Why Should Jesus Love Me?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#517119 Apr 8, 2013
St Black Pope wrote:
The churches as we know them, are the most charitable and giving groups on the planet.
That claim has been debunked on this thread recently. We looked at some audits selected by a Topix Christian of church's willing to audit themselves and publish the results on the Internet, which you would expect to be the most honest and generous churches out there. We were unable to find even one church that spent more than 7% of its revenues on charity for the needy.

Perhaps you can debunk that debunking. Can you find us a few dozen examples of churches with 50% or better rates of spending on the poor? That should be easy if your claim is accurate.
Here For Now

Lenoir City, TN

#517120 Apr 8, 2013
Alas wrote:
<quoted text>Substitutional atonement is an immoral doctrine. Besides, He got better, remember? You egotists are a crack up.
No I do not remember. I have no idea what you are talking about. Don’t really care either.

Tell God it is immoral and try and get Him to agree with ya. Don’t hold your breath though. God decides what is and what is not immoral, all you can do is flap your gums about it.

You might want to watch it calling someone else an egotist, you might crack them up.

You have got to be kin to IANS. LOL

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#517121 Apr 8, 2013
St Black Pope wrote:
Actually, part of our walk with God is being here in this earth realm and bringing his light to you lost souls. If God were finished with all the unbelievers, He would call us all home to "walk with Him". We are here in service to God.
And you're doing a bang-up job of it. Nice work. You make your religion so appealing.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#517122 Apr 8, 2013
St Black Pope wrote:
The fact that God does not talk to you, is the only thing that you have evidence of.
Is that right?

The evidence against your god existing is overwhelming. For starters, there is clearly no omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly loving god running our world.
St Black Pope wrote:
So, if someone taught you something that they learned from the Bible, then you disagree with the Bible, and say that it agrees with wherever you learned that from.
What?
St Black Pope wrote:
You know, like the 10 Commandments about things such as "thou shall not steal, kill, commit adultery, worship idols, etc." It is clear that you do not "love thy neighbor", because we all know that came from the Bible.
Your thinking is damaged. I didn't learn about love from your bible, nor is the concept of love and benevolence for others original to it.

Do you know of any moral ideas that are original to your bible? And if so, do you know of any attributable to Jesus? You probably consider hima great moral philosopher. But can you name any moral precept from Jesus that wasn't written by somebody else first?

I do, and they're all terrible advice, like "Turn the other cheek." Your bible is useless as a guide to living.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#517123 Apr 8, 2013
St Black Pope wrote:
What about the part in our constitution where it says "that we are all endowed with God given inalienable rights such as the pursuit of happiness."
I couldn't find that quotation anywhere. I did find this in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

There is no mention of your god there. Our creators could be a race of aliens, or the laws of physics and biology.
St Black Pope wrote:
By the way, "freedom and the idea of man being freed and not slaves" it comes from God and the Bible, as Moses said "let my people go".
Nonsense. Your bible condones slavery.

[1] "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you ... you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness." - Leviticus 25:44

[2] "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy,... and they shall be your possession ... they shall be your bondmen forever." - Leviticus 25:45-46

[3] "Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect..." - Titus 2:9

[4] "Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ...." - Ephesians 6:5

[5] "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money." - Exodus 21:20

There are plenty more.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#517124 Apr 8, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote: I knew you didn't know.
To argue that the Constitution guarantees equal treatment to all citizens, both men and women, does not say anything about what constitutes marriage, or a family, or a business enterprise, or a university, or a friendship.
An appeal for equal treatment would not lead a court to require that a small business enterprise be called a marriage just because two business partners prefer to think of their business that way.
Neither would equal treatment of citizens before the law require a court to conclude that those of us who pray before the start of auto races should be allowed to redefine our auto clubs as churches.
The simple fact is that the civil rights protections function simply to assure every citizen equal treatment under the law depending on what the material dispute in law is all about.
Besides, in order to claim that marriage should be allowed equally to all people under laws of equal rights, you'd have to first demonstrate that marriage is a right.
Can you?
Alas wrote:
<quoted text>I knew you would obfuscate. I never claimed marriage was a right, idiot. Why can't you ever be honest. Go back and read the post. There are certain rights given to married partners that the unmarried don't enjoy. To deny those to anyone is not providing equal protection. Why are Christians so inherently dishonest? Oh, yeah, your entire belief system is a lie.
You're responding to words that don't belong to RiversideRedneck.

