Prove there's a god.
king

Kolkata, India

#681935 Jan 1, 2014
edrednex onmethnex onmethx onmethmeth
king

Kolkata, India

#681936 Jan 1, 2014
edrednex onmethnex onmethx onmethmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmethhmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmethnex onmeth
rrednex onrednex onmethmethrrednex onrednex onmethmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmeth
rrednex onrednex onmethmedrednex onmethnex onmethx onmethmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmethhmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmethnex onmeth
rrednex onrednex onmethmethrrednex onrednex onmethmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmeth
rrednex onrednex onmethmetheedrednex onmethnex onmethx onmethmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmethhmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmethnex onmeth
rrednex onrednex onmethmethrrednex onrednex onmethmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmeth
rrednex onrednex onmethmethth
king

Kolkata, India

#681937 Jan 1, 2014
edrednex onmethnex onmethx onmethmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmethhmeth
king

Kolkata, India

#681938 Jan 1, 2014
edrednex onmethnex onmethx onmethmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmethhmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmethnex onmeth
rrednex onrednex onmethmethrrednex onrednex onmethmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmeth
rrededrednex onmethnex onmethx onmethmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmethhmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmethnex onmeth
rrednex onrednex onmethmethrrednex onrednex onmethmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmeth
rrednex onrednex onmethmethnex onrednex onmethmeth
king

Kolkata, India

#681939 Jan 1, 2014
edrednex onmethnex onmethx onmethmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmethhmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmethnex onmeth
rrednexedrednex onmethnex onmethx onmethmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmethhmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmethnex onmeth
rrednex onrednex onmethmethrrednex onrednex onmethmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmeth
rrednex onrednex onmethmeedrednex onmethnex onmethx onmethmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmethhmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmethnex onmethedrednex onmethnex onmethx onmethmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmethhmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmethnex onmeth
rrednex onrednex onmethmethrrednex onrednex onmethmethedrednex onmethnex onmethx onmethmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmethhmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmethnex onmeth
rrednex onrednex onmethmethrrednex onrednex onmethmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmeth
rrednex onrednex onmethmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmeth
rrednex onrednex onmethmeth
rrednex onrednex onmethmethrrednex onrednex onmethmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmeth
rrednex onrednex onmethmethth
king

Kolkata, India

#681942 Jan 1, 2014
edrednex onmethnex onmethx onmethmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmethhmeth
edrednex onmethnex onmethnex onmeth
rrednex

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#681947 Jan 1, 2014
Rockhound wrote:
<quoted text>
I always have to laugh when an atheist knows the bible better than his christian debater. As is usually the case.
I have yet to see a christian who understands science at all.
It is rather amusing isn't it. Christians don't find it funny because it shows them what suckers they were for believing all the nonsense the Con-Artists at the front of their church have been telling them all these years.

Most of them can't recover from seeing that their whole lives have been one huge gigantic lie so they go out and try to find people even more stupid than themselves so they can lie to them. It makes them feel better that they are not the only rube on the planet. It is like when a child is molested he often believes it is normal and when he grows up he molests children like he was molested.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#681950 Jan 1, 2014
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>You didn't say how the baker was discriminated against, you just said that he was discriminated against because of his religion. How was he?
And you ignored the rest of my post.
RR seems to be having a bad hair day.

The baker was not discriminated against, he was not allowed to follow the bigotry and discrimination his religion demands. It was the baker who did the discriminating and currently that is illegal. So this gay couple is fucking with him because they can, just like Christians have traditionally fucked with gay people. Christian cops are the worst most despicable cops there are. We have no idea how many lives Christian cops have ruined because of the Christian religion giving them the go ahead to harass gays. All of them swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States and all of them violated it when they violated the rights of gay people. They should be ashamed of them selves but they won't be. Just like the cops who spend a day busting pot smokers and then spend the night drinking beer and smoking cigarettes in a pizza parlor.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#681951 Jan 1, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Their religion was ignored and they were forced to make cakes for marriages they didn't condone.
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story...
The cakes you allege they were forced to bake never got made. The baker was arrested for refusing to bake a cake and the gay couple used the power of the government to have him arrested for refusing to do business with people he did not approve of.

