by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .143144145146147148149. . .515516»

Knights of shame wrote:The end of religion could help the Middle East a lot

The Middle Eastern conflicts are largely ethnic conflicts.

How would we pursue an embassy with The Alliance of Catholic Nations?

Pale Horse claims we did not want an embassy with them. Which is weird. Our policy is to have embassies with Catholic regions.

Catholic submitted an official apology to our Curia today, stating that the individual nation (Oire) who spewed discriminatory slurs against the Irish nationality, did not act on behalf of the region or on behalf of the government. Of course we accepted the apology and are now looking to further and strengthen ties between our regions.
Ha! Is this true?
I'm a Paddy too.

Knights of shame

Christian Democrats wrote:The Middle Eastern conflicts are largely ethnic conflicts.

Yeah, because Jews and Muslims are mostly a single ethnic group. v_v

Knights of shame

Segway into a new topic of interest.

As an atheist, I hear a particular statement a lot. That statement is a quote of Psalm 14:1, "The fool has said in his heart that their is no God."

David Smalley is the radio host for the atheist radio show, "Dogma Debate." Around October 2013, he learned that senior citizens in a low income area in Texas had suffered due to the government shutdown. The center where they got fed at, sometimes the only meal they ate, was unable to keep getting food for them. When David heard this, he decided to take action. With the help of his listeners, some who are religious, but many who are atheists, he raised enough money so that the center could keep the seniors fed until the end of 2015. That is not a typo, the raised enough money to feed them for an entire year and worked with a church who sold them food at 12 cents per pound. They also provided toiletry items as well.

Bill Gates was once the richest man in the world, with over 60 BILLION dollars. He no longer is, not because he lost it, but because he and his wife donated much of it to charity. They also have a charity of their own that helps to increase literacy. Bill Gates is an atheist.

Pat Tillman had a promising career as a football player. However, in June 2002, in the aftermath of September 11th, he enlisted in the United States military. On April 22, 2004, after several torus, he was killed by friendly fire. Pat Tillman was also an atheist.

These people have done good things by most people's standards, and many atheists continue to do good things. This brings me back the Psalm 14:1, you see, it is incomplete. The whole verse reads: "The whole verse is this: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

So what is my point in all of this? The verse that says someone who does not believe in god are corrupt doers of evil and not one of these people do good things. However this is objectively not the case, unless you wish to argue that everyone believes god exists and is lying about it, in which case, no one could be fools. So this part of the bible seems to be objectively false.

Perhaps saying you are foolish to disbelief in God is likewise, not true. Though I suppose one could argue that fragments of the same verse are true and accurate whereas the other parts (that do not conform to reality) are hyperbole. If one was so inclined.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/bill-gates-reveals-family-goes-to-catholic-church-it-makes-sense-to-believe-in-god-116166/

Cough cough....

Oire wrote:Pale Horse claims we did not want an embassy with them. Which is weird. Our policy is to have embassies with Catholic regions.

Catholic submitted an official apology to our Curia today, stating that the individual nation (Oire) who spewed discriminatory slurs against the Irish nationality, did not act on behalf of the region or on behalf of the government. Of course we accepted the apology and are now looking to further and strengthen ties between our regions.
Ha! Is this true?
I'm a Paddy too.

If it is true, then CD or someone else did it. :P

Also, If they asked for embassies, it's possible I missed it.

I also banned Baby Jesus as he was a troll nation coming to start trouble.

Grand longueville

I may be confused, Shame, but my Bible does not say that for Psalms 14:1.

In any case, you are incorrect in your commentary of that line. As I've said now plenty of times, you ought to research these notions more in depth. Lack of preparation is no way to go about life. As we've stressed before, understanding context is necessary in understanding scripture.

Knights of shame

Fransmany wrote:http://www.christianpost.com/news/bill-gates-reveals-family-goes-to-catholic-church-it-makes-sense-to-believe-in-god-116166/

Cough cough....

His wife is religious and he is not, I could show you another atheist that goes to church for the social aspect of it. He said it makes sense to believe in God, and that religion does good things, not that he is a Christian. You ignored my other two stories. Couldn't find a bit as to why those people are secretly Catholic?

Grand longueville wrote:I may be confused, Shame, but my Bible does not say that for Psalms 14:1.

In any case, you are incorrect in your commentary of that line. As I've said now plenty of times, you ought to research these notions more in depth. Lack of preparation is no way to go about life. As we've stressed before, understanding context is necessary in understanding scripture.

