Why Should Jesus Love Me?

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#547564 Jun 17, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text>Who you think I worship is not important.
I think you worship the god of the bible.

It's nice to see you admit that he's not important.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#547565 Jun 17, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
Sadly, it would be better if it was just stupidity
Many in this group that came here lie
And to help Scaritual I will explain I call it a group because they travel in a pack
I came here of my own volition.

No one asked me to join. I don't travel with a pack. None of the atheists here "travel in a pack".

That's just a convenient catch phrase you use.
Skombolis wrote:
and are friends and not because it has anything to do with me. A group simply is a group. Ok some of it DEFINITELY is stupidity!
But a lot of it is their main objective seems to cover each other at all costs to their ethics. They will lie, be hypocritical, defy logic, etc so long as it helps one another out
They are in fact proud of this fact.
I cover no one.

I may offer my thought or view, but it isn't intended to 'cover' them. Unless you see pointing out what I find to be inaccurate observations made by others, directed towards another, to be unethical.

The observation you made concerning Catcher just isn't supported by any history I've seen with Catcher.

He will plainly state what he states. I've never seen an instance in which Catcher would use a proxy to say something he'd say without a proxy, which is his approach.

Why would he use a proxy to say what he plainly says or would say in all other instances, using his registered screen name?

Think what you will, it just doesn't add up.
Skombolis wrote:
They think that because they don't argue and share a bond of unethical behavior that somehow that is a good thing. You can always find people willing to group together in hate that will lie for one another in return for the same being done for them.
I lie for no one.

I don't see atheists lying for each other here, or in other venues, either.

Maybe you can point out where that has happened. Supply the link to the instance. I've asked for that before concerning myself, and I've seen others ask the same thing.

Both the atheist and theist have asked that of you.
Skombolis wrote:
The fact that Christians in here disagree shows we put principle and belief ahead of alliances
You're confusing a detail here.

Christians, from what I see, argue over aspects of their doctrinal differences and belief sets. Protestants, Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalians etc..., have differing beliefs or views, and will disagree about or argue those points in personal beliefs.
Skombolis wrote:
Something most of the atheists here not only don't do but think it is stupid to do
That's probably due to this small, but very important detail; The only thing attached to atheism, is the lack of the theistic belief that deities exist.

That's it. Not much to disagree on.
Skombolis wrote:
Sad really to stand for so little that anonymous Topix friends means more to them than being honest and staying true to themselves
I'm true to myself. I see the other atheists here and elsewhere being true to themselves.

I understand you do not understand that.

This is because atheists are not a part of a "HIVE" mentality.

An atheist does not dictate how an atheist acts or should act, as long as it does not effect myself, or humanity in its expression of personal freedom.

That is a foreign concept to the theist, and difficult to grasp, as I'm almost positive you will not understand what I just stated.

Read that carefully, and consider what was stated.

Not what you believe was stated.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#547566 Jun 17, 2013
wilderide wrote:

No, I'm saying that homosexual sex
Here, check it out:

Three gay guys are sitting in a hot tub and a big bubble of semen floats to the surface.

One gay guy asks, "Alright, who farted?"

HA HA !

“Pillars of Creation....”

Since: Jan 11

Into this world we're thrown

#547567 Jun 17, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm an atheist but I'm not a secular humanist. Why are you lying?
A Christian, a Jew, and a secular humanist were sentenced to death by
beheading. As the Christian stood before the chopping block, he cried,
"I see the problem before me - but I believe God will spare me from this
fate."

The executioner said, "He better, because God is the only one who can
spare you now," and he pulled the switch. Down came the blade - until
it stopped just one inch from the Christian's neck. The executioner and
the crowd exclaimed, "God has spared this man; and so he must be released."

Then it was the Jew's turn. As he stood before the chopping block he,
too, said, "I see the problem before me - but I believe God will spare
me from this fate."

The executioner replied, "I don't think so," and pulled the switch. The
blade came down - and jerked to a halt an inch from the Jew's neck. So
in the belief that God had spared him, he, too, was released.

Finally the secular humanist faced the chopping block. And low and
behold he said, "I see the problem before me - it's right over there,
you forgot to remove the safety lock from the blade mechanism".

