"Christian Liars"

Since: Aug 08

Somewhere in Ireland

#57 Aug 21, 2013
OKAY wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you who are across the pond don't get it. When someone states "tissue", they are offering one. It's for all of the 'whining' and 'crying' you do when you don't like what GOD does/commands.
Nothing but a bunch of bitchy little girls.
Tissue?
Well actually, I don't believe in this god of yours, so if any of this stuff happened it was man who carried it out, it had nothing to do with any god. But you believe it had everything to do with a god and you defend this god's atrocities and call non believers demons and all sorts of crap yet you fully support such barbarism. But then you are fundies and being a fundie covers a multitude of "sins." Tissue?
OKAY

Sussex, WI

#58 Aug 22, 2013
par five wrote:
<quoted text>
Well actually, I don't believe in this god of yours, so if any of this stuff happened it was man who carried it out, it had nothing to do with any god. But you believe it had everything to do with a god and you defend this god's atrocities and call non believers demons and all sorts of crap yet you fully support such barbarism. But then you are fundies and being a fundie covers a multitude of "sins." Tissue?
So in you don't 'believe' in this GOD of ours, why whine bitch piss and moan when it's our business?
OKAY

Sussex, WI

#59 Aug 22, 2013
Corr - So if...

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#60 Aug 22, 2013
OKAY wrote:
<quoted text>
So in you don't 'believe' in this GOD of ours, why whine bitch piss and moan when it's our business?
I am certain this question has been answered already.

When some wish to force their beliefs INTO our laws and ONTO society as a whole, it becomes the business of everyone.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#61 Aug 22, 2013
par five wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I don't know any civilised country that stones people to death for trespassing or for collecting firewood on a particular day, do you? I see all the fundies are lining up to defend the indefensible. How many times have we heard fundies say, "Show me were it says that in the bible, if it's not there it's not biblical." Yet here you are adding to what was written by saying he was defiant when it said no such thing. Anyway, what civilised people stone people to death for defiance? You fundies can huff and puff all you want, but you defend barbaric actions instigated by your god and carried out by his followers. If you can't see that such actions are barbaric then I fear there is something wrong with you. That something wrong with you could of course have a lot to do with being a fundie!
Stoning is barbaric, and so is 'hanging'. When I once flew into Malaysia, there was a sign as plain as day in the airport that read something like "Death By Hanging For Possession Of Drugs". And at that time I believe there were some French young men facing the death penalty for that violation (cocaine I think it was), and there was really nothing anyone could do. It doesn't matter whether or not the person caught is part of an organized drug smuggling ring, or just a college kid, who's sole act of having a good time probably won't directly hurt anyone. Possessing drugs equals death by hanging. No exceptions.

The thing is is that the Malaysian government knows that if they allow minor infractions, it will spread like a disease.

With the Israelites, relatively minor infractions of rebellion/defiance spread like a disease, and lead to things like "child sacrificing" to demons. Now of course you don't believe the incidences in the Bible really happened, but unless you're willing to look at the situation from the angle of not only the Exodus being a historical event, but God actually existing, you're wasting your time. You're looking at the situation from an entirely prejudicial view. As it stands, the historical context of the situation is meaningless to you. You're stuck on some contemporary mindset that won't allow you to see past prejudicial bifocals.

As far as adding to the incident by mentioning the act of gathering wood as 'defiant', again, you have to look at the historical 'context'. You're the one suggesting that the punishment was barbaric. That he may have done the act not knowing it was forbidden? That it may not have been defiance? Where's 'your' proof?

Like I said a number of times, internet forums consist of mostly a lot of hot air. On the other hand, just imagine what could happen if a sort of mass hysteria developed from a number of people who make accusations like you just did. Sort of suggesting that Christians (the Bible believing one's) must be barbaric because they condone the actions of the God of the Bible. You don't think idle false accusations could develop into a "lynch mob" mentality, even if it's not the intention of the originators?

By the way, what do you think of the strict laws in countries like Malaysia and Singapore? Crime is 'very' low in Singapore. It's almost surreal.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#62 Aug 22, 2013
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>I am certain this question has been answered already.
When some wish to force their beliefs INTO our laws and ONTO society as a whole, it becomes the business of everyone.
http://christiannews.net/2013/08/19/new-jerse...

Do you realize this is not only a ban on counselors helping youth struggling with homosexuality; but banning youth from seeking counseling for themselves? It's also a ban on 'parents' as well.

The fact is, we are losing our rights without even knowing it.
OKAY

Sussex, WI

#63 Aug 22, 2013
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>I am certain this question has been answered already.
When some wish to force their beliefs INTO our laws and ONTO society as a whole, it becomes the business of everyone.
Which has >>>NOTHING<< < to do with ParFive's post...try again.