The words belong to James W. Skillen, located here:
http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader $1178

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#517125 Apr 8, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote: I knew you didn't know.
To argue that the Constitution guarantees equal treatment to all citizens, both men and women, does not say anything about what constitutes marriage, or a family, or a business enterprise, or a university, or a friendship.
An appeal for equal treatment would not lead a court to require that a small business enterprise be called a marriage just because two business partners prefer to think of their business that way.
Neither would equal treatment of citizens before the law require a court to conclude that those of us who pray before the start of auto races should be allowed to redefine our auto clubs as churches.
The simple fact is that the civil rights protections function simply to assure every citizen equal treatment under the law depending on what the material dispute in law is all about.
Besides, in order to claim that marriage should be allowed equally to all people under laws of equal rights, you'd have to first demonstrate that marriage is a right.
Can you?

Alas wrote:
<quoted text>I knew you would obfuscate. I never claimed marriage was a right, idiot. Why can't you ever be honest. Go back and read the post. There are certain rights given to married partners that the unmarried don't enjoy. To deny those to anyone is not providing equal protection. Why are Christians so inherently dishonest? Oh, yeah, your entire belief system is a lie.

You're responding to words that don't belong to RiversideRedneck.

The words belong to James W. Skillen, located here:
http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader $1178

Link fixed:
http://tinyurl.com/7fra757

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#517126 Apr 8, 2013
boooots wrote:
I am disappointing myself in recent months by sinking to the level of people such as you [St Black Pope] in my retorts, but after putting up with such levels of poor knowledge for so long one forgets their manners.
I never feel that way. I don't feel disappointed when I meet anybody else at their level, such as a child, when we become childish, or even a demented person, for which so-called validation therapy sometimes means agreeing with demented ideas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validation_thera...

I take pride in being able to adjust my demeanor to whatever level suits my current purpose, ranging from the most elevated levels of discourse to right down into the gutter, as with the game of Rochambeau that I'm playing with Dim
.

I don't think of any of those things in terms of diminishing myself. I see it as flexibility and versatility.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#517127 Apr 8, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text>Chemistry? Can you please supply the chemical formula where by an inanimate object can have life. Formula please?
nah, the latest research along with more biological scientists and other scientists are [disputing and refuting] the evidence for abiogensis and the theory of natural selection.
It happens all the time. Inanimate molecules are taken in by plants and converted into living tissues.

Dead plant matter (inanimate) is converted to living tissues by herbivores.

Dead animal matter (inanimate) is converted to living tissues by carnivores.

And all of these are chemical processes.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#517128 Apr 8, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Ah, the good ole atheist retort, "You're just ignorant. Go back to school." LMAO!! It's fun to watch y'all atheists try.
Is that an atheist retort?

[1] From http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR... :
trifecta1 wrote:
actually you're ignorant
[2] From http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR... :
LAWEST100 wrote:
Spoken just like someone with no clue of what you are talking about
[3] From http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR... :
LAWEST100 wrote:
<quoted text> Based off of what you just said, you have just admitted that you don't know anything at all. Let's just move on from it, ok?!

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#517129 Apr 8, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
It may seem that way Le_Le, but that is not always true.
But who am I to make that judgement.
That is why you continue down your path, is it not?
I do not see those who believe the Bible gives them a
"God given right" to judge and condemn their fellow man
here on earth and ultimately- to hell, relinquishing that
"right,(by proxy)" any
time soon..Do you?

And, yes it is.. Thanks for noticing.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#517130 Apr 8, 2013
hick-up wrote:
<quoted text>
I ain't giving away the good stuff in a public forum.<quoted text>
~smooch~
Hey, did I tell you I was in Connecticut for the blizzard? Big fun ... The snow was up to the bottom of the cab doors. I'd seen big snows before, but that was different. Truly an experience.
PS.

