Avatar image for jexsu
#24751 Posted by Jexsu (1284 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717 said:

Well then please prove how it didnt. Well that only means that you are helping me. Because using either of those meanings of conceding would work based off of what your response was.

I should mention that you conceding wasn't the only reason our debate ended -- you insulting me played a part in that. I'm suspecting you of lying because: a) you probably ignored my post, reading past it - b) you read my post but couldn't prove he was real. Now, you're stating that you feel that whatever "proof" you gave is good enough; the issue with that is, you might think it's good enough for you, when it's not good enough for your opponent (me).

However, as far as me "proving" how they didn't? Well, that's because the majority of your posts are merely you exclaiming "no" to almost everything and then praising yourself in "knowing" whatever you say is the end all/be all. For example: You thought there was only one area of evolution, and you were wrong; another example: you thought all areas of evolution was dependent on one feature, and again you were wrong. You treated what you said as truth and the right answer, and of course, you were wrong.

Avatar image for j-man717
#24752 Edited by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:

@j-man717 said:

Well then please prove how it didnt. Well that only means that you are helping me. Because using either of those meanings of conceding would work based off of what your response was.

I should mention that you conceding wasn't the only reason our debate ended -- you insulting me played a part in that. I'm suspecting you of lying because: a) you probably ignored my post, reading past it - b) you read my post but couldn't prove he was real. Now, you're stating that you feel that whatever "proof" you gave is good enough; the issue with that is, you might think it's good enough for you, when it's not good enough for your opponent (me).

However, as far as me "proving" how they didn't? Well, that's because the majority of your posts are merely you exclaiming "no" to almost everything and then praising yourself in "knowing" whatever you say is the end all/be all. For example: You thought there was only one area of evolution, and you were wrong; another example: you thought all areas of evolution was dependent on one feature, and again you were wrong. You treated what you said as truth and the right answer, and of course, you were wrong.

How did I insult you?

No. Many of my posts include evidence I have given that prove that God exists. Clearly you are either in denial of this out of sheer ignorance, or simply havent noticed this at all as a result of an unwillingness to consider my points.

Avatar image for jexsu
#24753 Edited by Jexsu (1284 posts) - - Show Bio
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:

@j-man717 said:

Well then please prove how it didnt. Well that only means that you are helping me. Because using either of those meanings of conceding would work based off of what your response was.

I should mention that you conceding wasn't the only reason our debate ended -- you insulting me played a part in that. I'm suspecting you of lying because: a) you probably ignored my post, reading past it - b) you read my post but couldn't prove he was real. Now, you're stating that you feel that whatever "proof" you gave is good enough; the issue with that is, you might think it's good enough for you, when it's not good enough for your opponent (me).

However, as far as me "proving" how they didn't? Well, that's because the majority of your posts are merely you exclaiming "no" to almost everything and then praising yourself in "knowing" whatever you say is the end all/be all. For example: You thought there was only one area of evolution, and you were wrong; another example: you thought all areas of evolution was dependent on one feature, and again you were wrong. You treated what you said as truth and the right answer, and of course, you were wrong.

1. How did I insult you?

2. No. Many of posts include evidence I have given that prove that God exists. Clearly you are either in denial of this out of sheer ignorance, or simply havent noticed this at all as a result of an unwillingness to consider my points.

1. Quoted below, from post #24657...

Thats the reasoning of a 6 year old, which you clearly are no smarter than.

2. False. Many of your posts include information you think is "evidence," but doesn't actually prove anything other than how bias you are. In fact, you've not accepted one thing from anyone who has opposed you.

Avatar image for j-man717
#24754 Posted by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:

@j-man717 said:

Well then please prove how it didnt. Well that only means that you are helping me. Because using either of those meanings of conceding would work based off of what your response was.

I should mention that you conceding wasn't the only reason our debate ended -- you insulting me played a part in that. I'm suspecting you of lying because: a) you probably ignored my post, reading past it - b) you read my post but couldn't prove he was real. Now, you're stating that you feel that whatever "proof" you gave is good enough; the issue with that is, you might think it's good enough for you, when it's not good enough for your opponent (me).

However, as far as me "proving" how they didn't? Well, that's because the majority of your posts are merely you exclaiming "no" to almost everything and then praising yourself in "knowing" whatever you say is the end all/be all. For example: You thought there was only one area of evolution, and you were wrong; another example: you thought all areas of evolution was dependent on one feature, and again you were wrong. You treated what you said as truth and the right answer, and of course, you were wrong.

1. How did I insult you?

2. No. Many of posts include evidence I have given that prove that God exists. Clearly you are either in denial of this out of sheer ignorance, or simply havent noticed this at all as a result of an unwillingness to consider my points.

1. Quoted below, from post #24657...

Thats the reasoning of a 6 year old, which you clearly are no smarter than.

2. False. Many of your posts include information you think is "evidence," but doesn't actually prove anything other than how bias you are. In fact, you've not accepted one thing from anyone who has opposed you.

Fair enough. But how does insulting someone contribute to them conceding?

Well I have given mountains of evidence in my posts. I suggest that you re-read them. And quote them in your next comment and we can work off that

Avatar image for jexsu
#24755 Edited by Jexsu (1284 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:

@j-man717 said:

Well then please prove how it didnt. Well that only means that you are helping me. Because using either of those meanings of conceding would work based off of what your response was.

I should mention that you conceding wasn't the only reason our debate ended -- you insulting me played a part in that. I'm suspecting you of lying because: a) you probably ignored my post, reading past it - b) you read my post but couldn't prove he was real. Now, you're stating that you feel that whatever "proof" you gave is good enough; the issue with that is, you might think it's good enough for you, when it's not good enough for your opponent (me).

However, as far as me "proving" how they didn't? Well, that's because the majority of your posts are merely you exclaiming "no" to almost everything and then praising yourself in "knowing" whatever you say is the end all/be all. For example: You thought there was only one area of evolution, and you were wrong; another example: you thought all areas of evolution was dependent on one feature, and again you were wrong. You treated what you said as truth and the right answer, and of course, you were wrong.

1. How did I insult you?

2. No. Many of posts include evidence I have given that prove that God exists. Clearly you are either in denial of this out of sheer ignorance, or simply havent noticed this at all as a result of an unwillingness to consider my points.

1. Quoted below, from post #24657...

Thats the reasoning of a 6 year old, which you clearly are no smarter than.

2. False. Many of your posts include information you think is "evidence," but doesn't actually prove anything other than how bias you are. In fact, you've not accepted one thing from anyone who has opposed you.

Fair enough. But how does insulting someone contribute to them conceding?

Well I have given mountains of evidence in my posts. I suggest that you re-read them. And quote them in your next comment and we can work off that

1. It shows that one is willing to be uncivil when someone else doesn't agree with them, which means they can lose credibility and no longer be taken seriously.