I am not sure which bible you use, so I used one of the catholic bibles I know of and have online access to: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PG6.HTM

Quote: "Fools say in their hearts, 'There is no God.' Their deeds are loathsome and corrupt; not one does what is right." Now if you have a way to explain away the bad parts of the bible, great. I do not understand how you do this, but that is fine, because it eventually leads to explaining away the whole thing. ;) Anyway, I get the first part quoted to me a lot, that fools say in their heart that their is no God. That God is so overtly obvious I do not need to justify why I believe in him, because you are just an angry hateful fool. However, it is overtly obvious that atheists do in fact do good things. I just used 3 examples of this.

This would mean that this passage is wrong when used to call atheists fools.

I would have less of a problem with you and others arguing that parts of the bible are poetic metaphors that aren't true if there was any overt way that we could determine what is and isn't real. Why is a virgin birth real but not Genesis in a literal sense? Why is it OK to be anti-gay if you are catholic while you eat shrimp when both are condemned in the same place? Why are the old laws not valid because of Jesus, except the 10 commandments? Why do people ignore that the time when 10 rules were called the 10 commandments, it ended with not boiling a baby goat in its mother's milk? Because it seems to me the bible is real until it bed es overtly obvious it has to be not real or when we outgrow biblical morality.

Grand longueville

Again, you are very ignorant on how the Bible was written and how it is to be understood. I advise you to stop the dialogue, and instead: research it. Your failure is not conducive to growth. Your ignorance is a disadvantage to you as it shows yourself to be unprepared and thus unprofessional. Perhaps contact a local Catholic priest to learn more.

The passage you quoted is psalm 13 in my Bible. Though, I digress. The passage is not incorrect when you understand the context. You do not understand the context, unsurprisingly. The Psalm was written by David during his persecution under Saul. It was a response to Saul's debauched turn as king, and his illegitimacy. Read it in the context that it was meant to be read.

There is an overt way we can determine that aforementioned context; that way is the Catholic Church. The same Church that established canon likewise guides us on how to follow it.

Again, I stress you to, before answering, to take time to learn what you are talking about, I say this because you have no idea what you are actually arguing against.

Knights of shame

Grand longueville wrote:Again, you are very ignorant on how the Bible was written and how it is to be understood. I advise you to stop the dialogue, and instead: research it. Your failure is not conducive to growth. Your ignorance is a disadvantage to you as it shows yourself to be unprepared and thus unprofessional. Perhaps contact a local Catholic priest to learn more.

The passage you quoted is psalm 13 in my Bible. Though, I digress. The passage is not incorrect when you understand the context. You do not understand the context, unsurprisingly. The Psalm was written by David during his persecution under Saul. It was a response to Saul's debauched turn as king, and his illegitimacy. Read it in the context that it was meant to be read.

There is an overt way we can determine that aforementioned context; that way is the Catholic Church. The same Church that established canon likewise guides us on how to follow it.

Again, I stress you to, before answering, to take time to learn what you are talking about, I say this because you have no idea what you are actually arguing against.

I view the bible as made up for the most part. You view it, in part, as true. The parts that do not make sense or are immoral, have to be explained away somehow. But God is not suppose to be a deceiver, so how can I know what is supposed to be true? Go ask a priest, he will tell you what the church has decided is ttrue and not true, based on....

So you believe saying to an atheist that they are fools for not believing in your God, based on Psalms 14/13, is incorrect then right? Because that was my point. It is incorrect, and a partial quote.

The church accepts as cannon that which does not exist in earlier versions of the Gospels. Just saying. Also, they are a bit biased.

I do. A book of mostly myths and outdated practices and morality that people try to keep relevant. This is why faith is not a virtue, it allows you to believe that which is not backed by evidence. Let me ask you something, if you did not have faith, could you determined that God was the true god?

May I ask what is wrong with thinking someone is foolish? Do not some atheists think that those who believe in God are foolish? Just saying saying or believing someone is foolish does not make it impossible to work together and/or like each other.

Grand longueville

You can know what is and is not true by researching. Something you have not done which is clearly seen from your arguments. You tell me to "go ask a priest" and I have. I live with priests and I take classes on this very subject.

God does not deceive. God has clearly shown us, through history and through Scripture, that the Church is His Church. It is not deceptive and it is not complicated.

I do not believe Psalm 13 is incorrect, based on how it was written.

The Church is not biased. The Church is only in the mission of steering the faithful to Heaven and the well being of people. The Church has proved her worth to me and plenty others. I gladly listen to the Church on issues in which they specialize. The Church accepts into canon that which it has always accepted into canon.

I don't know what you saying "I do" refers to. Please be more clear. If you cannot be knowledgeable on a subject, at least be clear in your ignorance. That much is a courtesy everyone is afforded. To answer your irrelevant question that you tacked on t the end, yes. Yes, I can determine that God is true through logic and reason. I have explained this before.