When Christians organize to pass laws against the peaceful activities of gay people, like getting married to each other, they should expect some kind of backlash.

Christians started the bad behaviour RR. If Christians would have minded their own business and let gays get married as is their right to do so, none of this petty bullshit ever would have happened.

I do not approve of gays seeking revenge against the hateful behaviour of Christians but the government allows them to do so and since you Chrisitans have been destroying our Republic and replacing it with a democracy then fine, you deserve what you get. You made your bed now sleep in it.

Of course just as Christians did not see the unintended consequences of passing laws against gay marriage, gays do not see how the unintended consequences of using laws against bigots, will backfire.

When you mess with the bull, sometimes you get the horn.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#681952 Jan 1, 2014
LuciFerr wrote:
<quoted text>
So, they were discriminated against for being nosy discriminatory bigots?
Awesome.
The bigot baker was arrested because he discriminated against a gay couple who asked him to bake a wedding cake for their wedding. Right down the street is a gay owned bakery specializing in gay wedding cakes.

Most Christians bigots would have been thrilled to back a cake for a gay couple, one can only imagine what kind of nasties they would have baked into the cake.

Never bite the hand that feeds you!

When I was in Portland Oregon I was in a coffee shop and these two cops walked in and ordered burgers and the cook was someone they had recently arrested for possession of a pipe that had marijuana residue in it. After the two cops had finished their burgers the bus boy told them not to eat them but it was too late. The cops went ballistic. But how could they prove what he had put in their burgers? They had eaten all of the evidence. This is some serious stuff. What if the cook had had HIV or Hepatitus?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#681953 Jan 1, 2014
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>No one has a "right" to discriminate against others.
We all discriminate all day long and in a Republic that right is protected. In a Democracy that right is not protected it is violated. Why should someone be forced to do business with someone they do not want to do business with?

If the Christian Baker can be forced to bake gay wedding cakes then the gay owned t-shirt company can be forced to print t-shirts with GOD HATES FAGS for the Westboro Baptist Church. In America we are all supposed to be equal before the law.

If I was that Christian Baker, I would walk down the street to the gay bakery and ask them to make a cake with anti-gay slurs on it and if they refused I would have them arrested for discriminating against people who want to express their religious beliefs.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#681954 Jan 1, 2014
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>And yes, there is a "may" about whether homosexuality goes against christianity. There are around ten verses in the bible that condemn homosexuality. All of these are found in the OT, and in some instances it is referred to as an abomination, which is the same terminology used for a woman on her period and for the crime of eating shellfish.
I know of six anti-gay verses in the OT and the following three in the NT.

ROM. 1:26-27 ("For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use (a degrading word) of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly...."),
1 COR. 6:9-10 Mod. Lang.("...Be not misled; neither profligates, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor partakers of homosexuality...will inherit the kingdom of God") and
1 TIM. 1:9-10 NASB ("...the law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners...and immoral men and homosexuals....").

If biblicists are going to quote Old Law with respect to executing homosexuals, then why don't they quote verses which prescribe the death penalty for a wide variety of acts other than homosexuality?

All of the following warrant execution:

striking your father or mother Ex.21:15
kidnapping Ex. 21:6 RSV
cursing your father or mother Ex. 21:17 RSV, Lev. 20:9
touching a mountain Ex. 19:12 RSV
allowing your ox to gore someone Ex. 21:29
lying with a beast Ex. 22:19 RSV, Lev. 20:15-16
sacrificing to other gods Ex. 22:20 RSV
failing to observe the Sabbath Ex. 31:14-15
drinking strong drinks while in the tabernacle Lev. 10:9
committing adultery Lev. 20:10 RSV, Deut. 22:22
lying with your father's wife Lev. 20:11 RSV
lying with your daughter-in-law Lev. 20:12 RSV
being a medium or a wizard Lev. 20:27 RSV
being a witch Ex. 22:18
being a priest's daughter and becoming a whore Lev. 21:9 RSV
Blaspheming the name of the Lord Lev. 24:16
cursing Lev. 24:14 RSV
coming near the priesthood Num. 3:10
being a stranger who comes near the congregation's tabernacle Num. 3:38
gathering sticks on the Sabbath Num. 15:32-35
serving or worshipping other gods Deut. 17:2-5 RSV
showing contempt for the Lord's priest or judge Deut. 17:12 NIV
failing to obey one's parents Deut. 21:18-21
not being a virgin on your wedding day Deut. 22:20-21 NIV
being a betrothed virgin who did not cry out when seduced Deut. 22:23-24
having relations with your wife and her mother Lev. 20:14
telling people to seek other gods Deut. 13:2,5
being a false prophet Deut. 18:20

