500 Characters [page 6]

500 Characters [Page 6]

Damn, what a jerk. There are over one billion muslims on the planet and most of them are pretty peaceful.

Over a billion people and, as he clearly states, they are silent in the face of a constant stream of Muslim atrocities, many of them explicitly in the name of Allah. I have never seen any Muslims condemning the murder of Christians in Pakistan or the use of human shields or suicide bombings or "honour killings" or the routine coerced genital mutilation (of both sexes) . But any criticism of their "peaceful religion" and out come the demonstrators. Are the "good Muslims" incapable of being heard?

I have no idea what you're talking about, I hear them a lot. But still, the violent muslims make more noise, so they're heard more.

I hear people protesting and complaining about such things, but they're not Muslims. Your perception, or what you choose to remember or what you seek out, may be different. That's not my problem. It is a problem for this mysterious peaceful majority of Muslims which appears to me at least to be almost completely silent and invisible.

i could ask you the same thing:
why have christians remained silent for a long time when the nazis killed millions of jews?

Jews killed Christ, Christians find it rather easy to justify the persecution and murder of Jews when the mob's fury is up. The Nazis didn't pick on the Jews for anything other than Christian motives. No atheists or pagans have any reason to regard the Jews as being anything to be worked up about, only those believers in cults which have stolen the Jewish god need to hate the Jews. Catholics, Protestants and Muslims have all persecuted Jews when they have had the power to do so.

Mart: re-read the events in the Scriptures, it wasn't the Jewish that killed Him. It was the Roman soldiers that did it under enforced Pagan Roman traditions that crucified and released exchanges of prisoners for another. The killing by crucifiction of human life wasn't a civil or social law of Moses either. At the time of Jesus it was an Arab descendant king over the Jewish, appointed by the Roman empire.
And yes only Catholics, Protestants and the damn muslims all have reasons like no others.

Pilate found no guilt in him.
Matthew 27
24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

Wriggle out of that one. It's bollocks of course but it's OFFICIAL bollocks.

Matt 24:9 All Jews are Israeli, not all Israeli are Jews. Matt 27:1 only the chief priests and elders wanted His death, He was a threat to their appointed positions. Matt 27:15 The custom wasn't a Jewish custom, but a Roman custom! Matt 27:20 The priest and appointed elders made it happen, not all the Jews. Mark 15:11 the chief priests out of envy knowing Roman law that someone was going to die! Again, if not for the Roman governor, Matt. 27:15 if NOT for his custom it wouldn't have happened.

"Jews killed Christ" is the official and usual interpretation of the Christian Gospels and it was so until the twentieth century when a bunch of Americans decided to ally themselves with the Jews in order to hurry on the end of the world. That is how the Catholics and Lutherans of Germany in the Nazi era thought. The idea that Jews were not Christ-killers began after the holocaust. It is not your theological opinion that counts. Other people's motives are not driven by your revisionist beliefs.

Basically, most people answering the phone for a bank's customers' service are Indians. So she was saying if you want to know what the weather's like in India, just phone your bank!

If Bernard Manning had told that jokes there would be complaints but it's the happy Shappi telling them, so that's all right then, isn't it?
That's two-faced. If it's funny it's funny and you don't get the chance to use edgier material just because you belong to a (different) minority.

Sorry MartinJWillett, you misunderstood. I was referring to UniqueTush, who didn't get the bank joke, so I was just explaining to him/her what that joke means. I have no comment on the joke itself.

If I was addressing you alone I would have used a private message. I had a point to make and your post provided the context to it, the comment was not intended as a rebuke to you, your post merely saved me the trouble of explaining which joke I was referring to.

Bernard Manning was never funny. Shappi Khorsandi is funny. Is it her race you have issues with or her gender?

So you are telling me if the same joke was told by a fat, white man it wouldn't be funny, but it was funny when told by an attractive brown woman. And you suggest that makes ME racist and sexist.
You not wanting to laugh doesn't mean it isn't funny.
Bernard Manning was funny. He was nasty, hurtful, racist and bigoted but he was funny. The git had a talent. You can't make a career out of just being a racist. Neither can you make a career out of twenty jokes. Please get some more material Shappi.

why is everyone so annoyed that she repeats her own jokes, jimmy carr does that ALOT, and he's one of the best comedians out there

All comedians repeat material, but most comedians have more to start with, she cannot sustain a career on the strength of twenty jokes. I hope she gets some more soon because she is funny.
Alot is not a word by the way, and it deserves capital letters less than the proper nouns and beginning of sentences. Lot is a noun. You don't run articles into nouns unless you want people to think you're amoron.

The problem they have is that they believe in sin. They believe that child sex abuse is caused by men "sinning" rather than by a perversion of the normal sex drive caused by the unnatural constraints of a vow of celibacy. If you can't acknowledge the real problem any solutions you propose are bound to be unsuccessful. The sin theory of human behaviour has been thoroughly discredited but the Church cannot accept this because it is a central dogma. Conflict with reality is inevitable.

The kids are having fun and aren't hurting themselves.

It's just a game to them. Child abuse is often pitched at children as a game, like playing doctors and nurses. The adults understand the significance of what they are getting the children to do. The adults are culpable for both the abuse and for the deception.
They are burying seeds of ideas that will be built upon later to form a prison around those young minds.

What is the abuse? What are the kids being deceived into doing? Where is the evidence that this harmless playing with reeds is for the purpose of injecting into the subconscious of these children that being hit with reeds is OK?

get your theory. I see no evidence that this is an example of it.

Religious indoctrination is child abuse. Making children fear imaginary eternal punishments for invented wrong-doing that doesn't even have a victim, that's child abuse. This is just an obvious sign of the indoctrination. It is just playing at this stage but it is part of the process that screws up little minds and forces them into the shape of Catholic minds: full of shame and guilt, fear and irrationality. Forcing a child to think in that way is far worse than mere sexual abuse or a beating.

why thumbs down martinjwillet? he's right.