The nunnish nations

Knights of shame wrote:I view the bible as made up for the most part.

And yet that doesn't stop you from freely quoting (and misquoting) it.

What was it Antonio said in Act I, Scene 3 of The Merchant of Venice?

Knights of shame

Atrus wrote:May I ask what is wrong with thinking someone is foolish? Do not some atheists think that those who believe in God are foolish? Just saying saying or believing someone is foolish does not make it impossible to work together and/or like each other.

It is the way it is said. The verse is quoted often, but the rest of the quote says that none does good, when that is false. So the difference is me saying that you are foolish vs me quoting something I take as authority that says all Catholics are pedophiles because they are Catholic.

Grand longueville wrote:You can know what is and is not true by researching. Something you have not done which is clearly seen from your arguments. You tell me to "go ask a priest" and I have. I live with priests and I take classes on this very subject.

God does not deceive. God has clearly shown us, through history and through Scripture, that the Church is His Church. It is not deceptive and it is not complicated.

I do not believe Psalm 13 is incorrect, based on how it was written.

The Church is not biased. The Church is only in the mission of steering the faithful to Heaven and the well being of people. The Church has proved her worth to me and plenty others. I gladly listen to the Church on issues in which they specialize. The Church accepts into canon that which it has always accepted into canon.

I don't know what you saying "I do" refers to. Please be more clear. If you cannot be knowledgeable on a subject, at least be clear in your ignorance. That much is a courtesy everyone is afforded. To answer your irrelevant question that you tacked on t the end, yes. Yes, I can determine that God is true through logic and reason. I have explained this before.

No I was stating that it is biased to ask a religious leader why their sect is right. Though I have done research, the problem is that that research seems to scream that Jesus is made up. If I say that though, I need to do the "correct" research, which is assume you are correct and ask why you are correct, and accept the answer giving because it is what the church has said.

So I can own slaves right? That's OK. As is believing homosexuals will go to hell, right?

Do you think people who quote it to say atheists are fools, misuse it?

Didn't you say if the church said that killing abortion doctors was good it would be good? Or was that someone else?

I meant I have researched.

OK, could you explain to me why God exists and why Catholicism is correct to me using facts and not faith claims?

The nunnish nations wrote:And yet that doesn't stop you from freely quoting (and misquoting) it.

What was it Antonio said in Act I, Scene 3 of The Merchant of Venice?

Because it is what you believe, and your beliefs effect me and others. And why is it bad to know about a subject you disagree with? Is it not good to have an informed opinion?

Saint Michael The Archangel wrote:If it is true, then CD or someone else did it. :P

Not me.

Knights of shame wrote:Because it is what you believe

I love it when other people try telling me what I believe.

Knights of shame

Christian Democrats wrote:Not me.

I love it when other people try telling me what I believe.

Oh, so you do not believe the bible? Because that is what I am talking about. Now the exact details differ wildly because no one can definitively say which sect is better because the methods used are mostly arbitrary. So I was not saying you believe that particular part of the bible, just that I talk about the bible because it is what the largest religious denomination in my country believes in.

Let me ask this, if some part is deemed metaphor, how do you know any of it is true?

Knights of shame wrote:the methods used are mostly arbitrary

So your interpretations of the Bible are arbitrary?

Knights of shame wrote:Let me ask this, if some part is deemed metaphor, how do you know any of it is true?

In human communication, metaphor is largely unavoidable. Almost all speech contains metaphor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_metaphor

Knights of shame

Christian Democrats wrote:So your interpretations of the Bible are arbitrary?

In human communication, metaphor is largely unavoidable. Almost all speech contains metaphor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_metaphor

I take it for what it says. I do not pretend there is, or could be, a reason why slavery is OK, or that using servant instead of slave changes the context. However, if you are against slavery, you do, because the bible condones slavery. It may not be the same as American slavery, but it even says how hard you can beat your slaves. I don't buy it, and needing to jump through hoops to make it make sense to me doesn't improve thinks.

But a speech days not have my eternal soul on the line and the bible is suppose to not only be the word of God, and not people, but God is suppose to be clear in his intent. Do you know of a reason plain language could not be used by God? Perhaps some great fact of the universe that is obvious could have been used.

Knights of shame wrote: Do you know of a reason plain language could not be used by God? Perhaps some great fact of the universe that is obvious could have been used.

All these things Jesus spoke in parables to the multitudes: and without parables he did not speak to them. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world.

1. God didn't write the Bible.

2. I hardly think you can compare temporary indentured servitude in ancient Israel to the racial slavery from cradle to grave of recent centuries.