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#681955 Jan 1, 2014
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text> ...and most christians ignore the majority of the prohibitions and condemnations found in the OT, why is homosexuality special, and how does one determine which OT laws god *really* meant and which he doesn't mind if we ignore? The point being, of course, that while the bible may seem to be against homosexuality, the average christian ignores most of the OT anyway, and so has no right to condemn it while having no objective way to divine which laws are really important to god and which aren't. If some of the OT laws are open for interpretation and can be safely ignored, then why can't the same be said of the "laws" against homosexuality?
Good question. The answer is really easy; Because Christians are morons. Inconsistent, hypocritical pew warming morons.

MORE OT LAWS IGNORED: What about the O.T. laws that are conveniently ignored, but of equal weight? Biblicists act as if many did not exist. The following examples are typical:

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#681956 Jan 1, 2014
Money cannot be lent at interest to your brother, only to foreigners (Deut. 23:19-20);
Eating pork is forbidden (Deut. 14:8);
A man must marry and have relations with his dead brother's wife (Deut. 25:5-6);
A seducer must marry an unengaged virgin whom he seduces (Ex. 22:16-17);
A raped, unengaged virgin must marry her rapist and they can never divorce (Deut. 22:28-29);
Trials for adultery are to be by ordeal (Num. 5:28-29);
Eating rare meat with blood is forbidden (Lev. 19:26);
Beards can't be rounded (Lev. 19:27);
A newly married man can't go to war or be charged with business for one year (Deut. 24:5);
A guilty man can be beaten with as many as forty blows (Deut. 25:1-3);
A garment composed of wool and linen can't be worn (Deut. 22:11);
Punishment shall be administered on the basis of an eye for an eye (Deut. 19:21, Ex. 21:24);
One's nation can lend to other nations but not borrow from them (Deut. 15:6);
Bastards can't enter the Lord's congregation (Deut. 23:2);
First-born children should sometimes be sacrificed to the Lord (Ex. 22:29); and
Debtor brothers shall be released from their obligation every seven years (Deut. 15:1-3).

All of these rules are part of the Old Covenant and of equal import. Why quote the Ten Commandments and rules against homosexuality, for example, while ignoring other tenets? A believer's obligations to one is no less than his obligation to all. In fact, if under the New Covenant Christians have stepped into the shoes of the Israelites and become, in effect, the new Chosen People, then they should inherit all the privileges and duties of that office. They seem to want the former but not the latter. Jesus said the Old Law would stand until heaven and earth passed away. Not one jot or tittle was to be changed until all was fulfilled (Matt. 5:18-19 RSV). Paul disagreed, but, then, this is not the only topic upon which they clashed.

Apologist have also tended to ignore or minimize the Old Law's support for slavery and the subordination of women and failed to follow the Sabbath.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#681957 Jan 1, 2014
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text> I don't think we should be getting our morality from a book that features exercises in filth like the following passage from the story of sodom:
So Lot stepped outside to talk to them, shutting the door behind him. "Please, my brothers," he begged, "don't do such a wicked thing. Look, I have two virgin daughters. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do with them as you wish. But please, leave these men alone, for they are my guests and are under my protection."
Yes, lot offers his virgin daughters to be gang raped. God saves the day, only for lot to commit incest with his daughters afterwards. And you consider this book a legitimate source on morality.
2 Kings 18:27, " ...that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?"