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#547568 Jun 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh ya, my bad. Good catch, Catch.
Eagles are bad ass birds.
Last time I was in Scotland I saw some white-tailed eagles. They have wingspans of up to 8ft. Amazing birds.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#547569 Jun 17, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, in those decisions, the court didn't make the declaration that atheism is or was a religion, but that for purposes of the protection clause, it was to be afforded the full protections that religion enjoys.
In - Torcaso v. Watkins - Roy Torcaso, a man who had been appointed by a Maryland Governor to a Notary Public office was asked to swear in, and would not make "a declaration of belief in the existence of God"(part of the wording in the swearing in/oath process).
That violated the "no religious test" portion of our U.S. Constitution.
Roy Torcaso was atheist. You can read more about the case, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watki...
That appears to be the rule or result in these "cited" court cases that theists often try to use in saying that atheism is a religion. The Courts didn't declare that atheism was a religion, or wasn't a religion, they declared that atheism was - afforded equal protection with religions - under the Establishment Clause.
These court cases were initiated and in response to, attempts or conditions that theists, or aspects of our theism saturated society in some way, trampled the rights of the atheist, which resulted when the atheist was discriminated against, or was denied a right or the liberties of the rights we all are supposed to enjoy, equally, and specifically because they(atheist) >- do not practice a religion -< at all.
"COURT RULES ATHEISM A RELIGION"

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.

http://mobile.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/#MV3osEHu...

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#547570 Jun 17, 2013
scaritual wrote: You are a buffoon.
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
The last vestige of the the man who can't debate on merit!
I include insults simply because they are funny and do so in the middle of systematically using facts to prove my point or disprove the point of someone else
When you and many in your group are left scratching your rear-end trying to figure out how you can lie your way out of the newest hole you dug for yourself, this is what you normally end up having to resort to as you sure can't argue based on the facts!
Thank you for making it so obvious what I said in my post was true.
:)
That statement was due to you going off on a wild tangent in response to this post, http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR... , in which you highlighted your misunderstanding of what other people have stated.

You exampled the buffoon like nature of your ability to misconstrue what other people say(or is it intentional?)

I've not decided if it's intentional, or simply beyond your abilities to read and understand what is written.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#547571 Jun 17, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! I'm pretty sure that, because the victim is male, he isn't going to be forced to marry his attacker. THAT would be an abomination after all! But forcing a female rape victim to marry her attacker is perfectly moral, obviously. Everyone knows that women fall immediately in love when they are raped. Oy.
:-)

Yes, that god of the bible really cares for women by forcing them to marry the guy who rapes them.

I'm sure Christian women see the logic in this and won't hesitate to marry the guy who rapes them.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#547572 Jun 17, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, I'm not going to claim that I know the bible better than you do.
However, that scripture is all about what the bible god will do if people don't toe the line and worship him.
In other words he will make sure his people are enslaved again.
My point about free will still stands, though
But you must understand that you're taking a verse completely out of context and give it a different meaning by doing so.

Who was that scripture written about and why?
Doctor REALITY

United States

#547573 Jun 17, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you worship the god of the bible.
It's nice to see you admit that he's not important.
You will be joining Judas unless you REPENT.
Doctor REALITY

United States

#547574 Jun 17, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Last time I was in Scotland I saw some white-tailed eagles. They have wingspans of up to 8ft. Amazing birds.
That's because the Lord Jesus Christ MADE them that way.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#547575 Jun 17, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol
You may see it as that - it's not.
We're agreed that Christianity says mankind is inherently sinful.
I'm pretty sure we're also agreed that words like good, kind, considerate, loving, etc are not used by Christians when describing sin.
More often than not, they'll use words like: evil, wretched, damned, flawed, abominable, vile, etc.
Therefore, if mankind is inherently sinful then the less favourable words are what believers will use.
Are you trying to say that Christians will use nice words when describing the sins of mankind?
No. You claimed that the bible calls us evil, wretched, damned, flawed, abominable, vile, etc.

I asked you where'd you get that from.

It looks to me like you're filling in the blanks as you see fit....

Yes? No?

