Why Should Jesus Love Me?
Here For Now

Lenoir City, TN

#486198 Feb 9, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed 100%
WOW Darwin, we agree twice in one day.:)
Actually we might agree on a lot if it wasn’t about religion.
HFN
Here For Now

Lenoir City, TN

#486199 Feb 9, 2013
Goodnight you all.
HFN

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#486200 Feb 9, 2013
Here For Now wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW Darwin, we agree twice in one day.:)
Actually we might agree on a lot if it wasn’t about religion.
HFN
I have often said, most of us would become fast friends in the real world. Even discuss this stuff like adults! LOL

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#486201 Feb 9, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text>I no buy it.
I ask you where Jesus and Paul no agree, you go cut and paste and even when your cut and paste get totally refuted by me and another writer, you cannot respond because is cut and paste you do and you cannot argue what you saying about Paul and Jesus because is simply a Lie and you no know what to write for yourself. You have to cut and paste, and even then you can't defend the cut and paste.
So you no have no plausible excuse against paul. It obvious is something paul say that you against reason you no like paul. and if you is a man, I think is homosexuality you no what paul say about it, because you is probably a homosexual. that my conclusion.
You are more than welcome to embrace your perceptions as reality.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#486202 Feb 9, 2013
AnnieJ wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand this first hand...my empathy goes out to your cousin...her pain...suffering...not being able to do anything about it...feeling the need to try.
I hope for her that the outcome is different than it has been for me. Sometimes though you have to make choices that you don't want to make. Choices that break your heart...choices that you had hoped you would never have to make.
As a mother who understands...my heart goes out to your cousin.
Thanks, Annie

The story is a common one, and was intended as a rebuttal to the "Who, us?" Christians that say things like, "It's only an idea" or "Nobody says to hate gays."

I blame the church. Nobody else is breaking up families in that way except possibly the political factions. It doesn't get to create this much pain in the world and not be held accountable for it - at least not with unbelievers. I believe that we all have a moral obligation to weaken the source of that divisive doctrine.

This is the side of Christianity that keeps being ignored with the diversion to visions of mutual comfort among believers in times of grief. I am asked, "Do you want to end that"? No, that's private religion. We want to end the other - we want to silence the institution that keeps teaching this hatred. You've seen it first-hand and so have I, and I hold the church accountable.

“BE BRAVE ENOUGH ”

Since: Oct 09

TO STEP IN MUD PUDDLES

#486203 Feb 9, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text>I no buy it.
I ask you where Jesus and Paul no agree, you go cut and paste and even when your cut and paste get totally refuted by me and another writer, you cannot respond because is cut and paste you do and you cannot argue what you saying about Paul and Jesus because is simply a Lie and you no know what to write for yourself. You have to cut and paste, and even then you can't defend the cut and paste.
So you no have no plausible excuse against paul. It obvious is something paul say that you against reason you no like paul. and if you is a man, I think is homosexuality you no what paul say about it, because you is probably a homosexual. that my conclusion.
Don't tell "G" I told you this but...

I have never heard him say one nice thing about Zacchaeus either. Not one time.

I think that makes him a lesbian suffering with dendrophobia.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#486204 Feb 9, 2013
NoStress4me wrote:
I am not trying to start an argument with you, just offering a different perspective. Thank you for giving me yours as well.
I didn't think that you were trying to start an argument. I just disagreed with the use of the word "fundie" in the context of atheists. The word is derogatory now, like the word "religon" itself, which is why so many believers are distancing themselves form both words and trying to saddle the opposition - us - with them.
NoStress4me wrote:
I don’t understand why anyone would consider someone that is simply outspoken militant.
The term has very negative connotations, something that the church has always saddled unbelievers with. Describing those who object as I do using the word "militant" undermines our message the way the words "extreme" and "radical" do. They depict us as unreasonable or dangerous.

This process, by the way, has come to be known as "framing" - choosing the words that are used to describe oneself favorably and the opposition unfavorably.
NoStress4me wrote:
In my mind we could do with a lot less militant’s and more of the outspoken.
I agree. Let's leave the violence to others.
https://images.nonexiste.net/popular/wp-conte...

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#486205 Feb 9, 2013
AnnieJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't tell "G" I told you this but...
I have never heard him say one nice thing about Zacchaeus either. Not one time.
I think that makes him a lesbian suffering with dendrophobia.
Not true. I even have one in my yard. I am just afraid to climb it.

