03 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeJust because they were Christian doesn't mean anything
Yes, because the more secular and atheistic a place is the higher the rate of crime and violence...
Oh no wait, it's the other way around.
Just because they were Christian doesn't mean anything.
EVERYONE was [give or take] Christian back then.
What they did however was substitute their own innate moral intuition and rational thought
for ...[text shortened]... ective measurements] and
less and less on the unchangingly wrong drivel of bronze age mystics.
Again this is demonstrably false. They were directly motivated by their Christian belief. For example the abolitionists took the motto 'Am I Not a Man And a Brother'?
03 Feb 15
Originally posted by Zahlanziwhat don't you understand?
she did addressed it.
it is crap. what don't you understand?
Two things fail me at present. Why you think your opinion counts as evidence of some description and why people like you and suzianne have difficulty debating objectively.
Saying that something is 'crap', is not a reason, its an opinion. How hard can it be to understand that?
03 Feb 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobiein this case we are talking morality, how women should be treated in society. my opinion is shared by the modern, 21st century human society.
what don't you understand?
Two things fail me at present. Why you think your opinion counts as evidence of some description and why people like you and suzianne have difficulty debating objectively.
Saying that something is 'crap', is not a reason, its an opinion. How hard can it be to understand that?
we have debated. i have shown you how the bible's view on women is abject and has no place in civilized society. i have shown you and you even agreed that a woman can do that particular job just was well as a man. the only thing that you use to "debate" is an archaic opinion from an archaic text that most of the reasoning adults have outgrown.
your opinion has no merit. it is not debatable. you are entitled to it, of course, but you shouldn't be surprised that you are ridiculed for it.
now, do you need help getting back to your cave?
Originally posted by Zahlanziactually no, we were talking of the appointment of a lady bishop and how it was possible that some Christians can negate a clear biblical principal to make room for that appointment. Why you failed to understand this I cannot say for despite repeated attempts to communicate that I was uninterested in the moral aspect it seems clear that all you could do was resort to that being devoid of anything else. I suspect it must be easier to see things in moral terms or right and wrong rather than try to understand the question.
in this case we are talking morality, how women should be treated in society. my opinion is shared by the modern, 21st century human society.
we have debated. i have shown you how the bible's view on women is abject and has no place in civilized society. i have shown you and you even agreed that a woman can do that particular job just was well as a ma ...[text shortened]... be surprised that you are ridiculed for it.
now, do you need help getting back to your cave?
Your further personal insults are of course not a reflection of me nor of the efficacy of my argument, but of you and your inability to address the actual issue that I raised, in fact, it seems to have swooshed right over your head.
In actual fact you evidence amounted to,
because Paul said it,
because no one else said it
and because I say it
ermm no thanks i don't think i need any help from you to go anywhere, but thanks for asking.
03 Feb 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"how it was possible that some Christians can negate a clear biblical
actually no, we were talking of the appointment of a lady bishop and how it was possible that some Christians can negate a clear biblical principal to make room for that appointment. Why you failed to understand this I cannot say for despite repeated attempts to communicate that I was uninterested in the moral aspect it seems clear that all you coul ...[text shortened]...
ermm no thanks i don't think i need any help from you to go anywhere, but thanks for asking.
principal"
for the last time, we ignore this clear biblical principle for the same reason we ignore stoning little girls. because it is horrible and barbaric. because there is no logical basis for it, other than a book that is often horrible, barbaric and illogical.
even going so far as to say paul was forwarding an email directly from jesus, it still wouldn't change anything. if God told me to kill my son, i would REFUSE (something that abe, being a mindless insane sheep, didn't). i would spend an eternity in hell, gladly, if i was required to do something horrible. that's strength of character, not you blindly following an order you admitted to have no logical reason behind it and in fact, demonstrably false.
03 Feb 15
Originally posted by Zahlanzia bit of totty in church showing a bit of leg would get me going even though the thought of the existence of a god is crazy.
"how it was possible that some Christians can negate a clear biblical
principal"
for the last time, we ignore this clear biblical principle for the same reason we ignore stoning little girls. because it is horrible and barbaric. because there is no logical basis for it, other than a book that is often horrible, barbaric and illogical.
even going so ...[text shortened]... owing an order you admitted to have no logical reason behind it and in fact, demonstrably false.
Originally posted by ZahlanziYes we have already established that you can interpolate any values into scripture you deem to be unacceptable and completely supersede what is written, because your opinion has more validity than what is actually written in scripture. Thank you for demonstrating the fact so thoroughly.
"how it was possible that some Christians can negate a clear biblical
principal"
for the last time, we ignore this clear biblical principle for the same reason we ignore stoning little girls. because it is horrible and barbaric. because there is no logical basis for it, other than a book that is often horrible, barbaric and illogical.
even going so ...[text shortened]... owing an order you admitted to have no logical reason behind it and in fact, demonstrably false.
03 Feb 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFail upon fail... where does it end?
actually no, we were talking of the appointment of a lady bishop and how it was possible that some Christians can negate a clear biblical principal to make room for that appointment. Why you failed to understand this I cannot say for despite repeated attempts to communicate that I was uninterested in the moral aspect it seems clear that all you coul ...[text shortened]...
ermm no thanks i don't think i need any help from you to go anywhere, but thanks for asking.
03 Feb 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziMaybe that's why you're not Abraham.
"how it was possible that some Christians can negate a clear biblical
principal"
for the last time, we ignore this clear biblical principle for the same reason we ignore stoning little girls. because it is horrible and barbaric. because there is no logical basis for it, other than a book that is often horrible, barbaric and illogical.
even going so ...[text shortened]... owing an order you admitted to have no logical reason behind it and in fact, demonstrably false.
God chose Abraham because He knew Abraham had enough faith not to fail His test.
This is also why there are no more real prophets. This is the end times. They'd be killed long before they could even begin their mission. In fact, the only reason the two witnesses should fulfill their mission during the Beginning of Sorrows is because they will be under God's direct protection until they fulfill their mission.
This is one thing I just don't get about you. You say you're a theist, even a Christian, I believe, and yet you still think Abraham was "a mindless insane sheep". You also claim the Bible is full of lies. This begs the question of, just what do you base your "demonstrably" minimal faith on?