2. As I mentioned before, "many of your posts include information you think is evidence." Rereading and quoting them is unneeded, as there is nothing to work off of.

Our debate was over a while ago, it's not going to re-open.

Avatar image for sc
#24756 Posted by SC (18156 posts) - - Show Bio

Very good points. We have to remember these religions stem from earlier ones, in the case of the Judeo/Christian religion is was a mashup of earlier stories and other religions. And all this happened in a time where people were for the most part illiterate and any explanation for a natural phenomenon could seem as plausible, especially if it's being proposed by an authority figure. So, churches were large and impressive structures with lots of art so that the people would be awestruck and impressed. That all creates a strong psychological effect.

Point being, a lot of the contradictory stuff was just either not understood by those people, or was assumed to just be because "god works in mysterious ways", or was not thought about because in these religions even questioning dogma can be a sin. Remember, in Christianity the one way for you to for sure go to Hell is to not believe in Jesus. Also, the church was often also the political, military, and economic authority in early societies. Psychologically you just dont question that authority especially when they tell you that there's an omnipotent and omniscient god that's always watching you and knows everything you think. You just believe what they tell you and move on with your life. If they tell you that you do X, Y, and Z and you go to heaven, then you accept it and you do X, Y, and Z. If they tell you that a person is a witch and needs to be murdered, then you do that as well. You dont even worry about things like morality because in Christianity whatever God mandates is good by default. If God murders millions of people, then by definition that was a good thing.

Just some thoughts.

Thanks and likewise.

I like the points you make about authority. I am not religious myself, and I am generally a critical person, of myself, of my favorite media, of my work, of my art, of my country, of politics, of media in general, and so on, and also religion. Not people who practice religion, I have many religious friends who are great, and good people.

So my following statements aren't applicable to all religions or religious people, nor am I claiming it is an exclusive issue with religion. One aspect of religion I am particularly critical of, is how it can exploit poor and vulnerable people. Growing up, my family was poor, we lived in a poor neighborhood, and although in our local community we weren't an ethnic minority, in our country we were, or more specifically they were. I am half European, so some people consider me 'white' but yeah.

So many of the churches in the local area, provide community for those new people coming to a new country, and it promises salvation, not just for the individual, but the individuals family. If you want to be a good citizen or a good parent, you must make sure your whole family believes. Also... there is a price. You must give to the church, the people who run it are Gods chosen representatives... so even if your children are starving and they have worn out clothes, you must support the Church first and foremost, plus none of the hardships of current life will matter in heaven, and if the local pastor has three homes and a boat and an expensive motorbike, well, still give to the Church anyway. Thankfully this is less a problem relatively speaking across the world, and I know many religious people who are likewise critical of this behavior, but such structures of authority and power, imagine what they would have been like in the past? When less people had less rights? When technology didn't allow us to know better, or we couldn't see the hypocrisy of Church leaders, or have transparency to know how they might be spending that money you donate to them. Unfortunately though, similar problems still do exist, they are just more subtle and shady.

Its unfortunately convenient how many of religions rules, are similar to scam, con and manipulation techniques. Why did God make faith a virtue and not skepticism? Compare a parent believes their child will get better over time if they will it and have faith they will, to a parent that tries to take objective notes to what experiences the child has gone through recently, revises and attempts to clarify what symptoms are present, and diagnosis a cause, to hopefully better find a solution... and then because all that is actually pretty tricky, taking them to actual medical professionals to assist... but God works in mysterious ways. Also you can't comprehend why God does what he does... says the human, who we can actually comprehend fairly well. God or Jesus shouldn't need us to believe in them, wouldn't they value a persons ethics and morality more? Doesn't the bit about belief in specifically these entities, instead benefit the individuals who try to act as middleman and representatives of those particular entities? Its hard to profit of peoples beliefs if they do it quietly in their own room, and if those guys over there have some wacky foreign God its also hard to get their worshippers money, time and attention... and if God is real... thats how he set it up to play out? Ah but mysterious ways... don't question it. Just believe, faith is a virtue!

Moderator
Avatar image for j-man717
#24757 Posted by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:

@j-man717 said:

Well then please prove how it didnt. Well that only means that you are helping me. Because using either of those meanings of conceding would work based off of what your response was.

I should mention that you conceding wasn't the only reason our debate ended -- you insulting me played a part in that. I'm suspecting you of lying because: a) you probably ignored my post, reading past it - b) you read my post but couldn't prove he was real. Now, you're stating that you feel that whatever "proof" you gave is good enough; the issue with that is, you might think it's good enough for you, when it's not good enough for your opponent (me).

However, as far as me "proving" how they didn't? Well, that's because the majority of your posts are merely you exclaiming "no" to almost everything and then praising yourself in "knowing" whatever you say is the end all/be all. For example: You thought there was only one area of evolution, and you were wrong; another example: you thought all areas of evolution was dependent on one feature, and again you were wrong. You treated what you said as truth and the right answer, and of course, you were wrong.

1. How did I insult you?

2. No. Many of posts include evidence I have given that prove that God exists. Clearly you are either in denial of this out of sheer ignorance, or simply havent noticed this at all as a result of an unwillingness to consider my points.

1. Quoted below, from post #24657...

Thats the reasoning of a 6 year old, which you clearly are no smarter than.

2. False. Many of your posts include information you think is "evidence," but doesn't actually prove anything other than how bias you are. In fact, you've not accepted one thing from anyone who has opposed you.

Fair enough. But how does insulting someone contribute to them conceding?

Well I have given mountains of evidence in my posts. I suggest that you re-read them. And quote them in your next comment and we can work off that

1. It shows that one is willing to be uncivil when someone else doesn't agree with them, which means they can lose credibility and no longer be taken seriously.

2. As I mentioned before, "many of your posts include information you think is evidence." Rereading and quoting them is unneeded, as there is nothing to work off of.

Our debate was over a while ago, it's not going to re-open.

1. Makes sense.

2. Well you have not proven that that is true, and if you are to ever prove it to be true, you do realize you would have to actually reference each of my sentences and break down what I said in each of them to prove how they arent true, right?

Our debate has ended, but what makes you think it wont re-open? It only ended due to either my or your concession (Confused at the moment on who conceded).

Avatar image for spareheadone
#24758 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6101 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu:

Has anyone ever observed a material cause creating a code that codes for something other than itself?

Has anyone ever observed an intelligent agent creating a code that codes for something other than itself?

Avatar image for spareheadone
#24759 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6101 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717:

God is real just as the whole universe is real. Because God is the whole universe.

If you want to see God, look around.

Avatar image for j-man717
#24760 Posted by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717:

God is real just as the whole universe is real. Because God is the whole universe.

If you want to see God, look around.