Do we want that read to children in Sunday School?

1 COR. 7:36 American Standard Version, ("But if a man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter...and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry"--(American Standard Version)

Here BibleGod tells us that if a heterosexual Christian wants to molest his virgin daughter, it is not a sin, but he should marry her before he molests her.

The Bible is filled with filth from cover to cover. Is the following morally uplifting?

JESUS: Luke 19:27, "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and kill them in front of me."

JESUS: Luke 14:26, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters yes, even his own life he cannot be my disciple."

JESUS: Matt. 10:34, NIV "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#681958 Jan 1, 2014
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, our government was specifically set up in such a way to *prevent* the very thing you are espousing. The problem with democracies is that they lead to the "tyranny of the majority." In a true democracy, the minority has only the rights given to them by the majority.
You seem to like the idea of the majority ruling over everyone else, probably because you are a member of the majority, but you'd likely change your tune if you weren't. Our government is a republic, meaning that each individual is a sovereign entity entitled to inalienable rights. These rights cannot be dictated by the will of the majority, they are "vested" in the individual. The constitution, in fact, delineates the rights that we, as citizens of the republic, are entitled to.
So it would be proper for me to tell you to change the constitution if you don't like the fact that our government vests rights in the individual, and would prefer that rights are vested in the will of the majority. Brush up on your US history and your knowledge of the various forms of government before you attempt any more snarky comments.
You certainly are right about all of this. However the anti-discrimination laws are not compatible with a Republic. If you force someone to do business with someone he does not want to do business with then you are abdicating to the whim of the majority who alone decides who can be discriminated against and who can not.

If I am a baker and I do not like the shape of your nose I have the right to refuse to do business with you. The fact that the government has violated that right does not mean we still do not have it. Anti discrimination laws are based on the false premise that the government can bring us a Utopian paradise like the soviets used to enjoy under Stalin.

Life isn't fair. And government can not make it fair, all government can do is make it worse for everyone.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#681959 Jan 1, 2014
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah. It's almost like this god designed the universe as a giant torture chamber, given the ratio of those who are destined to heaven vs those who are destined to hell.
Except I do not believe there is a God who designed anything. The earth and all the crazy people breeding on it are exactly as the Universe needs them to be. Life could not be any different than it is.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#681960 Jan 1, 2014
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm sure some have, but I'd be willing to bet two things.
1 - that it's not users killing cops, it's dealers. Violent dealers exist because of the drug war - drugs would not exist as such a lucrative, high risk, high margin commodity of the drug war didn't force the market underground and jack the prices up.
2 - I guarantee you that more peaceful drug users have been murdered by cops than the other way around.
RR usually doesn't let facts like these interfere with his beliefs.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/12/09/s...

I blame everyone who voted for politicians who supported the war on drugs for this 13 year old boys death.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#681961 Jan 1, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>.
You cannot compare sexuality to race, as race cannot be chosen while sexuality can be.
JESUS: Luke 19:27, "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#681962 Jan 1, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:1. I said drug abusers, not users. I consider dealers to be drug abusers too. The drug wars did not create violent druggies. The drugs did.
You make a distinction where none exists. In illogical demented pew warming imbeciles like yourself smoking one joint is drug abuse. There is no such thing as use there is only abuse in the minds of the demented pew warmer.

The war on drugs created the violence. And you are as responsible as anyone for the violence and all the murders because you voted for politicians who supported the war on drugs. You are as guilty as sin.

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 Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 7 min Bongo 31,018
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 12 min Just Think 687,276
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 hr Edthirty 286,556
wierd situation with my mom. (Jul '14) 4 hr DEMOCRAT CRYBABIES 8
Why it's time for Donald Trump to RESIGN...in d... 4 hr DEMOCRAT CRYBABIES 178
Whose fault was it that O.J. Simpson beat murde... (Mar '16) 4 hr DEMOCRAT CRYBABIES 40
ladies have you ever cheated on your BF while h... (Sep '15) 4 hr Cuckold 16
More from around the web