People don't like confronting these ideas, they want to believe that teaching children to believe absurdities before they develop the power of reason is doing them a favour rather than exploiting their trusting nature.
They should imagine the children being taught harmful ideas in the same way, it might make them see what is going on.
Religion should not be taught to minors except in history and anthropology of primitive cultures.

That is insulting. God is more than that. Show some respect. He gave you life.

Prove it.

Your religion is an insult to the universe. The world described in the Bible is a few thousand miles across, a flat plain that does not extend out as far as Rome (no prophets foresaw anything coming from out beyond the edge of their world). That is much less than one light second across. The real universe is much bigger than that, more than a dozen billion light years across. Your puny, pathetic, small-minded and jealous god and that pathetic Jewish myth insults it and my species.

Martin more importantly just take the bible genesis 1 and read the first chapter and have a laugh. Apparently god made day and night then he made the land then he made the plants then he made the sun and the stars. I wonder why did god lie in genesis? or if he didn't lie in genesis why did he made the universe as one monumental lie that would lead anyone to think he is unexistant? God is a lier either way so have fun worshipping a lier.

Read the whole thing, it is an excellent way to shut them up when they ask you to read it if you can tell them that you have, every word, from Genesis to Revelation, in sequence. It is one of those things you can actually do on your lifetime list, cheaper than going to Venice at Carnival, easier than climbing the Matterhorn and safer than running with the bulls at Pamplona.

Once is enough.

Could you please provide me with the verses which describe "The world described in the Bible is a few thousand miles across, a flat plain that does not extend out as far as Rome"

Genesis. Read it all. Reading, like a book, like literature. Do you know how to do that? Reading what is there and asking yourself what the author(s) meant. There is nothing in Genesis to suggest anything other than a world which is small and flat and nothing is ever described or even hinted at which is more than fifteen hundred miles from Jerusalem. There is no hint that they are aware of different climate, seasons, day length and so on or of navigation out of sight of land.

Very good!

Dawkins actually believes that intelligent design is a possible explanation for evolution, just not God, maybe aliens if you watch his interview with Ben Stein.

No, he doesn't. He speculated that it is entirely plausible that some form of inoculation from outer space could account for life on Earth, however the source of that inoculation must be another evolutionary process. So "it came from space" is not an ultimate explanation of life on Earth, just a possible complication in the picture which we should not close our minds to.

right, then he speculated that life could have come about by an alien (intelligent) source. He does run into the same logical question then, of how did the alien source come about. the problem is just moved to another planet.

That's not a problem at all, whether it was on Earth or elsewhere it was done by an evolutionary process, a pre-biological process of evolution of chemical complexity. He does not propose aliens as a solution to a problem (complexity) he can't address, he admits that an alien stage is possible. Proving an extraterrestrial origin for life on Earth would NOT disprove chemical evolution as the basis for the ultimate original abiogenesis. Neither is an alien source or intelligence required.

Don't you see how totally inane this concept is? Isn't a personal God creating the perfect home for His creation a lot easier to swallow? You talk about evolution as if it was an intelligent, powerful, directive force, not ransom directionless mutations that are mostly deleterious.
For those of us who don't have that much faith to accept an illogical and unscientific concept for the sole reason that we don't want to believe in God, it appears totally ridiculous.

What has ease of swallowing got to do with truth? It is easier to swallow that a big magic man did it than come up with an explanation which works without the entirely inexplicable. Evolution is not a force or directed or directional any more than is erosion. If you don't understand how it works don't worry, a lot of the people who believe it is operating don't understand it either. It does not require your understanding in order to work.
Do you ever use your scepticism on your religious dogma?

Actually, yes. I tried evolutionism, and several religions. I was forced by my reason to accept the concept of God, and I came to see the truth of creation. Eventually I settled into a faith, based on God's revelation. I'm constantly questioning. Unlike many cults, under which I include evolution, who never truly look at an opposing view, creation is a wide tent.
As a religion, evolution has concept if you can't beat them ban them, and therefore little is known of the evidences for creation.

You're a joke.
Forced by reason to accept God? Like all those tens of millions of Indians and Chinese who study biology and go out and become creationists because it's the only way to make sense of the evidence. No. They don't. At all. Not even a few dozen. Only people who want to believe in the Abrahamic god are ever sucked into intelligent design or creationism.

Why is Christianity given as the alternative to theocracy? Muslims are not going to convert to Christianity. The answer is secularism, stop the unjustified fawning to religious beliefs and customs. Polygamy, subjugation of women, stifling of free expression and so on are not British values and so we should be able to say that British people do not value them and do not wish to tolerate them still less celebrate them.
It is not racist to have and support your own cultural values.

Well, yes it's really easy to make fun of stupid religion. but the fact is, what your Jesus and Buddha teach you are generally good lessons. the basics. it was understood by Jewish authorities by something like the 12th century that the scriptures were largely allegorical, not literal. So you have fundamentalist groups in America totally distorting the true philosophies of religions by taking them as literal truth. Attacking atheists I must say are just douches though.

If it is a good moral lesson, and recognizably so, why the need for magic, myth, miracles, eternal rewards and hellish eternal punishments? Why not just give sound advice and argue rationally? Since when does good sound advice need magic tricks to accompany it or justify it? If somebody gives sound advice I will listen to it, without any need to be told I will be tortured if I don't.

Ok, but your vision of religion is like many peoples' distorted view of history. Violence is an easily propagated story as in the few times a church leader was responsible for it. The thing is, morals, as we know them, aren't backed by science or University studies. People know that putting porn on TV is a bad idea and furthermore you would not let your child watch it. If you look at early roman culture, anything like that went, until constantine stepped in.