Well yes, since God is omnipotent, he must be omnipresent, so yes you could say that he is technically the whole universe.

There is proof of God everywhere, true

Avatar image for jexsu
#24761 Edited by Jexsu (1284 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717 said:

@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:

@j-man717 said:

Well then please prove how it didnt. Well that only means that you are helping me. Because using either of those meanings of conceding would work based off of what your response was.

I should mention that you conceding wasn't the only reason our debate ended -- you insulting me played a part in that. I'm suspecting you of lying because: a) you probably ignored my post, reading past it - b) you read my post but couldn't prove he was real. Now, you're stating that you feel that whatever "proof" you gave is good enough; the issue with that is, you might think it's good enough for you, when it's not good enough for your opponent (me).

However, as far as me "proving" how they didn't? Well, that's because the majority of your posts are merely you exclaiming "no" to almost everything and then praising yourself in "knowing" whatever you say is the end all/be all. For example: You thought there was only one area of evolution, and you were wrong; another example: you thought all areas of evolution was dependent on one feature, and again you were wrong. You treated what you said as truth and the right answer, and of course, you were wrong.

1. How did I insult you?

2. No. Many of posts include evidence I have given that prove that God exists. Clearly you are either in denial of this out of sheer ignorance, or simply havent noticed this at all as a result of an unwillingness to consider my points.

1. Quoted below, from post #24657...

Thats the reasoning of a 6 year old, which you clearly are no smarter than.

2. False. Many of your posts include information you think is "evidence," but doesn't actually prove anything other than how bias you are. In fact, you've not accepted one thing from anyone who has opposed you.

Fair enough. But how does insulting someone contribute to them conceding?

Well I have given mountains of evidence in my posts. I suggest that you re-read them. And quote them in your next comment and we can work off that

1. It shows that one is willing to be uncivil when someone else doesn't agree with them, which means they can lose credibility and no longer be taken seriously.

2. As I mentioned before, "many of your posts include information you think is evidence." Rereading and quoting them is unneeded, as there is nothing to work off of.

Our debate was over a while ago, it's not going to re-open.

1. Well you have not proven that that is true, and if you are to ever prove it to be true, you do realize you would have to actually reference each of my sentences and break down what I said in each of them to prove how they arent true, right?

2. Our debate has ended, but what makes you think it wont re-open? It only ended due to either my or your concession (Confused at the moment on who conceded).

1. Anyone who can read can see that what you've typed is not the "evidence" you're claiming it to be; in fact, one of my previous posts explains it quite nicely...

However, as far as me "proving" how they didn't? Well, that's because the majority of your posts are merely you exclaiming "no" to almost everything and then praising yourself in "knowing" whatever you say is the end all/be all. For example: You thought there was only one area of evolution, and you were wrong; another example: you thought all areas of evolution was dependent on one feature, and again you were wrong. You treated what you said as truth and the right answer, and of course, you were wrong.

It's clear that no matter what someone tells you, you're going to deny it and fall back on your own "proof." As shown in posts #24675, #24689, #24702, you were proven wrong. Not to mention that after being proven wrong, you went on to state (in) #24699, and #24709, that you still continue to wave off what others tell you and believe you're right when you're not.

So, I don't need to prove anything to you is "untrue," as you're doing a great job of it yourself.

2. I'm the other side of our debate, and I'm saying it's not going to re-open. The little bit of junk happening above this paragraph is me correcting you on a few things independent of our debate (in case you were thinking they're together). You conceded, as per posts #24651, #24655, and #24656. It's not a confusing topic, either. Rotf.

Avatar image for j-man717
#24762 Edited by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:

@j-man717 said:

@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:

@j-man717 said:

Well then please prove how it didnt. Well that only means that you are helping me. Because using either of those meanings of conceding would work based off of what your response was.

I should mention that you conceding wasn't the only reason our debate ended -- you insulting me played a part in that. I'm suspecting you of lying because: a) you probably ignored my post, reading past it - b) you read my post but couldn't prove he was real. Now, you're stating that you feel that whatever "proof" you gave is good enough; the issue with that is, you might think it's good enough for you, when it's not good enough for your opponent (me).

However, as far as me "proving" how they didn't? Well, that's because the majority of your posts are merely you exclaiming "no" to almost everything and then praising yourself in "knowing" whatever you say is the end all/be all. For example: You thought there was only one area of evolution, and you were wrong; another example: you thought all areas of evolution was dependent on one feature, and again you were wrong. You treated what you said as truth and the right answer, and of course, you were wrong.

1. How did I insult you?

2. No. Many of posts include evidence I have given that prove that God exists. Clearly you are either in denial of this out of sheer ignorance, or simply havent noticed this at all as a result of an unwillingness to consider my points.

1. Quoted below, from post #24657...

Thats the reasoning of a 6 year old, which you clearly are no smarter than.

2. False. Many of your posts include information you think is "evidence," but doesn't actually prove anything other than how bias you are. In fact, you've not accepted one thing from anyone who has opposed you.

Fair enough. But how does insulting someone contribute to them conceding?

Well I have given mountains of evidence in my posts. I suggest that you re-read them. And quote them in your next comment and we can work off that

1. It shows that one is willing to be uncivil when someone else doesn't agree with them, which means they can lose credibility and no longer be taken seriously.

2. As I mentioned before, "many of your posts include information you think is evidence." Rereading and quoting them is unneeded, as there is nothing to work off of.

Our debate was over a while ago, it's not going to re-open.

1. Well you have not proven that that is true, and if you are to ever prove it to be true, you do realize you would have to actually reference each of my sentences and break down what I said in each of them to prove how they arent true, right?

2. Our debate has ended, but what makes you think it wont re-open? It only ended due to either my or your concession (Confused at the moment on who conceded).

1. Anyone who can read can see that what you've typed is not the "evidence" you're claiming it to be; in fact, one of my previous posts explains it quite nicely...

However, as far as me "proving" how they didn't? Well, that's because the majority of your posts are merely you exclaiming "no" to almost everything and then praising yourself in "knowing" whatever you say is the end all/be all. For example: You thought there was only one area of evolution, and you were wrong; another example: you thought all areas of evolution was dependent on one feature, and again you were wrong. You treated what you said as truth and the right answer, and of course, you were wrong.

It's clear that no matter what someone tells you, you're going to deny it and fall back on your own "proof." As shown in posts #24675, #24689, #24702, you were proven wrong. Not to mention that after being proven wrong, you went on to state (in) #24699, and #24709, that you still continue to wave off what others tell you and believe you're right when you're not.

So, I don't need to prove anything to you is "untrue," as you're doing a great job of it yourself.

2. I'm the other side of our debate, and I'm saying it's not going to re-open. The little bit of junk happening above this paragraph is me correcting you on a few things independent of our debate (in case you were thinking they're together). You conceded, as per posts #24651, #24655, and #24656. It's not a confusing topic, either. Rotf.