“I.Spirit.Son.God”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#547576 Jun 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
"COURT RULES ATHEISM A RELIGION"
The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.
http://mobile.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/#MV3osEHu...
))))helpless laughter))))lol---I wonder what the 'Eye' going to say to this one...lol
Rosa Winkel

Brookvale, Australia

#547577 Jun 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh no... Please, not another holiday...
It doesn't matter if someone's a single parent or not, they're either a mother or a father.
And we already have Mother's Day and Father's Day.
Why not? Holidays are great.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#547578 Jun 17, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Last time I was in Scotland I saw some white-tailed eagles. They have wingspans of up to 8ft. Amazing birds.
Ya? Cool, I'll check em out, thanks.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#547579 Jun 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
"COURT RULES ATHEISM A RELIGION"
The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.
http://mobile.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/#MV3osEHu...
I see

So atheism = religion and religion = atheism

That makes sense.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#547580 Jun 17, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text> I came here of my own volition.
No one asked me to join. I don't travel with a pack. None of the atheists here "travel in a pack".
That's just a convenient catch phrase you use.
<quoted text> I cover no one.
I may offer my thought or view, but it isn't intended to 'cover' them. Unless you see pointing out what I find to be inaccurate observations made by others, directed towards another, to be unethical.
The observation you made concerning Catcher just isn't supported by any history I've seen with Catcher.
He will plainly state what he states. I've never seen an instance in which Catcher would use a proxy to say something he'd say without a proxy, which is his approach.
Why would he use a proxy to say what he plainly says or would say in all other instances, using his registered screen name?
Think what you will, it just doesn't add up.
<quoted text> I lie for no one.
I don't see atheists lying for each other here, or in other venues, either.
Maybe you can point out where that has happened. Supply the link to the instance. I've asked for that before concerning myself, and I've seen others ask the same thing.
Both the atheist and theist have asked that of you.
<quoted text> You're confusing a detail here.
Christians, from what I see, argue over aspects of their doctrinal differences and belief sets. Protestants, Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalians etc..., have differing beliefs or views, and will disagree about or argue those points in personal beliefs.
<quoted text> That's probably due to this small, but very important detail; The only thing attached to atheism, is the lack of the theistic belief that deities exist.
That's it. Not much to disagree on.
<quoted text> I'm true to myself. I see the other atheists here and elsewhere being true to themselves.
I understand you do not understand that.
This is because atheists are not a part of a "HIVE" mentality.
An atheist does not dictate how an atheist acts or should act, as long as it does not effect myself, or humanity in its expression of personal freedom.
That is a foreign concept to the theist, and difficult to grasp, as I'm almost positive you will not understand what I just stated.
Read that carefully, and consider what was stated.
Not what you believe was stated.
I never claimed you guys don't have the free will where you must travel in a group. You simply choose to. But I think we have gone over " group" as much as we needed to and then some.

Why would Catcher use a proxy? My guess would be he is a hypocrite and for all his finger pointing about the level of discourse others engage in, he is no better. He also hasn't made a negative post to me since I decided to hammer him on some of the "legal" claims he made and for a guy that always defends Ians and HL that would not be characteristic given the past exchanges. So this allows him to post with impunity. And if you can't see the obvious as far as an anonymous poster making dorky jokes and defending Ians and HK who kept replying to my posts using the word 'buffoon' then out of nowhere a reply using that word comes up under his registered account I don't know what to tell ya except proxies are not very reliable and people get caught all the time because of it

As for lying for each other, do you REALLY believe HL thinks there is no problem with calling someone a filthy gay liar as long as the person making the accusation thinks its true or that insults are not insults if you characterize them as observations? HL claims calling people negative things is simply her making observations but when others do the exact same thing it is a personal attack and bullying

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#547581 Jun 17, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuals want to believe that homosexuality is innate to defend themselves against Christianity. Like Christianity wants to believe it is free choice to justify their discrimination. Both construct these ideas to sustain their position.
Oh I agree with that. And it's a silly argument either way, because we don't know definitively how human sexuality works.

Christians want to say that gay people are at fault for being gay because they chose it. But of course that argument is ridiculous for two reasons: sexuality is not purely a matter of choice (straight people don't choose to be straight), and even if it were true, people would be perfectly free to make that choice regardless. Furthermore, if one is to insist that being gay is a choice, then that also implies it is superior. So it's a dumb argument all round.