Of course my view of religion is distorted. It doesn't agree with yours, does it? QED.
Constantine banned porn on TV. You learn something new every day. Sometimes it's even true. But not today. It may take centuries to undo all the damage to the study of history inflicted by Christians painting pagan people as savages and Christians as inventing civilization and morality. Morality works better without religion and societies work better when not based upon transparent superstitious lies.

Ok, so only being able to writ 500 characters on a response made me condense my point so it looks like i said something strange about constantine and porn lol. but seriously you didn't get my point. Take for example that many people believe that the church has often been in opposition with science. well, Ivan pavlov went to parochial school where he discovered his love for science, not a university of the state. Mendel, father of genetics, was a monk essentially.

These days people can be research scientists without being monks. That's progress. There are even some universities which don't refuse entry to atheists, how about that, political correctness gone mad eh?

Dude seriously, you became a monk a lot of times because it was advantageous.The church was the centerpiece of European culture for a long time. the church kept records of deaths, birth, weather, pretty much everything in a township. The reason for this is that it was an easily propagated and sustainable institution. This is uneducated America attacking fundamentalist America...yuck. Honestly, you just have a very liberal activist mindset or something.

The Church was the only way to get to study. Fortunately these days brilliant research biologists like Darwin don't have to get Masters degrees in divinity before they are taken seriously, or become a monk.
I don't agree with your conclusions, that does not make me uneducated. Studying history exposes you to centuries of deliberate and unconscious Christian bias.
I am not American, I find this use of the word liberal as if it was understood to be an insult quite strange.

*sigh* The "Galileo Affair"...Many have been taught by bbc and pbs programs on tv that the church was behind Galileo's suppression for doctrinal reasons. But if one were to really read into his original writings, not necessarily history books for young undergraduates because they are written for profit and over simplified, one would find that Galileo himself put religion first. He knew his ideas didn't conflict with the bible and so did those church leaders. Christian bias? Obviously not.

Who mentioned Galileo? He is only one among thousands who had their studies stifled because the church didn't like what they were doing. For centuries universities were run by the established religion of the state and if you did not toe the doctrinal line you didn't get through the door. When heresy gets people killed self-censorship stops scientists and scholars being quoted as asking awkward questions or offering alternative theories.
Religion stifles free enquiry and intellectual honesty.

Again only 500 characters...From mendel...Most people are under the impression that Medieval Europe went through a "Dark Age" broken by an age of "enlightenment." That's ridiculous. For most of its history monasteries were on the forefront of scientific education. The enlightenment was a time period with old philosophies regurgitated anew. The fact is, christianity HAS modeled much of western culture. Go to college, take some history courses and preliminary sciences.

There was an advanced civilization based on Rome. It lasted a thousand years. Then along came Christianity. Within a single human lifetime that civilization came crashing down and Europe spent a thousand years on its knees, burning books and chanting. What science did the monasteries and universities produce in that period? Some improvements in brewing perhaps, devoid of sound theory to explain why they worked. Christendom was overtaken by the Arabs, how embarrassing is that?

Ok you just prove my point or you're just messing with me. You have no idea what happened historically do you? Like i said, take some real history courses or something. Quite a bit of data that the churches and monasteries collected in the "Dark Ages" are used today to understand climate change. Did you miss the part about the Father of Genetics being a priest?! Rome came crashing down on its own accord (political discord), Constantine is considered one of its great rulers..nothing lasts forever

So in a thousand years monks wrote diaries which were useful, that makes religion good does it? What about all the harm done by keeping all reading, writing and studying under the control of the Church? Many great scientists were Christians and even priests for the same reason that American golfers in the thirties were all white Anglo Saxon Protestants: nobody else got a chance to play.

Have you got no sense of humour at all? Language is shot through with references to religious beliefs. Do you really think that anybody who uses the phrase "sure as hell" can't think of anything more likely than hell? Most atheists become aware of these phrases but stopping using them is not easy, God knows I've tried. ;-)

Then the atheists need to have their own language. LOL. Poor guys. you dont even have words to express your thoughts.
You offspring of Pharoah (ramses) Go and see your grand grand father lying in a museum in Cairo. Who preserved him in deep waters when he was drowned?
How did Mohammad know 1400 yrs ago that his body is preserved as a lesson for later generations. As narrated in Quran, his body was found in 1898. ALLAH tells him "Today your body will be preserved as a lesson for later people"

A Pharaoh's body preserved? Wow. Who could imagine that? Anybody who could imagine the body of a Pharoah being preserved must be a man in touch with supernatural forces. Who ever heard of such a thing?

Those who seek the truth, GOD leads them to THE TRUTH. See Quran Chapter 10 verse 92. And dont behave like the christian missionaries, because you can find other verses in Quran also which proves that Pharaoh was drowned and killed. So stop proving that he was not drowned. Reaf Quran 28:40, 17:103, and 43:55

There are no Pharaohs named in any Abrahamic scriptures despite other kings and gods getting named throughout. Three passages suggest an unnamed Pharaoh was drowned, one ( 10:90-92) suggests he was saved- or perhaps his body saved. Not a single shred of real physical evidence suggests that the larger story (mass captivity and flight from Egypt) is true and no date reference is given. That leaves a lot of mummies, any one of which can be declared to be the Pharaoh in question.

Please explain how the BNP are racist.

The BNP have racist membership criteria, you cannot be a member of the BNP if you are black - they're racist. Because they are racist they are anathema to all the major political parties, there is zero prospect of any kind of a coalition including the BNP. To have power they would need to win an outright majority of all seats. They have yet to win one. They never will succeed whilst racist.

This message about Islam has to go mainstream and it must stand clear of racism. Islam is not a race.

There are hundreds of organisations pushing for ethnic minorities that you cannot join. The BNP are pushing for the natives of these Islands, but not at the cost of anyone else except illegals, muslim terrorists, and asylum seekers, and those that seek to change our way of life. That does not make the BNP racist.