I don't like the IRS, though.

May Athena grant you many hearticons.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#486206 Feb 9, 2013
Qu_innocence wrote:
But you hold out the possibility that a god or gods may exist?
Yes.
Qu_innocence wrote:
I'm trying to see your point of view regarding this statement but it just seems like apples and oranges to me here. Because married bachelors don't exist how does that equate logically to God not existing?
Perfect gods that make mistakes are impossible in the same way that married bachelors are. You got a book allegedly authored by a perfect god in which it describes itself. The god described is grotesque, and the book used to describe it is rife with errors. In that sense, the bible is self-refuting - it makes claims and then refutes them in neighboring passages.

This tells us that the book is not authentic,that is, its origin is not the one claimed for it. It was not written by the perfect god that it claims exists and is overseeing life on earth with perfect power,perfect knowledge, and perfect love. Several of your fellow Christians will be happy to tell you how far reality varies from that.

If the book was not written by a god, then it is mythology written by men, the god it describes is fictional, the religion derived from it false, and the church administering and profiting from all of it fraudulent. I do not see how any other conclusion is possible.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#486207 Feb 9, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
the reason I would expect you not to blame everybody is because everybody isn't guilty
Of what?
Skombolis wrote:
Even ignoring the broad-brush such as Christians lacking empathy or being delusional as far as how they think how can you ...
Stifle, Dingbat.

You've already been shown to be a liar for making these bare, unsupported claims. I've rebutted them both by showing you what I actually said, and you are indifferent. Fine.

I call you a liar for repeating them knowing that you are wrong.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#486208 Feb 9, 2013
Qu_innocence wrote:
@ Ian... by God I mean = Jehovah (ehyeh asher ehyeh)/Jesus
OK, thanks. I had assumed that.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#486209 Feb 9, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't think that you were trying to start an argument. I just disagreed with the use of the word "fundie" in the context of atheists. The word is derogatory now, like the word "religon" itself, which is why so many believers are distancing themselves form both words and trying to saddle the opposition - us - with them.
<quoted text>
The term has very negative connotations, something that the church has always saddled unbelievers with. Describing those who object as I do using the word "militant" undermines our message the way the words "extreme" and "radical" do. They depict us as unreasonable or dangerous.
This process, by the way, has come to be known as "framing" - choosing the words that are used to describe oneself favorably and the opposition unfavorably.
<quoted text>
I agree. Let's leave the violence to others.
https://images.nonexiste.net/popular/wp-conte...
Thanks.

I admit I use the word "Fundie" as an insult yet have no problem with Fundamentalism aside from the acadmic arguements.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#486210 Feb 9, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
<quoted text>
Perfect gods that make mistakes are impossible in the same way that married bachelors are. You got a book allegedly authored by a perfect god in which it describes itself. The god described is grotesque, and the book used to describe it is rife with errors. In that sense, the bible is self-refuting - it makes claims and then refutes them in neighboring passages.
This tells us that the book is not authentic,that is, its origin is not the one claimed for it. It was not written by the perfect god that it claims exists and is overseeing life on earth with perfect power,perfect knowledge, and perfect love. Several of your fellow Christians will be happy to tell you how far reality varies from that.
If the book was not written by a god, then it is mythology written by men, the god it describes is fictional, the religion derived from it false, and the church administering and profiting from all of it fraudulent. I do not see how any other conclusion is possible.
I do not blame the texts, the Bible says the only thing YHWY wrote was on a couple tablets and Jesus wrote something in the sand once.
Nowhere does it claim to be written by God nor the exact and complete words of God.

I blame people who read into it what they want to see.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#486211 Feb 9, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
What is so difficult for you to understand that the church is made up of members and those members are individuals and you have to judge individuals based on their individual actions.
What is impossible for you to understand is what your church is, and why it is responsible, not the rank and file Christian, who is generally an unwitting vector and victim of his church himself.
Skombolis wrote:
The church itself has no bigoted policies.
Policies? Your church has a bigoted message.
Skombolis wrote:
It takes a position on one form of behavior you disagree with
What are you talking about? Your church embodies multiple forms of bigotry.
Skombolis wrote:
... and teaches all sin is equal and all people are deserving of love.
Tell that to small children and skid row alcoholics. They might believe you. Your church teaches no such thing. Giving lip service to love is not teaching it. The church teaches by example, and the example is hateful.
Skombolis wrote:
Because some people don't adhere to that teaching is not the fault of anybody other than the people who don't adhere to it
Wrong.