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#65 Aug 22, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
http://christiannews.net/2013/08/19/new-jerse...
Do you realize this is not only a ban on counselors helping youth struggling with homosexuality; but banning youth from seeking counseling for themselves? It's also a ban on 'parents' as well.
The fact is, we are losing our rights without even knowing it.
trying to make our laws reflect religious beliefs is not the answer.

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#66 Aug 22, 2013
The Stairway To Heaven wrote:
<quoted text>
I see much more of those wishing to REMOVE our beliefs from laws and society than forcing them onto society, when they've been there all along.
religious beliefs do NOT belong in our laws.
never did.
our Constitution is not based on Christianity.
Our government is not a theocracy.

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#67 Aug 22, 2013
OKAY wrote:
<quoted text>
Which has >>>NOTHING<< < to do with ParFive's post...try again.
it has everything to do with par five's post.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#69 Aug 22, 2013
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>trying to make our laws reflect religious beliefs is not the answer.
Actually, this law 'is' inflicting a religious belief (albeit non-Christian) when statements are used like "homosexuality is not a sin". The prohibition is aimed at any youth seeking help even if it's not 'Christianity' motivated:

Text of the bill notes that the law bans “the practice of seeking to change a person’s sexual orientation, including, but not limited to, efforts to change behaviors, gender identity, or gender expressions, or to reduce or eliminate sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward a person of the same gender.” However, the regulation does not apply to counseling that seeks to affirm homosexual emotions or behaviors.

Since: Aug 08

Somewhere in Ireland

#70 Aug 22, 2013
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>it has everything to do with par five's post.
Which has everything to do with my post. You said your belief is your business and I agree, but when your belief drives you tell me and other non believers, or believers of a different faith that we are demonic, evil, fit only for eternal punishment, then it becomes my business. Dollarsbill is a good example a crazy hellfire and brimstone fundie, I wouldn't be surprised if even you find him an embarrassment. You fundies are also bigots, as can be witnessed by the anti Catholic venom spewed out here on Topix, and don't try and tell me, as fundies have in the past, that I am a bigot because I have a go at the fundamentalists. There is nothing bigoted about exposing bigotry!

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#71 Aug 22, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, this law 'is' inflicting a religious belief (albeit non-Christian) when statements are used like "homosexuality is not a sin". The prohibition is aimed at any youth seeking help even if it's not 'Christianity' motivated:
Text of the bill notes that the law bans “the practice of seeking to change a person’s sexual orientation, including, but not limited to, efforts to change behaviors, gender identity, or gender expressions, or to reduce or eliminate sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward a person of the same gender.” However, the regulation does not apply to counseling that seeks to affirm homosexual emotions or behaviors.
Homosexuality is not a sin, dear.

Since: Aug 08

Somewhere in Ireland

#72 Aug 22, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Stoning is barbaric, and so is 'hanging'. When I once flew into Malaysia, there was a sign as plain as day in the airport that read something like "Death By Hanging For Possession Of Drugs". And at that time I believe there were some French young men facing the death penalty for that violation (cocaine I think it was), and there was really nothing anyone could do. It doesn't matter whether or not the person caught is part of an organized drug smuggling ring, or just a college kid, who's sole act of having a good time probably won't directly hurt anyone. Possessing drugs equals death by hanging. No exceptions.
The thing is is that the Malaysian government knows that if they allow minor infractions, it will spread like a disease.
With the Israelites, relatively minor infractions of rebellion/defiance spread like a disease, and lead to things like "child sacrificing" to demons. Now of course you don't believe the incidences in the Bible really happened, but unless you're willing to look at the situation from the angle of not only the Exodus being a historical event, but God actually existing, you're wasting your time. You're looking at the situation from an entirely prejudicial view. As it stands, the historical context of the situation is meaningless to you. You're stuck on some contemporary mindset that won't allow you to see past prejudicial bifocals.
As far as adding to the incident by mentioning the act of gathering wood as 'defiant', again, you have to look at the historical 'context'. You're the one suggesting that the punishment was barbaric. That he may have done the act not knowing it was forbidden? That it may not have been defiance? Where's 'your' proof?
Like I said a number of times, internet forums consist of mostly a lot of hot air. On the other hand, just imagine what could happen if a sort of mass hysteria developed from a number of people who make accusations like you just did. Sort of suggesting that Christians (the Bible believing one's) must be barbaric because they condone the actions of the God of the Bible. You don't think idle false accusations could develop into a "lynch mob" mentality, even if it's not the intention of the originators?
By the way, what do you think of the strict laws in countries like Malaysia and Singapore? Crime is 'very' low in Singapore. It's almost surreal.
If you think I am prejudiced because I think stoning someone to death and many of the other violent acts attributed to the biblical god and his followers are barbaric, then so be it. It's all very well to talk about a historical context, the actions were still wrong and barbaric. People used to burn women accused of witchcraft, but talking about it in a historical context doesn't make it any less wrong and any less barbaric. The trouble with you fundies is that you are caught between a rock and a hard place. You know that many of the violent acts attributed to the biblical god were barbaric, but you can't bring yourselves to criticise those events as it would mean criticising the god you believe in. And btw, I never said that Christians were barbaric, I said that they supported the barbarism of the biblical god for the reason I gave in my previous sentence.
As for Singapore, I know it well as the company I once worked for had its head office there. Singapore has indeed got a low crime rate, but when it comes to capital punishment, one of the highest execution by hanging rates in the world. I don't agree with capital punishment and I don't know if the low crime rate in Singapore is as a result of the death penalty that is in force, or because the people of Singapore are naturally law-abiding, I suspect the latter. After all, America has the death penalty in many states and it does not seem to deter violent crime.

