DescentBB

They are all the same to me. So please, feel free to justify a single one of your imaginary friend's murderous inclinations. Try and use examples that don't include superstition or anything supernatural, since I can't relate to that (consider your audience). Your explanations should be so compelling as to "wake me up" to your blissful reality.

Ok go!

I guess the last time Vision masturbated it was God's fault. God gave him a penis. The last time Vision lied, it was God's fault, God gave him a tongue. You can try and blame God for everyone's faults Vision, but He will use your knowledge against you. He made us powerful, in His image. We have the power to manipulate atom's and their structures and to create new combinations. We have the power to destroy His whole creation. Here's where your argument and lack of understanding stand out. They were all warned.

EDIT: I've come to understand God like this. I see His ability in creation, if I feel a strong desire to do His will, I just do it. If He took the time to explain everything to me, it would take too long, waste time, and I'd forget most of it anyways. So I just do as I feel led in my heart .

EDIT:The only way to test His will is to see if it contradicts His word.

vision wrote:They are all the same to me. So please, feel free to justify a single one of your imaginary friend's murderous inclinations. Try and use examples that don't include superstition or anything supernatural, since I can't relate to that (consider your audience). Your explanations should be so compelling as to "wake me up" to your blissful reality.

Ok go!

And then you won't give a ★■◆●. Every point made behind that link you posted must be either right or wrong, but it doesn't dignify a response when your mind is made up apart from reason (beyond the reach of reason). You are a product of your upbringing--a product of your generation. You're just drinking your own brand of "kool-aid", and you find the arguments on that page convenient to your favored slant on reality. If they're proven wrong they will fall off much like a lizard's tail, to spare the body of your world-view, because they were never truly integral to its survival. Perhaps if your opinion ever matures it will be worth entering into a real discussion with you.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:You are a product of your upbringing--a product of your generation.

I was brought up to be a devout Christian. So devout, I was in the process of joining the priesthood at one time. And I'm much older than you think. My "woldview" is based on reason, and ironically I have the church to thank for it. As I became more serious about giving my life to God I became more about serious asking important questions regarding life and faith. Eventually I saw that everything I had been raised to believe was utter nonsense, though it took well over a decade for me to get comfortable with this brutal revelation.

I know all of your justifications for the cruelty of God. I know how hollow they are. And I also know it's not your fault for thinking this way, and how it's practically impossible for you to think otherwise. You're a product of you upbringing too. We all are.

vision wrote:I know all of your justifications for the cruelty of God. I know how hollow they are. And I also know it's not your fault for thinking this way, and how it's practically impossible for you to think otherwise.

Most everything I hear from you seems to be largely reactionary, and that's what I meant when I said that you were a product of your upbringing, and more importantly a product of your generation. If you come from a church background that includes a priesthood then you can safely drop the "I know"s from your reply regarding me. We hail from two opposite ends of "Christianity". I could probably get thrown out of your old church by quoting the Bible in the right places. More importantly I have grappled with the arguments against God, and found them to be wanting. I'm not afraid of the truth, but it isn't there. The truth is that people don't want God, and so they accept a reality that does not include Him, but in doing so they give up things that are right, and accept things that are not (morally and logically speaking), which are evidences against them in my mind. You obviously can't handle the truth, or you would be willing to stand behind any one of those arguments you linked to, and they wouldn't be "all the same" to you. If scrutiny of your reactionary, Atheistic world-view is tantamount to being religiously brainwashed, then who is it really for whom it is "practically impossible to think otherwise?" Is it so that reason is not foundational enough to your chosen world-view to allow you to use argument as anything but a crudely-handled, high-capacity weapon?

tunnelcat wrote:I guess that's the problem. Religious people think sex should only be for procreation in marriage, which is not usually a normal state of affairs in nature, and others who think that sex can be enjoyed as a pleasurable pastime, which can be found in nature (Bonobo Chimps use sex for pleasure, not just procreation). Typical of most religions, people can't have any sexual pleasure in their lives, only suffering before the eyes of God. Is God that prudish?

Knowledge is a powerful thing TC.

Sex in the Bible is hardly just for procreation. You probably should read the literal translation of the Song of Solomon it's one of those books that if you go to a Christian book store they sell it to you in a plain brown wrapper.

Song of Solomon wrote: Open to me, my sister, my darling,
my dove, my perfect one.
For my head is drenched with dew,
my hair with droplets of the night.
..........
My love thrust his ‘hand’ through the opening, [1]
and my feelings were stirred [2] for him.

yep that seems like it's all about procreation to me

Sergeant Thorne wrote:You obviously can't handle the truth, or you would be willing to stand behind any one of those arguments you linked to, and they wouldn't be "all the same" to you.