Your church has failed in its role.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#486212 Feb 9, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
There are other arguments that do use the results of science, such as the argument that science rules out the Genesis creation story,
Qu_innocence wrote:
How so?
Read the Big Bang theory, plate tectonic theory,and evolutionary theory. The read Genesis. You'll find a few discrepancies. Such errors rule out divine authorship for the myth. If your bible isn't reliable, you don't have any basis for claiming that any god that might exist is Jehovah-Jesus rather than Vishnu or Allah.
Qu_innocence wrote:
So everything points back to the Genesis/Science account?
No. That is one argument. We can do the same with Exodus. Archeology refutes many of the principle claims there, too. It appears that there was no Egyptian captivity or exodus. These are the signs that the legends are mythology.

And there are many other types of arguments.

In any event, the bible account isn't credible without faith.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#486213 Feb 9, 2013
Qu_innocence wrote:
I haven't seen anything that would logically deduce that Jehovah/Jesus does not exist.
You likely never will. It's called confirmation bias.

Ask yourself this: if your faith were wrong, what would suffice as sufficient evidence to demonstrate that to you? Is the answer, "nothing could"?

Are you familiar with William Lane Craig? He said it nicely:

"...And my view here is, that the way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit. In my heart. And that this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing that Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, if in some historically contingent circumstances, the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I don't think that that contraverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..."

What that means is that no such evidence would be acceptable to this man. He said that "the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity," that he would ignore it.

What should I say to somebody like that who says "I haven't seen anything that would [allow me to] logically deduce that Jehovah-Jesus does not exist" apart from "You likely never will"?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#486214 Feb 9, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
You can call me "dim" all you like
Thanks, Dim.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#486215 Feb 9, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
What is impossible for you to understand is what your church is, and why it is responsible, not the rank and file Christian, who is generally an unwitting vector and victim of his church himself.
<quoted text>
Policies? Your church has a bigoted message.
<quoted text>
What are you talking about? Your church embodies multiple forms of bigotry.
<quoted text>
Tell that to small children and skid row alcoholics. They might believe you. Your church teaches no such thing. Giving lip service to love is not teaching it. The church teaches by example, and the example is hateful.
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Your church has failed in its role.
I hate too admit it but most organizations to benefit the masses end up being little more than beaurocratic mouth pieces and do little to further the goals of the orignal movement.

It seems the larger the organization's memberbases, the less it accomplishes.

WOW! I bet there is a doctoral thesis there.
"The economies of scale in theological and social organizations."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#486216 Feb 9, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
Do you want to see some of your lies again?
Skombolis wrote:
You also said you don't rule out the possibility of a creator god (but would require proof)
IANS responded
Nope. I'm not going to continue to correct you any more.
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...
I then went back and posted where you claimed you believe it is possible creator gods exist, just like you admitted you believed in here already.
Where's the lie, Dim?

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#486217 Feb 9, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Read the Big Bang theory, plate tectonic theory,and evolutionary theory. The read Genesis. You'll find a few discrepancies. Such errors rule out divine authorship for the myth. If your bible isn't reliable, you don't have any basis for claiming that any god that might exist is Jehovah-Jesus rather than Vishnu or Allah.
<quoted text>
No. That is one argument. We can do the same with Exodus. Archeology refutes many of the principle claims there, too. It appears that there was no Egyptian captivity or exodus. These are the signs that the legends are mythology.
And there are many other types of arguments.
In any event, the bible account isn't credible without faith.
I am of the opinion that as an ancient effort to explain the beginings of the Universe and Life, the Hebrew rendition of the Sumerian tales does make a lot of decent, abeit simplistic and incomplete, speculative theories.

That said, it is more of a Children's Book of History. I do not find the 'Big Bang', evolution nor the spontaneous emergence of life to be contradictory with the Genesis account. As for Exodus, well that is obviously a political document and has little to do with history, again much like a grade school history book in USA schools.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min Michael 646,921
Queen Cleopatra was clearly Black. White people... (Aug '10) 8 min Johnny 753
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 23 min RiccardoFire 105,676
How to solve racism (and sexism) once and for all 28 min Johnny 9
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 31 min RiccardoFire 44,722
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 33 min WasteWater 2,103
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 46 min Peter Ross 49,390
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Joe Fortuna 971,800
topix drops human sexuality forum.......this be... 9 hr patsy the shared ... 26
More from around the web