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#83 Aug 22, 2013
The Stairway To Heaven wrote:
<quoted text>
And yours isn't? Yours is not representative of the founding fathers of our nation and the beliefs therein. It is not the beliefs of those that stood and fought for our country. OUR COUNTRY.
the founders, and more specifically the framers of the Constitution, included men who had fought a war for independence -- the very war celebrated on the "Glorious Fourth" -- against a country in which church and state were essentially one.

They understood the long history of sectarian bloodshed in Europe that brought many pilgrims to America. They knew the dangers of merging government, which was designed to protect individual rights, with religion, which as Jefferson argued, was a matter of individual conscience.

And that is why the U.S. Constitution reads as it does.

The supreme law of the land, written in the summer of 1787, includes no references to religion -- including in the presidential oath of office -- until the conclusion of Article VI, after all that dull stuff about debts and treaties: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (There is a pro forma "Year of the Lord" reference in the date at the Constitution's conclusion.)

The primacy of a secular state was solidified when the First Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. According to Purdue history professor Frank Lambert, that "introduced the radical notion that the state had no voice concerning matters of conscience."

Beyond that, the first House of Representatives, while debating the First Amendment, specifically rejected a Senate proposal calling for the establishment of Christianity as an official religion. As Lambert concludes, "There would be no Church of the United States. Nor would America represent itself as a Christian Republic."

The actions of the first presidents, founders of the first rank, confirmed this "original intent:"

-- In 1790, President George Washington wrote to America's first synagogue, in Rhode Island, that "all possess alike liberty of conscience" and that "toleration" was an "inherent national gift," not the government's to dole out or take away.

-- In 1797, with President John Adams in office, the Senate unanimously approved one of America's earliest foreign treaties, which emphatically stated (Article 11): "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-- as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims)..."

-- In 1802, Jefferson added his famous "wall of separation," implicit in the Constitution until he so described it (and cited in several Supreme Court decisions since).

These are, to borrow an admittedly loaded phrase, "inconvenient truths" to those who proclaim that America is a "Christian Nation."

The Constitution and the views of these Founding Fathers trump all arguments about references to God in presidential speeches (permitted under the First Amendment), on money (not introduced until the Civil War), the Pledge of Allegiance ("under God" added in 1954) and in the national motto "In God We Trust" (adopted by law in 1956).

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/04/davis.j...

Why U.S. is not a Christian nation
By Kenneth C. Davis, Special to CNN

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#85 Aug 22, 2013
The Stairway To Heaven wrote:
<quoted text>
"OPINION" which there are millions of to suit your fancy. It is not in the majority at the time of our founding fathers or is it yet in the majority. That opinion is no more worthy than the gutter drunk's. Opinions are like addictions, everyone has one.
Our Constitution is much more than an 'opinion', dear.

Our nation was not founded as a Christian nation.........period.
It doesn't even matter what the exact beliefs of the Founding Fathers were, they intentionally drew up a document which was not reflective of religious beliefs.

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#87 Aug 22, 2013
The Stairway To Heaven wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess that means you're not a Christian, rite? A person supports what they profess. You can profess your disbelieve as you see fit. You do NOT represent the USA or Christians in any way with your negative reflection of God and His Court.
LMAO

I am certainly a Christian.
I certainly uphold the right of all citizens to accept whatever religious belief they wish to or none at all.
I certainly support NOT having religious beliefs as a basis for our national laws.

Now.
WHICH faith/church/religion did YOU have in mind to BE reflected in our nations laws?
Let me guess........