1. Yes I was proven wrong in those posts. However those posts dont prove that ALL of the proof ive given isnt any proof of God being real. Lol what? Where in those posts did I directly or indirectly even say that? Now your just lying

2. I conceded, but I am clearly willing to continue the debate.

Avatar image for jexsu
#24763 Edited by Jexsu (1284 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717: 1. Okay. Say... what? What am I lying about?

2. Okay; you're free to debate others.

Avatar image for willpayton
#24764 Posted by willpayton (22083 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc said:

When technology didn't allow us to know better, or we couldn't see the hypocrisy of Church leaders, or have transparency to know how they might be spending that money you donate to them. Unfortunately though, similar problems still do exist, they are just more subtle and shady.

Its unfortunately convenient how many of religions rules, are similar to scam, con and manipulation techniques.

I think the hypocrisy is one of the things that irritates me most about religion, and it kind of manifests in many respects... from interpretation of religious texts, to the behavior of priests, to how your typical follower claims to believe one thing but often act in the opposite way.

I mean, take Christianity as an example (and I'll just assume for the sake of discussion that everything attributed to Jesus was actually said by him), Jesus said that his followers should only use wealth as a means to help the less fortunate and poor. He said that the pursuit of wealth was incompatible with being a Christian, and that a wealthy person has a very slim chance of getting to Heaven. However, we have the Catholic Church and many Christian preachers who amass large sums of money and only use it to buy large homes, expensive cars, private airplanes, jewelry, and so on. You have the religious right in this country (the US) who promote greed and outright blame the poor for their condition, calling them lazy and refusing to fund even the smallest of social programs to help people out with food and shelter. I have a feeling that if the Christian God is real, many Christians would never make it to Heaven.

Avatar image for j-man717
#24765 Posted by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:

@j-man717: 1. Okay. Say... what? What am I lying about?

2. Okay; you're free to debate others.

1. The posts you mentioned arent the only posts where I gave evidence of God's existence.

You lied when you claimed that : "Not to mention that after being proven wrong, you went on to state (in) #24699, and #24709, that you still continue to wave off what others tell you and believe you're right when you're not."

2. Why not debate me then?

Avatar image for jexsu
#24766 Posted by Jexsu (1284 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717: 1) Correct, those specific posts we're not the only ones; they were used as examples. You also misunderstood the paragraph, and that was my fault; I worded it in a way to make it seem like the same sentence, but those linked posts were separate from the main point yet used as a continuation of said point. Forgive me, I am tired.

2) No, you conceded. Our debate is long over with.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#24767 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6101 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu:

You are God. @j-man717: worships you.

He should treat you just as if you were Jesus. It's in Mathew ch 24 or somewhere close to that

Avatar image for j-man717
#24768 Posted by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:

@j-man717: 1) Correct, those specific posts we're not the only ones; they were used as examples. You also misunderstood the paragraph, and that was my fault; I worded it in a way to make it seem like the same sentence, but those linked posts were separate from the main point yet used as a continuation of said point. Forgive me, I am tired.

2) No, you conceded. Our debate is long over with.

1) Well then prove that ALL of my posts where I attempted to prove God is real are wrong. You claimed you have already done this but havent.

2) Well we can restart it. I conceded only to the idea that evolution has multiple meanings, but never to anything else. Our debate wasnt about if evolution has multiple meanings, it was about if God is real. Everything I said was used by me as my own supporting proof to prove that God is.

Avatar image for jexsu
#24769 Posted by Jexsu (1284 posts) - - Show Bio

@spareheadone said:

@jexsu:

You are God. @j-man717: worships you.

He should treat you just as if you were Jesus. It's in Mathew ch 24 or somewhere close to that

I'm not God. I'm Saint Matthew, better known as Matael, the Archangel of Principles and Legalities. He is allowed to worship me, although I don't require him to. =D

@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:

@j-man717: 1) Correct, those specific posts we're not the only ones; they were used as examples. You also misunderstood the paragraph, and that was my fault; I worded it in a way to make it seem like the same sentence, but those linked posts were separate from the main point yet used as a continuation of said point. Forgive me, I am tired.

2) No, you conceded. Our debate is long over with.

1) Well then prove that ALL of my posts where I attempted to prove God is real are wrong. You claimed you have already done this but havent.

2) Well we can restart it. I conceded only to the idea that evolution has multiple meanings, but never to anything else. Our debate wasnt about if evolution has multiple meanings, it was about if God is real. Everything I said was used by me as my own supporting proof to prove that God is.

1. I'm not obligated to. I've not claimed that.

2. We're not going to. When I gave you the chance to prove "God" was real, you neglected to do so; that was you conceding. We've been down this road a few times already.

Avatar image for dshipp17
#24770 Posted by dshipp17 (5485 posts) - - Show Bio

Jeremiah 9:1-26:

Oh that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people!

2 Oh that I had in the wilderness a lodging place of wayfaring men; that I might leave my people, and go from them! for they be all adulterers, an assembly of treacherous men.

3 And they bend their tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me, saith the Lord.

4 Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbour will walk with slanders.

5 And they will deceive every one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and weary themselves to commit iniquity.

6 Thine habitation is in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know me, saith the Lord.

7 Therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts, Behold, I will melt them, and try them; for how shall I do for the daughter of my people?

8 Their tongue is as an arrow shot out; it speaketh deceit: one speaketh peaceably to his neighbour with his mouth, but in heart he layeth his wait.

9 Shall I not visit them for these things? saith the Lord: shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?

10 For the mountains will I take up a weeping and wailing, and for the habitations of the wilderness a lamentation, because they are burned up, so that none can pass through them; neither can men hear the voice of the cattle; both the fowl of the heavens and the beast are fled; they are gone.

11 And I will make Jerusalem heaps, and a den of dragons; and I will make the cities of Judah desolate, without an inhabitant.

12 Who is the wise man, that may understand this? and who is he to whom the mouth of the Lord hath spoken, that he may declare it, for what the land perisheth and is burned up like a wilderness, that none passeth through?

13 And the Lord saith, Because they have forsaken my law which I set before them, and have not obeyed my voice, neither walked therein;

14 But have walked after the imagination of their own heart, and after Baalim, which their fathers taught them:

15 Therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will feed them, even this people, with wormwood, and give them water of gall to drink.

16 I will scatter them also among the heathen, whom neither they nor their fathers have known: and I will send a sword after them, till I have consumed them.

17 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Consider ye, and call for the mourning women, that they may come; and send for cunning women, that they may come:

18 And let them make haste, and take up a wailing for us, that our eyes may run down with tears, and our eyelids gush out with waters.

