because he established it, but we maintain that God established it because he saw that it is right.” Rivers declared, “no one should place conscience above God, or above his law . . . [man does not have a] higher law in his moral nature which is above God’s revealed law.”

Bishop Stephen Elliott of Georgia claimed in an 1862 sermon that the American Revolution had laid down principles contrary to biblical revelation:

Carried away by our opposition to monarchy and an established Church, we declared war against all authority and against all form. The reason of man was exalted to an impious degree and in the face not only of experience, but of the revealed word of God, all men were declared equal, and man was pronounced capable of self-government.

Elliott demanded a theocracy because “subordination rules supreme in heaven and must rule supreme on earth.” He claimed Boston was the source of “every accursed heresy” from false clergy and that Southern clergy had “never corrupted the gospel of Christ” by claiming a “higher law.” He helped write an 1862 pastoral letter for the General Council of the Confederate Protestant Episcopal Church that described abolitionism as a “hateful infidel pestilence.”

One prominent Southern Methodist, August B. Longstreet of Georgia, called abolitionism “one of the most frightful, disgusting monsters that ever reared its head among a Christian people.” Another Methodist, Whitefoord Smith, told the General Assembly in South Carolina that abolitionists abandoned Christianity for a “higher law” that succumbed to “the doctrines of devils.” In 1861, the North Carolina Christian Advocate blamed the impending war on “‘the demon spirit of abolitionism.’ Southern Methodists had ‘tested it fully, and found it to be heartless, inhuman and Christless.’”

One of the most widely reprinted demands for secession was a November 29, 1860, sermon at the First Presbyterian Church in New Orleans, Louisiana, when the Reverend Benjamin Morgan Palmer declared it a duty to defend slavery. He criticized abolitionist ideas, then:

Last of all, in this great struggle, we defend the cause of God and Religion. The Abolition spirit is undeniably atheistic. The demon which erected its throne upon the guillotine in the days of Robespierre and Marat, which abolished the Sabbath and worshipped reason in the person of a harlot, yet survives to work other horrors, of which those of the French Revolution are but the type. Among a people so generally religious as the American, a disguise must be worn; but it is the same old threadbare disguise of the advocacy of human rights. From a thousand Jacobin Clubs here, as in France, the decree has gone forth which strikes at God by striking at all subordination and law. . . . This spirit of atheism, which knows no God who tolerates evil, no Bible which sanctions law, and no conscience that can be bound by oaths and covenants, has selected us for its victims, and slavery for its issue. Its banner-cry rings out already upon the air: “liberty, equality, fraternity,” which simply interpreted, means bondage, confiscation, and massacre. With its tricolor waving in the breeze—it waits to inaugurate its reign of terror. To the South the high position is assigned of defending, before all nations, the cause of all religions and of all truths. In this trust, we are resisting the power which wars against constitutions and laws and compacts, against Sabbaths and sanctuaries, against the family, the state, and the church, which blasphemously invades the prerogatives of God, and rebukes the Most High for the errors of his administration. . . .

In the 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist,” James Henry Hammond—a U.S. representative, a U.S. senator, and South Carolina governor—offered standard Bible-based defenses of slavery. He blamed abolitionism on:

a transcendental religion . . . a religion too pure and elevated for the Bible; which seeks to erect among men a higher standard of morals than the Almighty has revealed, or our Saviour preached; and which is probably destined to do more to impede the extension of God’s kingdom on earth than all the infidels who have ever lived. Error is error.

Hammond concluded:

And to sum up all, if pleasure is correctly defined to be the absence of pain—which, so far as the great body of mankind is concerned, is undoubtedly its true definition—I believe our slaves are the happiest three millions of human beings on whom the sun shines. Into their Eden is coming Satan in the disguise of an abolitionist.



This is how crazy it was then, and in some respects, still. It is this mentality I am fighting, this dogmatic assertion that the Bible is some sort of divine law. It was written by superstitious, fearful, ignorant men a long time ago.

It's time to update our morality, and ditch "God's Law".

[toddytodd]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Just put me on your "ignore list". For everyone's sake.



ANYHOW! Back to the topic.

Regarding the "Law of Man" vs. "God's Law":

Here is an interesting article. http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/aah/sierichs_13_3.htm

Here are quotes from Xians before the US Revloution.

Quote: R.H. Rivers, professor of moral philosophy at Wesleyan College, Alabama, claimed in an 1860 book, Elements of Moral Philosophy, that his god established slavery. He wrote: “We maintain that God’s law is always right, and that whatever God established is right, not because he established it, but we maintain that God established it because he saw that it is right.” Rivers declared, “no one should place conscience above God, or above his law . . . [man does not have a] higher law in his moral nature which is above God’s revealed law.”