Are you catching any Stripers?
I have heard there have been sightings my way..
already.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#517131 Apr 8, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember our first 10 posts?
We were completely at odds...
Yes. I remember them.
I remember why, also.

Time is amazing..heals everything.

:)

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#517132 Apr 8, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Quantum Bob is another Topix poster. I'm sure that there are books out there, but I am unfamiliar with them.

This is a good resource, with a summary and references.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark...

There was a book written by creationist John Woodmorappe in 1996 called "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" published by Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research, which claimed that the fish and plants could have survived such a flood after all. He is rebutted in separate articles

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH542.h... (plants) and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH541.h... (fish)

Also, Talk Origins rebuts the creationist claims that the flood deposited the geologic column at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH550.h... , the specialized dietary needs of many animals might have come about only after the flood via microevolution at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH521.h... , The pre-flood climate was uniform, allowing all animals to live not too far from Noah at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH520.h... , the Grand Canyon was created suddenly by the retreating waters of Noah's Flood at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.h... , all geological features are consistent with a global flood at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH580.h... .

That ought to give you what you want.
Cheers Teddy :)

hick-up

“squuuze me”

Since: Feb 09

Florida, USA

#517133 Apr 8, 2013
Le_le wrote:
<quoted text>
PS.
Are you catching any Stripers?
I have heard there have been sightings my way..
already.
No ...I haven't been to the water in months.
~for shame~

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#517134 Apr 8, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
But proof is evidence or argument helping to establish a fact or truth...
Proof is sufficient evidence or argument to establishes a claim as a fact, and has limited application. For example, if we were face to face in Riverside, I could prove that I wasn't in Boston, and didn't commit a murder that might have occurred there half an hour earlier.

But that is an isolated incident.

If I want to prove an induction - a generalization about how reality works both now and in the future based on the observations of events in the past, I can't do it, and needn't do it. However many times I drop an apple in a gravitational field and it falls, I cannot prove that it will fall the next time. Laws and theories can be confirmed, but never proven. That is, they can be shown to be accurate in describing the past, and useful at predicting outcomes in the future, but not guaranteed to always be true.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Science needs proof.
Not for its greatest pronouncements, and only in the limited sense I already mentioned. I can only prove trivial facts, such as that the apple is on the floor by showing it to you there. And I can prove to you that an apple can fall by dropping one in front of you. But that's about where proof ends.

Incidentally, proof is a relative term limited by the possibility that none of this is real - so called matrix reality or vat in a brain arguments - or that it we were all created last Thursday with our present memories of a longer history.

Such radical possibilities are merely logically possible and not realistic hypotheses, but they cannot be ruled out, and at the most fundamental level, overturn all proofs. That is, a dead body is normally considered proof that there was a birth followed by growth and then a death - unless the whole world were created moments ago exactly as we see it, including with memories of a reality that never actually occurred.

Bottom line: the word proof should be avoided when discussing science.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#517135 Apr 8, 2013
Alas wrote:
<quoted text>The heart is a pump, nothing more.
I disagree.

I believe the heart is much much more than a "pump".
Although an amazing organ-(without it- we can't live), to me, there's a connection between one's mind, being and heart..

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#517136 Apr 8, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>Are you gay?
No duh.
Are you an overly-obsessed homophobe that can't stop talking about gay people?
That's a rhetorical question, I already know you are.

You're projecting an awful lot, did you know that 4/5 vocal homophobes are attracted to the same sex themselves?

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#517137 Apr 8, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>With girls only.
I think the man doth protest too much.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#517138 Apr 8, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>Still looking for a date with me?
Since I am straight I date only with straight girls
I'm sorry man, but no one would want to date a loser like you.

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 15 min Buck Crick 104,795
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 27 min waaasssuuup 673,367
News Michael Jackson broke down racial barriers (Jun '09) 1 hr yidfellas v USA 1,561
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Nohweh 981,360
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr bad bob 184,628
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 4 hr ChromiuMan 6,190
Well.......now I KNOW I won't buy with Amazon.com 6 hr Doctor REALITY 1
More from around the web