19 For a voice of wailing is heard out of Zion, How are we spoiled! we are greatly confounded, because we have forsaken the land, because our dwellings have cast us out.

20 Yet hear the word of the Lord, O ye women, and let your ear receive the word of his mouth, and teach your daughters wailing, and every one her neighbour lamentation.

21 For death is come up into our windows, and is entered into our palaces, to cut off the children from without, and the young men from the streets.

22 Speak, Thus saith the Lord, Even the carcases of men shall fall as dung upon the open field, and as the handful after the harvestman, and none shall gather them.

23 Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:

24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord.

25 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised;

26 Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for j-man717
#24771 Edited by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:

@spareheadone said:

@jexsu:

You are God. @j-man717: worships you.

He should treat you just as if you were Jesus. It's in Mathew ch 24 or somewhere close to that

I'm not God. I'm Saint Matthew, better known as Matael, the Archangel of Principles and Legalities. He is allowed to worship me, although I don't require him to. =D

@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:

@j-man717: 1) Correct, those specific posts we're not the only ones; they were used as examples. You also misunderstood the paragraph, and that was my fault; I worded it in a way to make it seem like the same sentence, but those linked posts were separate from the main point yet used as a continuation of said point. Forgive me, I am tired.

2) No, you conceded. Our debate is long over with.

1) Well then prove that ALL of my posts where I attempted to prove God is real are wrong. You claimed you have already done this but havent.

2) Well we can restart it. I conceded only to the idea that evolution has multiple meanings, but never to anything else. Our debate wasnt about if evolution has multiple meanings, it was about if God is real. Everything I said was used by me as my own supporting proof to prove that God is.

1. I'm not obligated to. I've not claimed that.

2. We're not going to. When I gave you the chance to prove "God" was real, you neglected to do so; that was you conceding. We've been down this road a few times already.

1. Yes you have lol. You claimed that all of my posts dont prove God is real and that they arent even evidence that God is real.

2. Like Ive said many times, I already proved it in my previous comments, which contain mountains of evidence. Yet you insist that none of my comments have any proof yet wont even attempt to prove why.

Avatar image for jexsu
#24772 Posted by Jexsu (1284 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717 said:

@jexsu said:

@spareheadone said:

@jexsu:

You are God. @j-man717: worships you.

He should treat you just as if you were Jesus. It's in Mathew ch 24 or somewhere close to that

I'm not God. I'm Saint Matthew, better known as Matael, the Archangel of Principles and Legalities. He is allowed to worship me, although I don't require him to. =D

@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:

@j-man717: 1) Correct, those specific posts we're not the only ones; they were used as examples. You also misunderstood the paragraph, and that was my fault; I worded it in a way to make it seem like the same sentence, but those linked posts were separate from the main point yet used as a continuation of said point. Forgive me, I am tired.

2) No, you conceded. Our debate is long over with.

1) Well then prove that ALL of my posts where I attempted to prove God is real are wrong. You claimed you have already done this but havent.

2) Well we can restart it. I conceded only to the idea that evolution has multiple meanings, but never to anything else. Our debate wasnt about if evolution has multiple meanings, it was about if God is real. Everything I said was used by me as my own supporting proof to prove that God is.

1. I'm not obligated to. I've not claimed that.

2. We're not going to. When I gave you the chance to prove "God" was real, you neglected to do so; that was you conceding. We've been down this road a few times already.

1. Yes you have lol. You claimed that all of my posts dont prove God is real and that they arent even evidence that God is real.

2. Like Ive said many times, I already proved it in my previous comments, which contain mountains of evidence. Yet you insist that none of my comments have any proof yet wont even attempt to prove why.

1. Oh, that's what you meant. My bad. Yes, I did claim that.

2. And you insist that it is "evidence." Let's stop going back and forth.

Avatar image for j-man717
#24773 Posted by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:

@j-man717 said:

@jexsu said:

@spareheadone said:

@jexsu:

You are God. @j-man717: worships you.

He should treat you just as if you were Jesus. It's in Mathew ch 24 or somewhere close to that

I'm not God. I'm Saint Matthew, better known as Matael, the Archangel of Principles and Legalities. He is allowed to worship me, although I don't require him to. =D

@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:

@j-man717: 1) Correct, those specific posts we're not the only ones; they were used as examples. You also misunderstood the paragraph, and that was my fault; I worded it in a way to make it seem like the same sentence, but those linked posts were separate from the main point yet used as a continuation of said point. Forgive me, I am tired.

2) No, you conceded. Our debate is long over with.

1) Well then prove that ALL of my posts where I attempted to prove God is real are wrong. You claimed you have already done this but havent.

2) Well we can restart it. I conceded only to the idea that evolution has multiple meanings, but never to anything else. Our debate wasnt about if evolution has multiple meanings, it was about if God is real. Everything I said was used by me as my own supporting proof to prove that God is.

1. I'm not obligated to. I've not claimed that.

2. We're not going to. When I gave you the chance to prove "God" was real, you neglected to do so; that was you conceding. We've been down this road a few times already.

1. Yes you have lol. You claimed that all of my posts dont prove God is real and that they arent even evidence that God is real.

2. Like Ive said many times, I already proved it in my previous comments, which contain mountains of evidence. Yet you insist that none of my comments have any proof yet wont even attempt to prove why.

1. Oh, that's what you meant. My bad. Yes, I did claim that.

2. And you insist that it is "evidence." Let's stop going back and forth.

1. Well what else could I have meant?

2. Well if you want to stop going back and forth you need to quote my comments in your next comment/comments and then explain why theyre not true.

Avatar image for jexsu
#24774 Posted by Jexsu (1284 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717 said:

1. Well what else could I have meant?

2. Well if you want to stop going back and forth you need to quote my comments in your next comment/comments and then explain why theyre not true.

1. How would I know? I'm not you.

2. No, I don't.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#24775 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6101 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu:

Dear St Matael please can you make me win the lottery. I need a new car. Thanks

Avatar image for jexsu
#24776 Posted by Jexsu (1284 posts) - - Show Bio

@spareheadone said:

@jexsu:

Dear St Matael please can you make me win the lottery. I need a new car. Thanks

I don't grant wishes, nor can I manipulate reality. If any of that were possible, I'd be the richest Archangel on Earth.

Avatar image for j-man717
#24777 Posted by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:

@j-man717 said:

1. Well what else could I have meant?

2. Well if you want to stop going back and forth you need to quote my comments in your next comment/comments and then explain why theyre not true.

1. How would I know? I'm not you.

2. No, I don't.

1. Well what did you think I meant?

2. Yes you do lol

Avatar image for jexsu
#24778 Edited by Jexsu (1284 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717 said:

@jexsu said:

@j-man717 said:

1. Well what else could I have meant?

2. Well if you want to stop going back and forth you need to quote my comments in your next comment/comments and then explain why theyre not true.