Bishop Stephen Elliott of Georgia claimed in an 1862 sermon that the American Revolution had laid down principles contrary to biblical revelation:

Carried away by our opposition to monarchy and an established Church, we declared war against all authority and against all form. The reason of man was exalted to an impious degree and in the face not only of experience, but of the revealed word of God, all men were declared equal, and man was pronounced capable of self-government.

Elliott demanded a theocracy because “subordination rules supreme in heaven and must rule supreme on earth.” He claimed Boston was the source of “every accursed heresy” from false clergy and that Southern clergy had “never corrupted the gospel of Christ” by claiming a “higher law.” He helped write an 1862 pastoral letter for the General Council of the Confederate Protestant Episcopal Church that described abolitionism as a “hateful infidel pestilence.”

One prominent Southern Methodist, August B. Longstreet of Georgia, called abolitionism “one of the most frightful, disgusting monsters that ever reared its head among a Christian people.” Another Methodist, Whitefoord Smith, told the General Assembly in South Carolina that abolitionists abandoned Christianity for a “higher law” that succumbed to “the doctrines of devils.” In 1861, the North Carolina Christian Advocate blamed the impending war on “‘the demon spirit of abolitionism.’ Southern Methodists had ‘tested it fully, and found it to be heartless, inhuman and Christless.’”

One of the most widely reprinted demands for secession was a November 29, 1860, sermon at the First Presbyterian Church in New Orleans, Louisiana, when the Reverend Benjamin Morgan Palmer declared it a duty to defend slavery. He criticized abolitionist ideas, then:

Last of all, in this great struggle, we defend the cause of God and Religion. The Abolition spirit is undeniably atheistic. The demon which erected its throne upon the guillotine in the days of Robespierre and Marat, which abolished the Sabbath and worshipped reason in the person of a harlot, yet survives to work other horrors, of which those of the French Revolution are but the type. Among a people so generally religious as the American, a disguise must be worn; but it is the same old threadbare disguise of the advocacy of human rights. From a thousand Jacobin Clubs here, as in France, the decree has gone forth which strikes at God by striking at all subordination and law. . . . This spirit of atheism, which knows no God who tolerates evil, no Bible which sanctions law, and no conscience that can be bound by oaths and covenants, has selected us for its victims, and slavery for its issue. Its banner-cry rings out already upon the air: “liberty, equality, fraternity,” which simply interpreted, means bondage, confiscation, and massacre. With its tricolor waving in the breeze—it waits to inaugurate its reign of terror. To the South the high position is assigned of defending, before all nations, the cause of all religions and of all truths. In this trust, we are resisting the power which wars against constitutions and laws and compacts, against Sabbaths and sanctuaries, against the family, the state, and the church, which blasphemously invades the prerogatives of God, and rebukes the Most High for the errors of his administration. . . .

In the 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist,” James Henry Hammond—a U.S. representative, a U.S. senator, and South Carolina governor—offered standard Bible-based defenses of slavery. He blamed abolitionism on:

a transcendental religion . . . a religion too pure and elevated for the Bible; which seeks to erect among men a higher standard of morals than the Almighty has revealed, or our Saviour preached; and which is probably destined to do more to impede the extension of God’s kingdom on earth than all the infidels who have ever lived. Error is error.

Hammond concluded:

And to sum up all, if pleasure is correctly defined to be the absence of pain—which, so far as the great body of mankind is concerned, is undoubtedly its true definition—I believe our slaves are the happiest three millions of human beings on whom the sun shines. Into their Eden is coming Satan in the disguise of an abolitionist.



This is how crazy it was then, and in some respects, still. It is this mentality I am fighting, this dogmatic assertion that the Bible is some sort of divine law. It was written by superstitious, fearful, ignorant men a long time ago.

It's time to update our morality, and ditch "God's Law".

We can't "ditch God's law" because then there wouldn't be any morality left in the world :roll:

[LetsGetReal]

Christians are immoral and imperfect to quote them and expect perfection is utterly ridiculous...

[mODULAR mAN]

LetsGetReal wrote: Christians are immoral and imperfect to quote them and expect perfection is utterly ridiculous...
(I will remeber this everytime you post :wink: )

So, how am i supposed to know if ANY Christian is telling the truth? How do I know if the Bible is true?

So, what IS true? How do you know it's true if your Pastor, Prophet or Preist says it? What internal judge do you use?

And how do you trust that it is god talking and not satan?


See, atheists don't have the same dilemma. We know there are problems recognizing morality, but we don't dellude ourselves into thinking their is an absolute TRUTH that must be discovered.

You would think God would make absolute morality obvious if it or he existed. Why are the limitations of all religious text roughly equal and very similar to the way a human would right the text?