I can't join any organizations that help ethnic minorities? Name one.
The BNP is a political party which excludes people from membership on the basis of their race. That is why people call it a racist party. Are there any words in those two sentences that are too long or complicated for you?

The black police officers association, the muslim council of Britainm, the black lawyers association, operation black vote, sikh police officers association there are hundreds ot ethnic only organisations.
Under the UN charter everybody has the right to belong to their own ethnic group and associate without fear of persecution.
I suppose you support the tibetans, yet you don't support the indigenous population to the right of their own homeland.

I don't support either totalitarian regime that is struggling over Tibet, either the communists or the feudal religious autocrat.
I have never claimed that the BNP is an illegal organization, or should be, just that it is a racist organization that should be treated accordingly. No major political party would ally with the BNP, not even UKIP.

First century Jews could accurately describe a crucifixion. I wonder how they managed to do that? It would require watching one. Even in their own story there were three going on at once. "You're about to write the big death scene aren't you? Come along it's going to be a triple header today, should be good for some gory details."

Crucifixion was a part of ROMAN death penalty.

Yes. And Jews came to watch them. An accurate description of a crucifixion implies that the author has watched a crucifixion. Any crucifixion. Are you really this stupid? You don't need to have had sex with a spy to write a sex scene involving a spy, you just have to know how to have sex or have heard accounts from somebody else who has. Anybody who has seen any man crucified can describe that crucifixion and crayon the name of somebody else over the top of the real victim.

What is your point? Are you really stupid enough to believe that because it can be done, it was? Is this how you view the world, or just the Crucifixion? No need in answering, I know your answer. Which is why your words are null and void-empty.

The gospels describe a crucifixion in what Strobel says is great medical accuracy. The gospel authors had seen at least one man crucified. What does that prove? Come on and use your brains. It proves nothing more than these were people who lived in a time in which Romans crucified people. We all knew that already. It proves NOTHING about Jesus. It is not evidence about Jesus at all. It might have been if he was the only man ever to be crucified, but the Romans killed thousands in similar ways.

And I made any other claim, when? That's right. I didn't. You're ridiculous.

Strobel made the claim, he implied that an accurate description of a crucifixion is proof that Jesus was killed by crucifixion when it is no such thing, it is proof that the author understood the process of crucifixion or put in details recounted by somebody else who did. I didn't mention any claims that you had made.

No means, motive or opportunity for taking his body? That does not make sense. He was either a criminal, in which case his body would be tossed away or it would be released into the custody of the family. It makes no sense for the Romans to put the body in a respectable tomb and pay for it to be guarded. Against what? If they were worried about what might happen to the body they would have chopped it up or burned it, not laid it out in a guarded tomb, that is preposterous.

I'd just like to point out that Jesus' body was given. It was His disciple that put Him in a respectable tomb, not the Romans. He asked for permission and it was granted to Him. They cleaned and dressed His body then put Him in His tomb. I'm not exactly sure why you believe it was the Romans that did this, unless you have not read the Bible and are making your claims based on what you "think" you know.
Pilate set guards, because the chief priests and Pharisees came to him and told him that they remembered Jesus saying "After three days I will rise". Pilate appeased them and set guards to make sure His disciples wouldn't come and steal His body to make it appear as if He had risen.
Joseph of Arimathea, a disciple of Jesus was given permission to bury Jesus in his tomb.
Pilate was not going to release Jesus' body to the family, and didn't. Only when Pilate was asked, by Joseph, and determined that Jesus was dead did he release it to Joseph. Everything you have claimed is not an accurate depiction of the Gospel. Your argument is based on your misconceptions. Without your misconceptions, your argument has no ground to stand on.

I will not engage in debate about what is reasonable and credible with people who believe that the Bible is a reliable historical document, that the virgin birth is authentic and the flood is a historical event. You don't need evidence, you have faith and a series of worthless, biased and contradictory accounts.

You have no argument. That is why you will not debate with blah blah blah. I was not looking for a debate. I don't feel it is neccessary. I pointed out your erroneous misconceptions of what the Bible says. And I proved that your argument cannot stand without your misconceptions. You failed and you still fail.

You believe the Bible, even when it contradicts itself, that's two (or three or four) truths for the price of one. I don't. What the Bible says is evidence of what the Bible says. That is the sum total of its value. There are contradictory accounts in the gospels, at the very least some of the gospels are telling lies some of the time. Those with open minds can see this and therefore do not regard the gospels as reliable accounts. Conflicting accounts of incredible events are not impressive.

You are completely wrong. Conflicting accounts of incredible events are proof that said event took place. Perceptions always differ to some degree. If you and I were walking along the beach and witness a crime, our event would be the same, but our perceptions would conflict. The police come and I tell them that it happened at 12:05 and there were 5 men accosting a woman. You tell them that it happened at 12:09 and there 4 assailants.

Who first saw Jesus resurrected? How many animals did Jesus ride on into Jerusalem? Why? Where was Jesus seen after the resurrection? Was there anything unusual happening on the afternoon of the crucifixion? (I don't want to lead the witness but does the phrase "end of the world, shattering of the temple and the dead walking the Earth" mean anything to you?) Why was Mary ever surprised at anything her magical virgin-born son did? Did she forget?

As I said, differing perceptions of the same event. Mary witnessed the physical existence of her son. Knowing or believing Jesus is the son of God does not make it impossible to be shocked by miracles. Jesus was humble and didn't arrogantly flaunt His abilities. Jesus could have easily taken over the world (by the powers of God). If He did flaunt, His abilities would have been less surprising.

Mary appears constantly shocked that her son is not just an ordinary carpenter.
If you met somebody who walked on water, healed the sick and raised the dead and pulled coins out of fish would you think he was shy, undemonstrative and hiding his light under a bushel or would you consider him a bit of a flash git even by the standards of David Blaine?
Of course there were no miracles witnessed by people who did not follow him and no contemporary chroniclers noted his life at all.