The hard thing for Christians is that saying homosexuality is sinful has no rationale. I think it's pretty clear the Bible considers homosexuality, and probably homosexuals themselves, an abomination. But why would it say that? There is no rationale for it. What difference does it make what gender combination a couple is? Probably this Biblical homophobia stems from the gross misogyny of the Hebrews, and their need for procreation to defend themselves. But regardless, it's an irrational dictate to have. And so then the question to Christians is: if you God gives rules with no rationale, then isn't God irrational? Just as when God declares shellfish an abomination, or wearing cloth woven from cotton and wool. It's ridiculous.
In reality preferences can be innate but we can also develop them. I hate olives at first (clearly not innate), but i learned to love them. In my next life I may have an innate preference to olives.
I do not care one way or the other, i worship Nature. I deeply revere diversity. I love the diversity nature brings. I think there is immense beauty in diversity. That is why i worship many Gods and revere all beings and none have to justify their nature. Even if behaviour is hurtful to others, we should confine ourself to only limiting the behaviour. Some people are like aggressive, it is their nature, give them a place where they can express their nature in non-harmful way. Let them fight in sports or make them a doorman. They feel happy and they no longer have to beat their wives.
I agree that diversity in society is a good thing, even though it causes so many problems. I think the thing is balance. You can't have extremes of no diversity or too much diversity. Society must establish guidelines, hopefully informed by reason and tolerance. Some behaviors are immoral under any circumstance, yet some circumstances make some otherwise immoral behaviors or choices moral, maybe even necessary. We want everything to be as simple and clear as possible, but unfortunately people are complex.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#547582 Jun 17, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
??? Is this kind of thinking the product of your Atheistic teachings?? You definitely need to reach out to Dawkins for help Brackets can be used within another person's writings to clarify.
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/parenthe...
My use of the () was to clarify Secular Humanism can mean Atheism as well...iyai!,
Then you should mention that separately, not include that as the quoted portion of what Justice Black gave as his opinion, or noted that in what you wrote afterwards.

You probably didn't read this, from the link you supplied:
"You shouldn’t alter what the original writer wrote, so use brackets around your clarification. For example, if the original quotation reads,“This enterprising paleontologist discovered a new species of plant eater,” you shouldn't change it to “[Bob Jones] discovered a new species of plant eater.” You’d have to quote the material this way:“This enterprising paleontologist [Bob Jones] discovered a new species of plant eater.”

(Note also that you wouldn’t be allowed to use parentheses around the name you add, because it would seem—incorrectly—like an aside that appeared in the original text.)"
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/parenthe...

Now you know.
trifecta1 wrote:
I thought atheists were smart? where the set of you come from on this billboard I not know? oy! <quoted text>A religion not have anything to with whether you let people think for you or not. Atheism/Secular Humanism is a religion defined by the United States Supreme Court.
Nope.

Cite the court case, and the exact wording and language used in the ruling that states atheism is a religion(not the footnoted personal opinion, or *obiter dictum* of the Justice).

lets look at what *obiter dictum* means in legal terms.

"An obiter dictum is a remark or observation made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, does not form a necessary part of the court's decision. In a court opinion, obiter dicta include, but are not limited to, words "introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument."[1] Unlike the rationes decidendi, obiter dicta are not the subject of the judicial decision, even if they happen to be correct statements of law. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, statements constituting obiter dicta are therefore not binding(...)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum

See?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#547583 Jun 17, 2013
scaritual wrote:
scaritual wrote: You are a buffoon.
<quoted text>
That statement was due to you going off on a wild tangent in response to this post, http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR... , in which you highlighted your misunderstanding of what other people have stated.
You exampled the buffoon like nature of your ability to misconstrue what other people say(or is it intentional?)
I've not decided if it's intentional, or simply beyond your abilities to read and understand what is written.
I haven't misconstrued anything. Ians originally said it was stupid to speak out even if I thought it was true that a statement was by truthful about a subject important to me when my silence could have gotten me a potential ally. I didn't misconstrue his refusal to address it after half a dozen times or his lies when he denied it and claimed he was talking about gratuitous alienation. I also didn't misconstrue two totally different stories on why people would want to keep Ians and his wife happy in Mexico

I have not decided if you intentionally lie and make up excuses for others in the form of crazy characterization about what happened or you are just too simpleminded to recognize the obvious

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) 2 min RiversideRedneck 100,158
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 13 min RiversideRedneck 980,113
News The 'Fake News' Con: A Case Study 1 hr coco 57
Ring Payments 2 hr annaleighanne 1
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 hr guest 670,272
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 10 hr Peter Ross 445,651
Any hot teen girl wanna email me (Mar '12) 10 hr idk 8
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 11 hr NIST 286,454
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 13 hr WildWeirdWillie 184,287
More from around the web