[LetsGetReal]

Perfection and Truth do not always coincide(except for the bible)...

If I say a person is stupid....that could be the truth but not the perfect or dare I say right thing to say...

Modular you can't even post a verse within context or with the right meaning your trying to get a cross, so please don't try to trivialize my posts in the Christianty threads, because your intelligence(when dealing with christianity) is lacking.

P.S. I never said I was perfect or had the perfect answer..

[mODULAR mAN]

LetsGetReal wrote: Perfection and Truth do not always coincide(except for the bible)...

If I say a person is stupid....that could be the truth but not the perfect or dare I say right thing to say...

Modular you can't even post a verse within context or with the right meaning your trying to get a cross, so please don't try to trivialize my posts in the Christianty threads, because your intelligence(when dealing with christianity) is lacking.

P.S. I never said I was perfect or had the perfect answer..

I figured this out. So, why should I listen to your interpretation of the Bible over anyone elses?

You're right, I shouldn't. So, if you are going to claim I post out of conext, maybe you can show the context instead of making baseless accusations.

For example, did you know the Church taught (and believed) that Hell was a physical place for most of it' history? You have declared that your Church fathers were childish to interpret the Bible the way they did.

Interesting. Are you the new Prophet?

[toddytodd]

mODULAR mAN wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Perfection and Truth do not always coincide(except for the bible)...

If I say a person is stupid....that could be the truth but not the perfect or dare I say right thing to say...

Modular you can't even post a verse within context or with the right meaning your trying to get a cross, so please don't try to trivialize my posts in the Christianty threads, because your intelligence(when dealing with christianity) is lacking.

P.S. I never said I was perfect or had the perfect answer..

I figured this out. So, why should I listen to your interpretation of the Bible over anyone elses?

You're right, I shouldn't. So, if you are going to claim I post out of conext, maybe you can show the context instead of making baseless accusations.

For example, did you know the Church taught (and believed) that Hell was a physical place for most of it' history? You have declared that your Church fathers were childish to interpret the Bible the way they did.

Interesting. Are you the new Prophet?

Quote: So, why should I listen to your interpretation of the Bible over anyone else? We all know this is one of the weakness points of the bible - individual interpretation and the chaos it brings. The only reason why one should listen to their own interpretation over someone else's is because it is their own interpretation.

[mODULAR mAN]

toddytodd wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Perfection and Truth do not always coincide(except for the bible)...

If I say a person is stupid....that could be the truth but not the perfect or dare I say right thing to say...

Modular you can't even post a verse within context or with the right meaning your trying to get a cross, so please don't try to trivialize my posts in the Christianty threads, because your intelligence(when dealing with christianity) is lacking.

P.S. I never said I was perfect or had the perfect answer..

I figured this out. So, why should I listen to your interpretation of the Bible over anyone elses?

You're right, I shouldn't. So, if you are going to claim I post out of conext, maybe you can show the context instead of making baseless accusations.

For example, did you know the Church taught (and believed) that Hell was a physical place for most of it' history? You have declared that your Church fathers were childish to interpret the Bible the way they did.

Interesting. Are you the new Prophet?

Quote: So, why should I listen to your interpretation of the Bible over anyone else? We all know this is one of the weakness points of the bible - individual interpretation and the chaos it brings. The only reason why one should listen to their own interpretation over someone else's is because it is their own interpretation.

This is where it gets tiring because of the circularity. Religionists keep insisting that their interpretation of of their religious text is correct because their prophets interpreted their revelations correctly, and the religionist knows this because THEIR revelation coincides with their particular religious text.

So, you try to break this chain of insanity for them, but they would rather keep the crutch.

It wouldn't matter to me too much except for these reasons:
1. These people vote and use their supernatural beliefs to assert the valdity of their policies.
2. If there is a god, that would be cool, but there is no way a god will be discovered by fooling oneself.

So, we are left with a thus unsubstantiated claim of some supernatural entity - and they have the odd character to ask us to prove IT doesn't exist! However, the only clue they give is: you have to believe IT exists and then you'll see IT.

Isn't that what you tell children about Santa Claus?

Plus, they have the incredilble scientific knowledge to claim that though IT is supernatural, it has all the complexity of human emotions and can interact with the physical world. I wonder if they realize that the subnatural created the supernatural?

Of course I made this up, but it is just as valid as their claim of something "supernatural". Because what IS supernatural? We know what natural is, but is there ONLY natural and supernatural? What if a subnatural god made the supernatural god that the theists talk about? Should I have them disprove it, but in the meantime assert my belief in it, claim that my interpretation of this revelation results in numerous policy, moral and educational decisions?

"Lo, the Subnatural God has declared where all religions agree, that is the truth", or some such thing.