1. How would I know? I'm not you.

2. No, I don't.

1. Well what did you think I meant?

2. Yes you do lol

1. Something different, obviously. I did say I was tired and misread it.

2. Says...?

Avatar image for j-man717
#24779 Edited by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:

@j-man717 said:

@jexsu said:

@j-man717 said:

1. Well what else could I have meant?

2. Well if you want to stop going back and forth you need to quote my comments in your next comment/comments and then explain why theyre not true.

1. How would I know? I'm not you.

2. No, I don't.

1. Well what did you think I meant?

2. Yes you do lol

1. Something different, obviously. I did say I was tired and misread it.

2. Says...?

1. Fair enough

2. The burden of proof is on you here, my friend. You made the claim that none of my posts have irrefutable proof that God is real, but the only way for you to prove that claim is to quote each of my comments as reference and prove it that way.

Unless you mean you dont really care about doing that at this point. Which would be totally fine by me.

Avatar image for jexsu
#24780 Edited by Jexsu (1284 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717 said:

The burden of proof is on you here, my friend. You made the claim that none of my posts have irrefutable proof that God is real, but the only way for you to prove that claim is to quote each of my comments as reference and prove it that way.
Unless you mean you dont really care about doing that at this point. Which would be totally fine by me.

The burden of proof was on you when made the bold claim that "God" was real, and you couldn't; it's already established that you conceded and our debate ended. My needing to prove to you that your own posts were faulty, well, that's highly unnecessary. But, yeah, honestly I don't care to.

I'm bored, too, so I'm not longer entertaining this babble. I'll hop on here and there to add more to my "Religions of the World" shit.

Avatar image for jexsu
#24781 Posted by Jexsu (1284 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:

@jexsu said:

@jexsu said:

Religions of the World:

  1. Taoism: Shit happens.
  2. Hinduism: This shit happened before.
  3. Islam: If shit happens, take a hostage.
  4. Buddhism: When shit happens, is it really shit?
  5. 7th Day Adventist: Shit happens on Saturday.
  6. Protestantism: Shit won't happen if I work harder.
  7. Catholicism: If shit happens, I deserve it.
  8. Jehovah's Witness: Knock knock, shit happens.
  9. Judaism: Why does shit always happen to me?
  10. Hare Krishna: Shit happens Rama Rama Ding Dong.
  11. Atheism: No shit.
  12. TV Evangelism: Send more shit.
  13. Rastafarianism: Let's smoke this shit.
  14. Apatheist: I don't give a shit.

^ From an image I have but don't know where it came from/who made it. Thought it was humorous. I also added Apatheist, since I'm Apatheistic. Anyone else have one?

To add...

15. Old Norse Paganism: I'll fight your shit; to Valhalla!

Adding a couple more...

16. Jainism: I'm coming back as shit.

17. Syncretism: We're all shit!

Adding more...

18. Normalism: That's a crock of shit.
19. Folk Shinto: We need this shit.
20. Tenrikyo: Let's get rid of your shit.
21. Universalism: Shit is everywhere.

Avatar image for j-man717
#24782 Posted by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:

@j-man717 said:

The burden of proof is on you here, my friend. You made the claim that none of my posts have irrefutable proof that God is real, but the only way for you to prove that claim is to quote each of my comments as reference and prove it that way.
Unless you mean you dont really care about doing that at this point. Which would be totally fine by me.

The burden of proof was on you when made the bold claim that "God" was real, and you couldn't; it's already established that you conceded and our debate ended. My needing to prove to you that your own posts were faulty, well, that's highly unnecessary. But, yeah, honestly I don't care to.

I'm bored, too, so I'm not longer entertaining this babble. I'll hop on here and there to add more to my "Religions of the World" shit.

Well fine by me then.

Avatar image for dshipp17
#24783 Edited by dshipp17 (5485 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde said:

@dshipp17: Interesting video about the food, but none of that is proof of any divine information being shared. The most rudimentary observation practices could relate the information that you are more likely to get sick eating pork than beef, or from eating lizards and oysters. This is how early humans developed a lot of knowledge, through pure observation. It is how aspirin for example was developed from Willow, which ancient humans were chewing, smashing, or making into tea for anti-inflammatory and pain relief millennia before modern scientists extracted the active ingredient and made it into a pill. Its how humans originally found many food and medicines, and determined what you should eat and what you shouldn't eat.

Viewed in full context, this video does in fact make a good case for Bible foreknowledge; however, this presenter didn't make one of the better cases as compared to other related videos that I posted on this topic. The things that you point out actually has no evidence that such was the case and is more hindsight inference and speculation rooted in falsehoods that the Bible merely copied things from the people around them, a notion that has been repeatedly debunked by the Christian scholarly community.

The video provided the example where archaeologists didn't find pig bones among the Israelite camps but did find them among the Babylonians, Assyrians, and other surrounding non-Jewish camps/tribes, as indicator of what these tribes consumed for food.

The video also pointed out the advent of the Food and Drug Administration or FDA in the United States, my former employer who I'm currently in litigation; if what you say were true, combined with the reasons for the creation of the FDA, why was the FDA necessary? And, funny that this was cited, because it also makes for a good entry point for the story behind the advent of ice and the idea of refrigeration in the United States; because people were still discovering food borne illnesses the hard way, they finally had to invent refrigeration the hard way or by the trial and error process of getting sick, due to an actual lack of rudimentary knowledge that you bring up (e.g. and the videos point this out dating back to a time in the 1800s and earlier); this more points to your comments stemming a hindsight invention rather than a reality; this video makes a great case indeed, based on the actual reality of the matter.

@willpayton said:
@lunacyde said:

@dshipp17: Interesting video about the food, but none of that is proof of any divine information being shared. The most rudimentary observation practices could relate the information that you are more likely to get sick eating pork than beef, or from eating lizards and oysters. This is how early humans developed a lot of knowledge, through pure observation. It is how aspirin for example was developed from Willow, which ancient humans were chewing, smashing, or making into tea for anti-inflammatory and pain relief millennia before modern scientists extracted the active ingredient and made it into a pill. Its how humans originally found many food and medicines, and determined what you should eat and what you shouldn't eat.

The entire video is just cherry picking examples form the Bible while ignoring all the others that are clearly ones of the Bible being entirely wrong and giving bad advice. Even in the examples given, notice that he always says that these show knowledge and then goes on to talk about stuff that science has discovered, not stuff actually in the Bible. The Bible just says stuff like to not eat pigs because they're dirty. Uhmm, ok, I'm pretty sure pigs being dirty was something that ancient people knew about. They didnt need any supernatural intervention to tell them about pigs. But, did the Bible talk about germs? No. Wouldnt that have been the better information for a supreme supernatural omniscient entity to give to people... instead of "dont eat pigs because they roll around in dirt"?