YOURS.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#88 Aug 23, 2013
par five wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think I am prejudiced because I think stoning someone to death and many of the other violent acts attributed to the biblical god and his followers are barbaric, then so be it. It's all very well to talk about a historical context, the actions were still wrong and barbaric. People used to burn women accused of witchcraft, but talking about it in a historical context doesn't make it any less wrong and any less barbaric. The trouble with you fundies is that you are caught between a rock and a hard place. You know that many of the violent acts attributed to the biblical god were barbaric, but you can't bring yourselves to criticise those events as it would mean criticising the god you believe in. And btw, I never said that Christians were barbaric, I said that they supported the barbarism of the biblical god for the reason I gave in my previous sentence.
As for Singapore, I know it well as the company I once worked for had its head office there. Singapore has indeed got a low crime rate, but when it comes to capital punishment, one of the highest execution by hanging rates in the world. I don't agree with capital punishment and I don't know if the low crime rate in Singapore is as a result of the death penalty that is in force, or because the people of Singapore are naturally law-abiding, I suspect the latter. After all, America has the death penalty in many states and it does not seem to deter violent crime.
No, I don't think you're prejudiced because you see the act of stoning as barbaric. The prejudice you seem to hold is against Christians who believe the Bible is the Word Of God. From what I recall, you claimed that anyone who condones the actions of the God of the Bible must be, in essence, barbaric themselves. Or am I wrong?

As far as capital punishment, if you don't agree with it, fine. Not everyone does. Not every Christian does. However, do you think the Malaysian and Singapore governments are barbaric?

And no, I don't think Singaporeans are different than anyone else.

When you're talking about the death penalty in the U.S., it's a bit different than Malaysia. Or, another way to put it is, when we're talking about death penalty offenders which are murderers is a bit different than death penalty offenders that commit drug related offenses. Someone willing to kill in the cold-blooded sense is often more willing to risk being killed. For instance, gunmen who kill random people indiscriminately will often even execute themselves if they are not shot to death, which is pretty much inevitable if they don't give up.

“Jesus is Lord”

Since: Aug 11

Greenwood, Indiana

#89 Aug 23, 2013
A lot of sinner's don't like to hear the truth so they call you a liar. I have been called all kinds of name's but word can't hurt me (Isa.54:17), I see some people are judging with out proof so may I say this. Show me and the rest of the people on your proof, back up what your are saying. If you can't do that then you are the real "liar" and it will show in your comment's FACT!!

Since: Aug 08

Somewhere in Ireland

#90 Aug 23, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't think you're prejudiced because you see the act of stoning as barbaric. The prejudice you seem to hold is against Christians who believe the Bible is the Word Of God. From what I recall, you claimed that anyone who condones the actions of the God of the Bible must be, in essence, barbaric themselves. Or am I wrong?
As far as capital punishment, if you don't agree with it, fine. Not everyone does. Not every Christian does. However, do you think the Malaysian and Singapore governments are barbaric?
And no, I don't think Singaporeans are different than anyone else.
When you're talking about the death penalty in the U.S., it's a bit different than Malaysia. Or, another way to put it is, when we're talking about death penalty offenders which are murderers is a bit different than death penalty offenders that commit drug related offenses. Someone willing to kill in the cold-blooded sense is often more willing to risk being killed. For instance, gunmen who kill random people indiscriminately will often even execute themselves if they are not shot to death, which is pretty much inevitable if they don't give up.
Allow me to reiterate, I did not say that Christians were barbaric, nor was I implying that they were barbaric. I am saying that you don't feel able to call the stoning of a person barbaric if it was carried out at the behest of the god you believe in. The fact that you believe the bible is the word of your god means that to criticise such an act would mean you were criticising your god. If we get news that an Islamic country has stoned a woman to death who was accused of adultery, I am sure that you along with me would shake your head in disgust that such a thing had happened, yet you seem unable to criticize such barbarity if those acts are instigated by your god and the bible has plenty of examples of acts of genocide and slaughter instigated by, or carried out by your god.
And no I don't think the government of Singapore is barbaric, just wrong in having a death penalty because it is not a deterrent, it doesn't work. If it did they would not have sent so many to the gallows over the years. Let's face it if you don't mess with drugs and have no inclination to kill someone, then it doesn't matter whether there is a death penalty in force or not, it would not concern you. One of the reasons Singapore is relatively crime free is the courts there take a hard line on all other offences, even the very low level offences like littering, at least that was my experience when I was there, albeit a good few years ago.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Early Christianity (Dec '16) 15 min Seentheotherside 2,632
The truth is difficult, I understand. 24 min Jake999 173
The False Teachings of the Hebrew Israelites, s... (Jan '14) 28 min Seentheotherside 1,945
breath of god, and how we come to light. 2 hr Big Al 92
Why did Christ come to Earth? (Oct '16) 2 hr Big Al 1,180
"The love of many shall wax cold." It's REAL m... 3 hr Preacher 1
Israel is anti christ, literally 7 hr Big Al 262
More from around the web