The Bible does not claim that Jesus was a carpenter. Only a few saw Him walk on water (Mary not included). Mary was not present for each individual miracle. To assert that she was, makes you appear deceitful. There were miracles witnessed by people who did not follow Him. The miracles they witnessed, in most cases, were their reasoning for following Him. The events surrounding His death were chronicled, but Jesus as "God" was not the center-piece.

I said that Mary constantly appeared shocked by her son, that he was not ordinary. At no point in any Gospel does Mary give any hint of expecting her son to be able to do magic. Why would a God-visited virgin mother expect her son to be normal? That was not implying that she followed him around everywhere. The gospels claim other people witnessed miracles but they are not recorded by anybody else, that's not evidence, that is an unsupported assertion.

Jesus didn't do magic. Mary never expected Him to be normal. But she didn't have a clue what He could or couldn't do. Jesus' purpose and powers were never explained to her beforehand. There are Jewish documents that recorded some of His miracles, but they themselves were trying to deny they took place. They also accused Him of sorcery, as you do.

The Jewish stories about Jesus pooh-poohing his magic powers date from two centuries after the creation of the myth. They are in response to the myth not in response to historical events, they are evidence of the existence of the myth, which has never been in dispute. They are not evidence of the man or of miracles.
Why wouldn't Mary ever say "Well what do you expect of the son of God, huh?" or anything of the sort, every peculiarly mythic action of Jesus was a shock to her. Why?

Miracles are shocking. No matter who you are, or who you know. Magic is is not miracles. Magic can be explained and taught. Magic would not be as shocking as unexplainable miracles. The date of a document is not a discerner of it's credibility. The Jewish scribes kept maticulous records, even though they did not want Jesus' miracles to exist.

Why would the feeding of four thousand (men, women don't count) be a shock to disciples who had witnessed the feeding of five thousand? When you've seen a magic trick done why would you be amazed to see the same trick done a few days later? Use your brain. Open that Bible at page one. See how far you have to read before you come across anybody who goes to heaven or even thinks that death can be survived. You're too smart for this nonsense.

Use your brain. Magic can be explained. Unexplained miracles are not the same and do not have the same value, or response.

Take the challenge. Start at Genesis 1 today and read the Bible, as literature, page by page, as a book written by people with human motives. Email me when you come across somebody who expects to go to heaven when he dies. Elijah doesn't die, neither does Enoch, but that's probably just an oversight.

I have read it. I found absolute truth in it. The Bible doesn't claim anyone goes to heaven when they die. If this were so, there would be no logical reason for the dead rising at the second coming. You continue to run in circles as you have from the start. You attempt to accomplish something by making claims the Bible doesn't. But you will accomplish nothing but keeping yourself in the ignorance you create.

Take the challenge. Read the Bible, Genesis 1, page by page. Tell me when you read about somebody who expects to live on after death. Just read it. I am serious. Read it with an open mind and see for yourself. God talks to people who have no concept of a life after death at all. For hundreds and hundreds of pages, dozens of generations of begatting, death is the end and God says nothing to the contrary. Just read your Bible and let it disprove its own claims.

God talks to people with all sorts of concepts of life, death, and afterlife. Keep reading it with your closed mind and you'll keep coming up with the same deceptions. I read the Bible and it proves every claim.
Genesis - Adam and Eve had no concept of life after death. They were eternal.

Adam, whose name means man, apparently died, not when he ate the fruit that God told him not to eat lest he die, at the age of 930. If you regard that story as historical you really should not be trusted with sharp pencils let alone the education of children.

The SIN of man is the bearer of death and suffering. This is exactly what God told them. They sinned. Their flesh died. They were created eternal. Once again, your deception fools no one but yourself.

Death can easily be understood without requiring any supernatural or mythical explanations. The body has limited powers to regenerate. When the system is overloaded by damage the organism dies. Your alternative explanation adds nothing to our understanding. Sin is a concept which simply gets in the way wherever it is introduced and does harm to our understanding. You insult me and think you have not sinned because the all powerful imaginary god is not damaged by your action. How could he be?

My sin is pointing out your deception? Hahahahaha! That's hilarious! But you still bore me so much. You fool only yourself. I am finished proving your deception to you. I am done repeating myself over and over and over again. And I am really going to feel obligated to say sorry to someone that stereotypes and discriminates against a COLOR, because he's homo and little girl phobic???!!! Hahahaha! Yeah, right.

You're a woman, aren't you? That is obvious because of the choice of colour scheme on your channel. If women and gays use pink to symbolize women and gays then that colour is thereby claimed by women and gays and naturally straight men feel alienated by that colour. Why should this be surprising? I assume you would not feel comfortable wearing a headscarf decorated with crescent moons and stars for similar reasons. When symbols have meaning people notice. Pink is a symbol of the feminine.

No, Jesus doesn't do magic, the Pharaoh's magicians can do magic such as turning sticks into snakes but the righteous perform miracles. Can you explain the difference between miracles and magic? Is this like the difference between ethnically cleansing the Holy Land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites and Moabites and unprovoked genocidal war?

Does this make the event untrue? Does our differing perceptions make the testament of the event false? Of course not. The event took place, and we both know that what we saw was true. But our details of the event are not perfectly insync.
Conflicting accounts of actual events are a part of human history. And if the Bible was "not true", why wouldn't those evil men that concocted the Bible make the accounts of the event differ? Why wouldn't they make them perfectly insync in every single detail? You have shown that you have not read the Bible and researched it for yourself. You do not wish to. You simply reject without "proof" of your rejection.
Why *would* those evil men that concocted the Bible make the accounts of the event differ?