Where are these other examples of the Bible giving bad advice on heath related and food matters? This is just made up; there's no cherry picking by the scholarly Christian community on this matter; you're just desperate for something like this poster's suggestions to be true but they come from recycled material that has been soundly, continually, and repeatedly debunked/rebutted by the Christian scholarly community.

Avatar image for willpayton
#24784 Posted by willpayton (22083 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:
@willpayton said:
@lunacyde said:

@dshipp17: Interesting video about the food, but none of that is proof of any divine information being shared. The most rudimentary observation practices could relate the information that you are more likely to get sick eating pork than beef, or from eating lizards and oysters. This is how early humans developed a lot of knowledge, through pure observation. It is how aspirin for example was developed from Willow, which ancient humans were chewing, smashing, or making into tea for anti-inflammatory and pain relief millennia before modern scientists extracted the active ingredient and made it into a pill. Its how humans originally found many food and medicines, and determined what you should eat and what you shouldn't eat.

The entire video is just cherry picking examples form the Bible while ignoring all the others that are clearly ones of the Bible being entirely wrong and giving bad advice. Even in the examples given, notice that he always says that these show knowledge and then goes on to talk about stuff that science has discovered, not stuff actually in the Bible. The Bible just says stuff like to not eat pigs because they're dirty. Uhmm, ok, I'm pretty sure pigs being dirty was something that ancient people knew about. They didnt need any supernatural intervention to tell them about pigs. But, did the Bible talk about germs? No. Wouldnt that have been the better information for a supreme supernatural omniscient entity to give to people... instead of "dont eat pigs because they roll around in dirt"?

Where are these other examples of the Bible giving bad advice on heath related and food matters? This is just made up; there's no cherry picking by the scholarly Christian community on this matter; you're just desperate for something like this poster's suggestions to be true but they come from recycled material that has been soundly, continually, and repeatedly debunked/rebutted by the Christian scholarly community.

There are two completely different matters. One is that the arguments made in the video are just terrible. They point to a general statement in the Bible and then claim that it's some kind of amazing knowledge because of all we know about science. Except the Bible didnt have any of that knowledge, it pretty much just says stuff that they already knew at the time. This is using current knowledge to justify some vague stuff as being more profound than it really was. Point me to one piece of advice that's based on knowledge that wasnt already common at the time, or not based on some common beliefs or practices from the time. Just one.

Which gets us to two, the fact that the Bible is full of false claims and just plain bad information. It starts at the beginning with Genesis where pretty much everything is wrong. If you want to stick to totally bogus claims about biology, how about the claim in the Bible that snails melt as they move along? Or the claim that birds were created before land animals? Or... heh, the claim that bats are birds! LOL... I guess God failed biology.

Giving bad advice on food matters:

"Of all that are in the waters you may eat these: whatever has fins and scales you may eat. And whatever does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is unclean for you." - Deuteronomy 14:9-10

So basically you cant eat shrimp or oysters because... they're "unclean". That's total b.s. Shrimp are just fine to eat and oysters are actually very healthy. Or how about:

"You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk bible nonsense"

Uhmm... ok. But why not? What amazing scientific knowledge does this impart to us? Oh, right, nothing.

Face it, the Bible is nothing more than a collection of stories copied from earlier religions. It's only as accurate as the knowledge of bronze age people, who didnt really know much about anything. This is why the Bible is constantly contradicting itself, giving totally false information about how the world works, and it cant even give decent moral guidance. And the best advice it claims to give is that you should just stop thinking and have faith in a capricious, petty, and mass-murdering evil god. LOL... no thanks.

Avatar image for dshipp17
#24785 Edited by dshipp17 (5485 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:
@dshipp17 said:
@willpayton said:
@lunacyde said:

@dshipp17: Interesting video about the food, but none of that is proof of any divine information being shared. The most rudimentary observation practices could relate the information that you are more likely to get sick eating pork than beef, or from eating lizards and oysters. This is how early humans developed a lot of knowledge, through pure observation. It is how aspirin for example was developed from Willow, which ancient humans were chewing, smashing, or making into tea for anti-inflammatory and pain relief millennia before modern scientists extracted the active ingredient and made it into a pill. Its how humans originally found many food and medicines, and determined what you should eat and what you shouldn't eat.

The entire video is just cherry picking examples form the Bible while ignoring all the others that are clearly ones of the Bible being entirely wrong and giving bad advice. Even in the examples given, notice that he always says that these show knowledge and then goes on to talk about stuff that science has discovered, not stuff actually in the Bible. The Bible just says stuff like to not eat pigs because they're dirty. Uhmm, ok, I'm pretty sure pigs being dirty was something that ancient people knew about. They didnt need any supernatural intervention to tell them about pigs. But, did the Bible talk about germs? No. Wouldnt that have been the better information for a supreme supernatural omniscient entity to give to people... instead of "dont eat pigs because they roll around in dirt"?

Where are these other examples of the Bible giving bad advice on heath related and food matters? This is just made up; there's no cherry picking by the scholarly Christian community on this matter; you're just desperate for something like this poster's suggestions to be true but they come from recycled material that has been soundly, continually, and repeatedly debunked/rebutted by the Christian scholarly community.

There are two completely different matters. One is that the arguments made in the video are just terrible. They point to a general statement in the Bible and then claim that it's some kind of amazing knowledge because of all we know about science. Except the Bible didnt have any of that knowledge, it pretty much just says stuff that they already knew at the time. This is using current knowledge to justify some vague stuff as being more profound than it really was. Point me to one piece of advice that's based on knowledge that wasnt already common at the time, or not based on some common beliefs or practices from the time. Just one.

Which gets us to two, the fact that the Bible is full of false claims and just plain bad information. It starts at the beginning with Genesis where pretty much everything is wrong. If you want to stick to totally bogus claims about biology, how about the claim in the Bible that snails melt as they move along? Or the claim that birds were created before land animals? Or... heh, the claim that bats are birds! LOL... I guess God failed biology.

Giving bad advice on food matters:

"Of all that are in the waters you may eat these: whatever has fins and scales you may eat. And whatever does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is unclean for you." - Deuteronomy 14:9-10

So basically you cant eat shrimp or oysters because... they're "unclean". That's total b.s. Shrimp are just fine to eat and oysters are actually very healthy. Or how about:

"You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk bible nonsense"

Uhmm... ok. But why not? What amazing scientific knowledge does this impart to us? Oh, right, nothing.

Face it, the Bible is nothing more than a collection of stories copied from earlier religions. It's only as accurate as the knowledge of bronze age people, who didnt really know much about anything. This is why the Bible is constantly contradicting itself, giving totally false information about how the world works, and it cant even give decent moral guidance. And the best advice it claims to give is that you should just stop thinking and have faith in a capricious, petty, and mass-murdering evil god. LOL... no thanks.