You're even funnier than I thought. I'll be sure to use the bible and God's word as my defense when I'm killing my enemies and raping their virgin daughters. God says it Ok!

I can find several instances where God told the Isrealites to do something and they utterly disobeyed. How does that reflect on God? Let me ask you a question Vision. How do you think we should deal with the terrorists of 9/11?

When Gideon took his warriors down to the water, the LORD told him, "Divide the men into two groups. In one group put all those who cup water in their hands and lap it up with their tongues like dogs. In the other group put all those who kneel down and drink with their mouths in the stream."

Only 300 of the men drank from their hands. All the others got down on their knees and drank with their mouths in the stream.

The LORD told Gideon, "With these 300 men I will rescue you and give you victory over the Midianites. Send all the others home."

Yea, because the men who drank with their hands were going to die anyway, because of all the germs…

Drinking like a dog was far healthier, before the age of sanitation.

Lol…J/K (not the part about sanitation)

"The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain."

By that time he realized all that we were capable of =/

vision wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:You obviously can't handle the truth, or you would be willing to stand behind any one of those arguments you linked to, and they wouldn't be "all the same" to you.

You're even funnier than I thought. I'll be sure to use the bible and God's word as my defense when I'm killing my enemies and raping their virgin daughters. God says it Ok!

In that event I'd be happy to arrange a meeting so that you could be absolutely sure it's cool with Him.

No Spidey, it defined how they thought of themselves. He calls them dogs it's a trick, it's the ones who lapped directly from the water that thought less of themselves.

I understood that flip, that’s why it was a joke.

I kinda figured that coming from you, but I didn't want the point to get lost. Why send those you know are gonna act like animals.

flip wrote:Let me ask you a question Vision. How do you think we should deal with the terrorists of 9/11?

Trick question: You can't deal with terrorists. However, the US could adopt a better foreign policy by, oh let's say, not bombing the 5hit out of everyone. That might reduce the odds of a terrorist attack a bit.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:In that event I'd be happy to arrange a meeting so that you could be absolutely sure it's cool with Him.

Yep, just as I suspected. "Disagree with me and I'll kill you." How "biblical." Pathetic. Makes my stomach turn.

Trick question: You can't deal with terrorists. However, the US could adopt a better foreign policy by, oh let's say, not bombing the 5hit out of everyone. That might reduce the odds of a terrorist attack a bit.

Aside from the obvious shying away, yeah, agreed.

Shying away from a trick question?

Well, at the very least fearing. It's only a trick question then, otherwise it's valid. I'll ask a different way. Do you hold others to higher standards than you do yourself? If you can't deal with terrorists, and they raid and murder you, what is left?

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:I guess that's the problem. Religious people think sex should only be for procreation in marriage, which is not usually a normal state of affairs in nature, and others who think that sex can be enjoyed as a pleasurable pastime, which can be found in nature (Bonobo Chimps use sex for pleasure, not just procreation). Typical of most religions, people can't have any sexual pleasure in their lives, only suffering before the eyes of God. Is God that prudish?

Knowledge is a powerful thing TC.

Sex in the Bible is hardly just for procreation. You probably should read the literal translation of the Song of Solomon it's one of those books that if you go to a Christian book store they sell it to you in a plain brown wrapper.

Song of Solomon wrote: Open to me, my sister, my darling,
my dove, my perfect one.
For my head is drenched with dew,
my hair with droplets of the night.
..........
My love thrust his ‘hand’ through the opening, [1]
and my feelings were stirred [2] for him.

yep that seems like it's all about procreation to me

Those who seek to control the sexual behavior of others do it for their own sexual power. Happens in nature too. It's an evolutionary competitive trait to make sure your genes are the ones that win out over your competitor's.

Just because someone who was horny in Biblical times, desperately in love and wrote about it in prosaic blather (which is normal for someone in love) doesn't change the fact that religion is used as a huge wedge to control the sexual behavior of others. And it's done through prudery and shame. Gads, look at Islam. Those guys are so prudish and repressed, they can't even LOOK upon a woman without getting horny (and blaming the woman for it by the way), so they make HER cover up so that they won't have dirty thoughts! In fact, why is the Bible so filled with references to sex anyway? Why was God even that obsessed with the topic? He should be the asexual one. There is no Mrs. God. It's only ONE aspect of the human machine, yet it dominates religion as some kind of dogmatic obsession.

flip wrote:Do you hold others to higher standards than you do yourself?

What "standards" are you talking about? And why would I hold someone to a standard I couldn't reach?

flip wrote:If you can't deal with terrorists, and they raid and murder you, what is left?

Another trick? If I'm already dead there is nothing for me to do.

I can't tell if you are meaning to do this or you're just not good at verbalizing your questions...