I have read every single word and studied it in a wider context too. What I have not done is asked to be told what to believe before I started to read it.
Looking upon the gospels as factual accounts and eye-witness testimony is as absurd as looking upon a goblet of red wine in a church as being the blood of a Jewish zombie. A gospel is no more meant to be a 100% factual narrative medium devoid of symbolism than a Tammy Wynette song is.

I have not been told what to believe before I started reading it either. And I have found absolute truth in it. We both perceive the same event differently. I know the explanation for this, but do not wish to divulge. I do not wish to waste my time.
You say you have read every single word. I do not want to call you a liar, but I do not believe you. When you misrepresent what the gospels actually say, you prove one of two things: that you have not read, or you have read it and purposefully misrepresent what it says to justify your rejection of it and others'.

I have read every single word. If you don't believe me that's fine. I can hardly fault you for scepticism but why is it easier to believe the Bible than it is to believe that a man has read it? Reading the Bible took a few weeks and involved a skill I have been practising for forty years. Believing the Bible requires one to accept magic, souls, afterlife, a divine despot with human character flaws, a special status for Jews, talking snakes, virgin birth, prophesy, bringing the dead to life etc.

You are not believable because you made the claim that the Romans buried him and asked the question, "why would they pay for guards". It is obvious that you have not read it, or you would not have these questions and misconceptions. You do not have to believe the Bible to accurately state it's claims. You did not do this.

It's a big book, have you ever read a big book and digested every nuance on first reading? I do not care about the Bible's claims in fine detail. What matters is whether it is history or deliberate myth.
Why would Romans do such a thing with an executed criminal? It makes sense as myth, writing the Romans in a favourable light just like Jeremiah kissing of Nebuchadnezzar's arse. But it is not proof of Roman witness to resurrection.

Why would Romans do what such thing? Why would Pilate have compassion? Why would he appease? Why would he GOVERN?
Your words are deception. I find it almost impossible to believe you have read the Bible, when you continue to distort ITS claims. Genuine inquiry is one thing, lying (even to yourself) is another.

If the "scribes and Pharisees" or whatever you want to call them were worried about Jesus' body being stolen why didn't they guard his body at their own expense?
Why do you have so much credulity when it comes to the myths of a foreign tribe and yet doubt that a man can have read a book? What would I gain by lying about reading it? I have four copies within arm's reach of my desk and I can search the entire contents of multiple translations without even stretching that far.

You ask questions and make claims that the Bible does not make and you prescribe them to the Bible. You are a liar, when you say you have read it; or you are a deceiver, making claims it never does.
The scribes and Pharisees were not the governing power. Pilate was. The Romans were. These questions are easily answered in the book you claim to have within reach. The blind do not see.

I “claim” to have read the Bible and to have several copies to hand and she thinks I'm lying. Amazing. The power of cognitive dissonance!

Btw: You can believe in 60 billion talking apes, but you'll be called crazy if you believe in 1 talking snake. But that's besides the point. It was not a "talking" snake. Look up the Hebrew word "nachash".

nachash means serpent. Where are you going with that? Are you suggesting it wasn't a talking snake but a telepathic snake instead. With legs. Right. So much more credible. God pulls the legs off this snake and commands all snakes to crawl on their belly because of what it said. Moral of the story: tell the truth about God's words and God will rip your legs off.
The thing about talking apes is I know they're real. I've even made two myself.

Nachash doesn't just mean serpent. Like most Hebrew words it has several different meanings. It means "whisperer", "deceiver".

Right! An Atheist/evolutionist scoffing at a snake with legs. You're a real genius.

Satan did not tell the truth. Satan lied telling them if they ate of it, they'd be like gods.

Sorry. Satan? Where did he come into it? It was a snake. If it was Satan then punishing snakes would be even more unjust than punishing you for Eve's sin or rounding up all skiers and charging them with rape because one rapist once wore a ski mask. Nachash means serpent, the other meanings developed later after the invention of the Satan hypothesis. The Hebrew people had no concept of a lesser evil god until after they spent time in Babylon and had become Jews.

If you don't want to call me a liar an apology would be appreciated. Don't pray for forgiveness it wasn't God that you have wronged but me.

I have not wronged you. You wrong yourself. You are a deceiver.

You have called me a liar. You said I lied when I told you that I have read the Bible. I read the whole Bible and still people say I haven't. I am too honest to be a Christian, I can't handle that amount of lying to myself. That is why I am not a Christian. I am too moral to lie to myself.
In what way is calling me a liar not wronging me? Your religious beliefs do not justify or excuse criminal libel against me. Praying for forgiveness does not cut it, I seek an apology from you.

I didn't call you liar. I said that I was having a hard time believing that you read the Bible, then gave my reasoning for it. You have continued to ignore my reasoning and have focused on the word "liar". After explaining my reasoning, I stated that if you were not lying, you were deceiving by prescribing claims to the Bible that it never makes. That is not wronging you. You wrong yourself when you make claims that are not true. I am sorry that you are so confused. Criminal?! Haha!

TWO OPTIONS! Say it isn't so!
You are a liar, when you say you have read it; OR you are a DECEIVER, MAKING CLAIMS IT NEVER DOES.

No. You have ignored an option (and probably many others too), that I am telling the truth and you would not recognize the truth if it bit you on the arse because of your need to believe Hebrew myths as history, something that even the authors of those myths did not intend.

This sounds like "waaaah" to me. It sounds like a big baby that has had his feelings hurt by an evil Christian accoster! Please get over yourself. When you do, email me and apologize for deceiving. I recognize the truth. The truth was one of two things, as I have REPEATEDLY made clear; either you were lying about reading the Bible, or you have read it and you purposefully misrepresent it.

You have called me a liar. I am asking for you to apologize for calling me a liar. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Remember that bit? It was in one of the sets of ten commandments. You have made a false and libellous accusation against me. I have not deceived you about the contents of the Bible at all. You have misunderstood my argument, which was not about the contents of your Bible. Your inability to understand is not my problem and it does not excuse libel.