"They point to a general statement in the Bible and then claim that it's some kind of amazing knowledge because of all we know about science. Except the Bible didnt have any of that knowledge, it pretty much just says stuff that they already knew at the time. Point me to one piece of advice that's based on knowledge that wasnt already common at the time, or not based on some common beliefs or practices from the time. Just one."

Oh, no, this is not correct; and you said this even after I extracted one of the points right from the clip for the poster just before I replied to you.

"So basically you cant eat shrimp or oysters because... they're "unclean". That's total b.s. Shrimp are just fine to eat and oysters are actually very healthy. "

Think again; this is only correct because of modern innovations; the clip itself explained the dangers that these organisms would have posed to the people at the time, specifically, oysters, as the example used.

"Face it, the Bible is nothing more than a collection of stories copied from earlier religions. It's only as accurate as the knowledge of bronze age people, who didnt really know much about anything."

This statement is totally baseless and has been dismantled a multitude of times by the scholarly Christian community; although you may hope or think this is correct, it simply isn't; this where discussing these issues only with like minded people will get you, totally lost and confused, in the eyes of the ones who know better; you should know that debating with only like minded people is not a very effective means of objective learning; it only shows your reluctance to expand beyond what you already want to believe about a given topic.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#24786 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6101 posts) - - Show Bio

When I wrote the bible I didn't think people would start religions and stuff from it. I just thought it would be an interesting exercise. I threw in some funny bits about men with donkey sized dicks and women with breasts like twin gazelle. All that stuff about Jesus I got from hero mythology. Jesus was hero from within and when he returns he will be the hero from outside. I kinda wish I stuck with the serpent and tree story instead of going off on that Hebrew tangent, Anyway I'm writing another book now called "The Bible of Bibles" it's sure to be a best seller. Spoiler alert...It has some recipes for shepherds pie and custard tarts in it.

Avatar image for iron_tiger
#24787 Posted by Iron_Tiger (333 posts) - - Show Bio

@spareheadone: "The Bible of Bibles," Oprah's Book of the Year, is said to be the Best Seller Ever. All critics gave it 5/5 stars.

Avatar image for willpayton
#24788 Posted by willpayton (22083 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:

Think again; this is only correct because of modern innovations; the clip itself explained the dangers that these organisms would have posed to the people at the time, specifically, oysters, as the example used.

So now you're claiming that the Bible was only written for "the people of the time"?

Good to know that the Bible teachings no longer apply to the modern world were people are no longer scientifically illiterate.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#24789 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6101 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for spareheadone
#24790 Edited by SpareHeadOne (6101 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

In Leviticust it specifically states """You shall not eat lobster or oysters because of the heavy metal content in creatures that dwell on the bottom of the ocean. You can accumulate heavy metals in the soft tissues of your body and eventually get poisoned. Farming these creatures for food is ok but best to eat a new generation that is born in captivity. (Sheesh, wait til they fill the oceans with plastic, I'll have rewrite all this stuff. Actually maybe I will just tell em not to eat it and leave it at that for now. On the other hand it is funny making Moses chisel his guts out.) and never eat Big Mac."""

Avatar image for willpayton
#24791 Posted by willpayton (22083 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

In Leviticust it specifically states you shall not eat lobster of oysters because of the heavy metal content in creatures that dwell on the bottom of the ocean. You can accumulate heavy metals in the soft tissues of your body and eventually get poisoned. Farming these creatures for food is ok but best to eat a new generation that is born in captivity. (Sheesh, wait til they fill the oceans with plastic, I'll have rewrite all this stuff. Actually maybe I will just tell em not to eat it and leave it at that for now. On the other hand it is funny making Moses chisel his guts out.) and never eat Big Mac.

But what does it say about tacos? Ok to eat, or not?

Avatar image for spareheadone
#24792 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6101 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

Deuteronomonomonomy 8:8 states....

You may only eat food engineered by "Monsanto" who will provide all maize produce to "old elpaso". Monsanto will engineer all their food according to the environments and ecosystems of the areas they export to. You see I made everything to work in with everything else. For example if maize yields are low in your area and heat is up, I made it so that your bodies adjust and benefit more from red kidney beans. (Moses! Rub that shit out! Just write this)

Tacos made with wheat flour are fake and if you eat one you will become possessed by a demon.

Avatar image for dshipp17
#24793 Edited by dshipp17 (5485 posts) - - Show Bio

Jeremiah 10:1-16:

Hear ye the word which the Lord speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:

2 Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

5 They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

6 Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O Lord; thou art great, and thy name is great in might.

7 Who would not fear thee, O King of nations? for to thee doth it appertain: forasmuch as among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their kingdoms, there is none like unto thee.

8 But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities.

9 Silver spread into plates is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz, the work of the workman, and of the hands of the founder: blue and purple is their clothing: they are all the work of cunning men.

10 But the Lord is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.

11 Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.

12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.

13 When he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures.

14 Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.

15 They are vanity, and the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall perish.

16 The portion of Jacob is not like them: for he is the former of all things; and Israel is the rod of his inheritance: The Lord of hosts is his name.

He's spent 10 years alone. Now Romeo, the world's loneliest frog, may have finally found a Juliet that can save his species

Loading Video...
Loading Video...

Avatar image for willpayton
#24794 Posted by willpayton (22083 posts) - - Show Bio

Tacos made with wheat flour are fake and if you eat one you will become possessed by a demon.

You say that like it's a bad thing. What kind of demon are we talking about? The sexy kind?

Avatar image for spareheadone
#24795 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6101 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

Depends how much God hates you.

He told me you would get a demon of of phallic impotence.

Avatar image for willpayton
#24796 Posted by willpayton (22083 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

Depends how much God hates you.

Oh, I'm sure he hates me quite a bit. I've been going around being very disrespectful to our dear lord and savior... and several of the others as well.

He told me you would get a demon of of phallic impotence.

If you're regularly talking to god, then you might have your own issues... perhaps something that prescription medication can take care of.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#24797 Edited by SpareHeadOne (6101 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

He told me you need some non prescription medication to open you up to him.

Actually I have been informed that you need payote, mescaline and a sweat lodge.

Avatar image for solar_nerd
#24798 Posted by solar_nerd (2625 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm a born-again Christian who came to God almost three years ago at a church retreat.

Avatar image for ourmanuel
#24799 Posted by ourmanuel (11409 posts) - - Show Bio

Sparehead is the most successful troll on CV and it’s still funny seeing his interactions with people.

Avatar image for dshipp17
#24800 Posted by dshipp17 (5485 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm a born-again Christian who came to God almost three years ago at a church retreat.

Awesome and way to go.