Knights of shame

Oire wrote:All these things Jesus spoke in parables to the multitudes: and without parables he did not speak to them. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world.

Why is Jesus hiding his true meaning when he supposedly wants me to go to heaven? Allow me to give an example as to why this does not work. *clears throat* Only the truest of potatoes narwhals, which swim through the ocean, will ever make enough Mountain Dew to bacon the Doritos, so says the console peasants. I just disproved the possibility of any deities existing. Oh you disagree with me? You are just not understanding the true meaning of my words. Go ask an Richard Dawkins as to why God doesn't exist.

Now, have I convinced you of anything besides my horrible on the spot rendition of a bible verse with way too many pop culture references?

Christian Democrats wrote:1. God didn't write the Bible.

2. I hardly think you can compare temporary indentured servitude in ancient Israel to the racial slavery from cradle to grave of recent centuries.

1) OK, so humans wrote the bible, and gave some human metaphors. So then how do you know that they didn't slip in their own beliefs or make changed that were just adopted as truth for simplistically?

2) You refer to the 7 years work right? That was only being applied to male Jews. If you were not Jewish or male, you didn't go free and could be passed on to your master's children. Also, if you were a male Jew and were not married, your master could give you a wife. After your time was up, you, the male Jew, could go free, but your wife and any kids could not, however, you could "choose" to stay with your master (ie, wife and kids) for life. Jesus even said for slaves to obey their masters, more so if their master was Christian.

Biblical citations: Leviticus 25:44-46 BTW, if you read the beginning, this is what God is saying: 44 "Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations. 45 You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels, 46 and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P3B.HTM

Exodus 21:2-11 How to trick your slaves as well as how to treat female slaves 2 When you purchase a Hebrew slave, he is to serve you for six years, but in the seventh year he shall be given his freedom without cost. 3 If he comes into service alone, he shall leave alone; if he comes with a wife, his wife shall leave with him. 4 But if his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall remain the master's property and the man shall leave alone. 5 If, however, the slave declares, 'I am devoted to my master and my wife and children; I will not go free,' 6 his master shall bring him to God and there, at the door or doorpost, he shall pierce his ear with an awl, thus keeping him as his slave forever. 7 "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do. 8 But if her master, who had destined her for himself, dislikes her, he shall let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to a foreigner, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he destines her for his son, he shall treat her like a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife, he shall not withhold her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P22.HTM

Finally, we have Jesus talking about slavery and his purpose. Luke 12:47-57 47 That servant who knew his master's will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely; 48 and the servant who was ignorant of his master's will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more. 49 "I have come to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already blazing! 50 There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished! 51 Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. 52 From now on a household of five will be divided, three against two and two against three; 53 a father will be divided against his son and a son against his father, a mother against her daughter and a daughter against her mother, a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

I feel this song is appropriate: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6l6vqPUM_FE

Knights of shame

Can we stop for a moment to bask in the hilarity that is the creator of the universe declaring that having sex with your wife, after taking another wife, is a duty you must perform?

Grand longueville

"No I was stating that it is biased to ask a religious leader why their sect is right. Though I have done research, the problem is that that research seems to scream that Jesus is made up. If I say that though, I need to do the 'correct' research, which is assume you are correct and ask why you are correct, and accept the answer giving because it is what the church has said."

You have not done research. Autodidactism, I am afraid, disqualifies itself in this case. Pray tell, what are your qualifications? I'll tell you what I see from you. I see someone who is confused and responding emotionally to an intellectual issue. Your intent, as I see it, is to offend while it ought to be to learn. Again, the Church is not biased.

"So I can own slaves right? That's OK. As is believing homosexuals will go to hell, right?"

I don't understand the relevance of this question. Please stay on point. It may be difficult for you to focus but in a mature environment, the same environment we are trying to foster, I must ask you to stay on topic.

"Do you think people who quote it to say atheists are fools, misuse it?"

If they do so without understanding the context, yes. They misuse it because they don't know any better. Much like you with everything you have said thus far.

"Didn't you say if the church said that killing abortion doctors was good it would be good? Or was that someone else?"

Someone else

"I meant I have researched".

Church of Google has another convert. And you clearly haven't even done that right. If you've done your research, why have you been historically in error? You didnt even know the context that Psalm 13 was written, lad. You are embarrassing yourself.

"OK, could you explain to me why God exists and why Catholicism is correct to me using facts and not faith claims?"

I said that I can explain to you using logic and reason. Is this what you meant? If so, then sure; I don't know why I have to if you've done your research. I guess I will gladly do your job for you, sure.

«12. . .143144145146147148149. . .515516»

Advertisement