Heh..................................................................................................................................................................Well, I'm not scared to say what I'd do with them. Your dealing with an individual who will strap themselves into a plane and fly it headlong into a building, filled with innocents. You must kill them because they cannot be dissuaded.

vision wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:In that event I'd be happy to arrange a meeting so that you could be absolutely sure it's cool with Him.

Yep, just as I suspected. "Disagree with me and I'll kill you." How "biblical." Pathetic. Makes my stomach turn.

Still battin' 0. You made a distasteful statement (to say the least), I responded in kind... Of course you were being sarcastic, but I reserve the right to ignore sarcasm to demonstrate how I feel about your conclusion.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Of course you were being sarcastic, but I reserve the right to ignore sarcasm to demonstrate how I feel about your conclusion.

The fact you feel the need to "puff up" with the threat of violence is a testament to your character. Well done cool guy. Go drink a 12 pack and kick your dog some more, scumbag.

Liberals are the masters of insult…that’s for sure.

vision wrote:

flip wrote:Let me ask you a question Vision. How do you think we should deal with the terrorists of 9/11?

Trick question: You can't deal with terrorists. However, the US could adopt a better foreign policy by, oh let's say, not bombing the 5hit out of everyone. That might reduce the odds of a terrorist attack a bit.

Right. Do you have a screw loose? Prior to 9/11 who did we bomb the ★■◆● out of? Yet we had a ship of ours bombed (USS Cole), our embassies bombed in Africa, the Khobar Tower bombing and even a bombing of the WTC ten years prior to 9/11. All without America bombing the crap out of anyone. Curious since we did bomb the piss out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and continually bomb Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan, we have not had any serious attacks on our soil. But go ahead vision, keep your night light on while you sleep under your bed, the boys who wear pants are keeping the boogie men away.

I used to be right up there with you, woodchip, but I've been considering the possibility that certain elements of our government have engaged in "false flag" attacks as a means of shifting public opinion, or creating a precedent to push certain geopolitical agendas. You've heard theories along these lines: 9/11 was a demolition job and/or the planes were allowed to reach their destinations because the usual air-force response had been grounded, the "underwear bomber" was let on the plane... Certainly if you've ever listened to anyone like Alex Jones. If half of it is true there is a real problem with taking matters of foreign policy in this country at face/media value. In any event, I think its our responsibility to mistrust anything coming from high places in our country that can be mistrusted.

Spidey wrote:Liberals are the masters of insult…that’s for sure.

Yeah, and conservatives are masters of blaming the victim as a method of deflecting the crap they pull. Like, (whine) "You're attacking our religious freedom", or "We're the patriots of this country and you're not", or "You're gay, so it's OK to bully you to death because you're a lowlife sinner".

TC wins this round by three-punch, gross generalization knockout! Now for a little half-time entertainment...

tunnelcat wrote:

Spidey wrote:Liberals are the masters of insult…that’s for sure.

Yeah

woodchip wrote:Prior to 9/11 who did we bomb the **** out of?

Sigh. All this information right at your fingertips and you don't fact-check before making statements.

Well, there was this little thing called "The Gulf War" (2 August 1990) for starters. And of course we bombed Libya (15 April 1986), which was widely condemned. Lebanon in 1958, which was a result of tensions caused by Western action against Eqypt the previous year. Lebanon again in 1982. Iran 1987-89 (Iran / Iraq War). Afghanistan and Sudan (August 1998). On and on and on...

Of course, this is only military action. This doesn't include us indirectly causing trouble by arming countries that want to bomb each other in the region (whatever it takes to make a buck I guess) and overthrowing governments by supporting coups, or simply "removing" people from power. You can start the time line of terrible foreign policy anywhere, but the arrogance of the Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement in 1944 is a good place to start.

By the way, I'm not so naive to think a new foreign policy alone would stop terrorism. It's a start. Terrorism is an extremely complicated subject. The true end of terrorism comes only when all parties develop a sense of compassionate understanding and strive toward equality for all. Impossible goal? Maybe. But all actions should be guided in that direction nonetheless.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:TC wins this round by three-punch, gross generalization knockout! Now for a little half-time entertainment...

tunnelcat wrote:

Spidey wrote:Liberals are the masters of insult…that’s for sure.

Yeah

Heh, heh. Republican speak:

http://prospect.org/article/right-word

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/08/13 ... ng-points/

http://www.addictinginfo.org/category/r ... ng-points/

Liberal speak:

http://liberalspeak.com/

No one's perfect.

Least of all the slanted folks who wrote any of the articles behind those links. Pointing out hypocrisies and wrongs is cool with me, but when it's done as a means to champion alternative views that themselves suffer serious shortcomings it's time to stop shoveling ★■◆● and just look elsewhere for objectivity.