I did not call you a liar. You are bearing false witness, but you're okay with that. Your obsession with the word "liar" is very telling. You DID attribute claims to the Bible that it does not make. I proved this, but you are blinded by your obsession. And you are a deceiver. You deceive yourself. You are incapable of deceiving me because I have eyes to see and ears to hear. Your words are posted. They won't change just because you want them to. You fail.

I am not OK with any form of lying, not just bearing false witness against my neighbour (fellow Israelite). Please explain what claims I have attributed to the Bible in error. My understanding is that I speculated about more credible scenarios without suggesting that is what the Bible actually said. I have read the Bible, every word, in sequence. It was a painfully dull exercise in the main but it was worth doing the once so I can tell Christians who tell me to read it that I already have.

YOUR WORDS

It makes no sense for the Romans to put the body in a respectable tomb and pay for it be guarded.

If they were worried about what might happen to the body they would have chopped it up or burned it, not laid it out in a guarded tomb, that is preposterous.
Mary appears constantly shocked that her son is not just an ordinary carpenter.

Yes, my words. I did not say that this is what the Bible said. I expressed my opinion. There was no attempt at deception and you were not deceived. You have called me a liar and deceiver for telling the truth and for offering my opinion which deceived nobody. Telling the truth and offering opinions is neither lying nor deception. You have called me a liar and a deceiver, that is rude, libellous and immoral. It is also factually incorrect and typically Christian.

I'll post it one more time, just to satisfy your need to be called a liar with no other alternatives.
I do not want to call you a liar, but I do not believe you. When you misrepresent what the gospels actually say, you prove one of TWO things: that you have not read, OR you have read it and purposefully misrepresent what it says to justify your rejection of it and others'.

I want you to apologize for calling me a liar. For libelling me. Is that too hard to understand? You have libelled me. I want you to apologize to me for the attack on my personal integrity. I have stated the truth and you have called me a liar. That is wrong, it is false, you have been malicious and you have not apologized. Your religious beliefs do not entitle you to libel me with impunity.
Apologize to me for calling me a liar. How hard is that to do? Do I have to quote the Bible at you?

I want you to apologize for prescribing claims to the Bible that it never makes. Is that so hard for you? I will not apologize for calling you a liar, because I did no such thing. I will not apologize for concluding that you are a deceiver, because it is truth. I will not willingly lie and say that you are not a deceiver. And I will not willingly lie and say that I called you a liar.

I have every right to give my opinions on the Bible, even stupid and inaccurate opinions if I choose to. I have no need to apologize for that. Non-believers cannot meaningfully be described as blasphemers. Blasphemy is a victimless crime. I have not attributed ideas to the Bible that are not there I have questioned the sense of some crucifixion myths in terms which make it clear that I do not regard the gospels as accurate, complete or intentionally historically accurate.

You have every right to blah blah blah. I have every right to call you a liar, but I didn't. And you have ridiculously labeled this untruth as criminal. You DID makes claims that Bible does not and attributed them to the Bible. This is the initial and only reason I posted a response to your post at the start. You claimed the Romans buried Jesus and you couldn't figure out why they would do such a thing. Frist I believed it to be ignorance then deception.

Believing the Bible has nothing to do with accurately stating its claims.

I have not misrepresented the Bible's claims. If you have misunderstood the nature of my critique I have no need to apologize for your failure in comprehension. An old book does not have feelings. I do. You have called me a liar, you have suggested that I have lied to you when I told you that I have read the whole Bible. Your old book does not require any defence, books don't have honour or feelings. People matter more than a book.

The Romans didn't bury Him. The Romans didn't put His body in a respectable tomb. The Romans did not lay it out in a guarded tomb. The Bible does not claim Jesus was a carpenter, but the son of a carpenter.

Your deception is laid bare. As I said from the very beginning; if you have read the Bible, you PURPOSEFULLY misrepresent it to justify your rejection. You misrepresent it so that your posing of preposterousness will seem viable when it is not.

Ask most Christians what Jesus did for a living and they would answer that he was a carpenter. I don't actually care. My point was that his mother was always surprised when he did anything out of the ordinary, it was as if she had forgotten that he was the son of God. You show no curiosity as to why that is so, because you don't like such thoughts, they scare you.
Why should I believe the myths of the Hebrews? I am not a Hebrew. Are you?

Jesus was clearly dead. Just look at the mountain of evidence.
What mountain, you say? Well, some would call it a mole hill.

Maybe faith moved that mountain of evidence. It would be the first mountain faith ever moved. I've been asking for the religious to give me the map references for these faith-moved mountains but they remain silent. Well, actually they don't, but they change the subject.

Or they point to thin air and wonder why you can't see the large pile of dirt that their imagination conjures up.
Brainwashing from a young age does this

True. Very few intelligent and educated people become Christians these days unless they had a childhood history of indoctrination, a mental breakdown of some kind or they convert to get approval to marry or to earn their prickly and distant spouse's approval (like Strobel). Most Christians are raised as Christians and any conversions are limited to the level of one flavour of Christian to another.

He asks why the sudden explosion of the christian church. Christianity exploded from the christian crusades that wiped out over half of the european population. Christianity was spread at the end of a sword. Death and misery still radiate from that sword. The mass slaughter of a million people in Iraq was justified by christian warmongers saying Iraq is the site of ancient Babylon and claiming it was the wrath of god. Stop the bloodthirsty power hungry christians before they destroy the earth.

Islamic propaganda. Islam expanded by military might and was driven back by Christian military might. Now Islam spreads by breeding excessively and by repression and intolerance. Muhammad learned from the example of Christianity how a religion and an empire reinforce each other to mutual benefit and so he created an imperialist and expansionist religion. Muslims cry foul when they lose holy wars and praise God when they win them. Religion is organized hypocrisy.

The God of the bible and all prophets is YHWH and noone else! And Jesus is his Son.
the bible do talk about the
FALSE prophet to come and misslead many people = Muhammed.
Why is it funni? I think its terrible :/ And I would get worried if I was muslim, what you guys really believe in...

Why didn't the Bible say how the false prophet could be recognized? I have lost count of the number of people who have been positively identified as the prophesied Antichrist.

It does. The one who DENIES the SON Jesus. Which islam does.
Islam says it is has the same God as the bible,
"allah" is the total opposite, Satan.

The one? I think you will find that there are hundreds of thousands of Jews who denied that Jesus was God's son. Muhammad was not by any means alone in denying that Jesus was the son of God.
The total opposite of God is one who would not want worship and would not judge people, one who was nowhere at once, had no power at all, had no will, no plans and was jealous of nobody. No, Allah seems very similar to Yahweh as far as I can see: bloodthirsty, jealous, aggressive and misogynist.

Nonsense. Allah means god, it is the same deliberate confusion of name, rank and title as God. The Muslim god is clearly the Christian god stolen and repackaged to give a special role to the prophet and warlord Muhammad. Islam takes the Christian apocalyptic vision of hell along with a second coming for Jesus (Isa) but ditches the additions that came from the civilized world of Rome, such as monogamy and treating women as people.

QURAN is only one RELIGIOUS BOOK which is in original state...

hehehe, so it was shit from the start then? :-)

The original state was ideas in the mind of an illiterate man, it was passed down orally then written down after comparing rival recollections of Muslim companions of the self-proclaimed prophet. Much of the Qur'an shows clear signs of being copied from Christian and Jewish writings. Only prophets who can write can produce scriptures that cannot change, an all-knowing god would know this.

Martin, Somehow, I can't understand what you are writing. Maybe it's my English or maybe because aperisions removed his comments. Are you attacking Christianity and/or Islam or are you attacking God? It seems to me you accept God but you don't accept any of the religions. Please clarify

I am an atheist. I find religions and the religious are dangerous. They certainly are dangerous to atheists. Islamic orthodoxy seems to be incapable of understanding that people can not believe a word of it and yet be far more moral than most of the religious.
Mankind needs protecting from religion.

Martin, It's kind of funny because I never thought I will talk to an atheist before. I always thought I will talk to Christian fanatics who reached a conclusion about Islam and are looking for the reasons for such conclusion other than hate. Yes, I'm 35 years old and you are my first atheist. Anyways, I think you believe there is a God, you just don't believe in religions. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I can, with God's Will (Insha' Allah) any of your doubts about Islam.

Salams szaghloul2009,

There are lots of Atheists, Agnostics and ex-Muslims at the Council of ex-muslims forum I link to in the info side bar - why not go there and tell them you can (with God's help) answer any of their doubts.

Should be very interesting.

I do not believe in any gods. I do not believe that the universe was created by an intelligent entity which is concerned with my behaviour. I do not believe that heaven and hell are meaningful or that there is any possible mechanism for an afterlife. I believe I am my body not something living inside my body. I have no desire to believe absurdities or to belong to any religion or to submit to any tyrant. I see Islam as the greatest threat to humanity of all. I hope this clears things up for you.

Please remember that bible you are reading now is a translation of a translation. It is translated of Greek which was translated of Aramaic. Many meaning can be lost or altered in only 1 translation.

In addition to the fact that it was written more 300 years after Jesus, and of course the different versions available in the market which change from one another. Can you be 100% sure which one the true one? The revised version, King James, International, American, which one is the Book of God?

None of them. Why would a god write a book when he could simply make people understand in the same way he could make light and stuff with just a word? If there is a god and he wants us to understand we would understand. To say otherwise is to insult him.

6:149 Say: "With Allah is the argument that reaches home: if it had been His will, He could indeed have guided you all."

Which means Allah doesn't want everybody to believe, presumably because he really is the psychotic murderer he appears to be and he relishes the idea of torturing those who he knows all along will never believe his incredible stories.
The only excuse for such deliberate cruelty and crimes against humanity is the ultimate alibi: he isn't there.

It's not cruelty, he is the Merciful. God can not be cruel. However, it's only Humans and Jin who can choose whether to choose to accept God as their Creator and worship him and consequently, we pay for our choices. The rest of the creature don't have this choice.

And why you only look at the punishment, why don't you look also at the reward, the least of the people in Heaven will have a kingdom twice as big as this world. There will be no pain, no hate, just peace for eternity.

"Allah is merciful" is a hollow chant. As hollow as Islam is Peace. It is contradicted by the evidence. Of course a god can be cruel. He does not need to punish anybody, he could forgive and could love everybody or he could simply painlessly destroy people or make them good and wholesome. But your religion has invented a cruel god, actually stolen the Christian god and re-imagined him a bit nastier. Why should I only look at punishment? Because that is what your religion is threatening me with.

"he could forgive and could love everybody or he could simply painlessly destroy people or make them good and wholesome." Wow hallow chant followed by a hollower chant?! He could do all that but in midst of that we can throw justice and retribution out the window. A simple thing would be for you to start believing.

Justice is a human invention. Why do people who claim to be believers say that a murderer who kills himself before being captured has cheated justice? Surely nothing is as sure as Hell. And yet, obviously this is not the way people actually think. They know inside that death is the end, that is clear from the way they behave. A true believer would celebrate the death of the righteous and mourn the death (and imminent torture) of the unrighteous. Only a tiny handful of believers act in that way.

500 Characters page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6

Atheism \| Politics \| Memes \| Mind \| Matters \| Interact \| Feedback \| Email \| Links \| Search \| Forum \| Home
© 1999 - 2010 by Martin Willett.	mwillett.org: Debate Unlimited