The Bible

For a laugh at American bible bashers this is hysterical


On a recent episode of his “TruNews” show, Christian broadcaster Rick Wiles revealed a major secret about what’s in our drinking water.

“Judgment is coming,” Wiles warned. “When they slaughter a little baby in a Planned Parenthood baby butcher shop, where does that baby’s blood go? Where does the baby’s brains and guts go?”

“I’ll tell you where it goes,” he continued. “It goes down the drain, into the sewer system and the blood of those babies is running through your town’s sewer, under your street. The sewage pipes in your city [are] carrying the blood, the guts, the brains, the tissue of all the babies murdered in your city today.

It’s going right into your city’s sewer system. You’re actually drinking — you’re drinking the babies’ blood, being recycled and going right back into the city’s water supply. Cannibalism.”
 
D

Deleted 154930

Guest
For a laugh at American bible bashers this is hysterical

The language is certainly a little strong, but he obviously feels strongly about the death of something which is alive. Personally, I have grave doubts about the morality of abortion, excepting the usual caveat cases deployed to facilitate a law change.

Don't know the man, but the danger with religion, is when people start to believe they are speaking for god. A lot of hubris exists in religion, doing good goes to your head.
 
Your thoughts consist, of UGG, UGG, bollox, UGG - philosophy is for wimps init
Ah, now you're making assumptions.

I don't think I have the capacity to philosophise. I'm unable to formulate a point of view or an argument and any thoughts are purely reactive.

My responses to your posts are not insults, merely what your posts say to me. The language is such that they cause the glazed eye and for me, hold no meaning. Similarly to a once posted 'A prayerful mind re-orientates the heart'. Pure blancmange.

Otherwise I'm very interested in people's views of the bible, particularly with respect to archaeological evidence.
 
D

Deleted 154930

Guest
Ah, now you're making assumptions.

I don't think I have the capacity to philosophise. I'm unable to formulate a point of view or an argument and any thoughts are purely reactive.

My responses to your posts are not insults, merely what your posts say to me. The language is such that they cause the glazed eye and for me, hold no meaning. Similarly to a once posted 'A prayerful mind re-orientates the heart'. Pure blancmange.

Otherwise I'm very interested in people's views of the bible, particularly with respect to archaeological evidence.
I am a Christian and taken the view that most of the old testament are simple stories to express emotions, points of view and examples of behaviour, that feed the soul.

Archaeological, is a realm of Kings, Nobles and the rich, all of which likely were not on a fast track to anywhere but the hot place.
 
Hmmm. 44% Humanist.
But I found that test to be rigged in the way the questions were posed and like most tests was about the tester more than the tested.
Most questions didn't give me the chance of what I would have given as a true answer.
But then I don't have religion, I am more on the lines of philosophy as say Plato would have gone along with.

BTW as a point this thread is meant to be a reasonably serious discussion about the Bible and related issues. Insults* shouldn't form a part of this as the believers have a stance that has meaning for them and their lives and should be discussed respecting that.
Personally in a serious discussion I find the terms 'invisible/imaginary friend', 'sky pixies' and the like to be insulting in this context. What is perceived reality for one person isn't the same for the next. I also consider that the user of the term is belittling himself in that he is unwilling to debate on serious terms, and that he also cannot simply use another term that gives respect to the believer in this particular debate.
Rant over.

*Higgs Bosun apart because he doesn't know any other way to participate bless him.
One of my outlaws is a truly beautiful person. She believes in fairies and accepts the famous, admittedly fake photo as evidential proof.

She's definitely not a stupid person but in that instance, holds a stupid point of view.

Having a belief, a faith, is not automatically deserving of respect.

Most of the time people's beliefs don't impinge on me and I'm content to let live. When they do impinge I'm angered.

And on a thread such as this, where people choose to air their beliefs, possibly for discussion, then they must accept that others may see their beliefs as nonsense and post accordingly. Some beliefs are worthy of mockery.
 
I am a Christian and taken the view that most of the old testament are simple stories to express emotions, points of view and examples of behaviour, that feed the soul.

Archaeological, is a realm of Kings, Nobles and the rich, all of which likely were not on a fast track to anywhere but the hot place.
I'm really not up to any debating today but I must say that your last sentence is a further example of blancmange.
 
One of my outlaws is a truly beautiful person. She believes in fairies and accepts the famous, admittedly fake photo as evidential proof.

She's definitely not a stupid person but in that instance, holds a stupid point of view.
Bit down today?
Ill-considered view perhaps?
Having a belief, a faith, is not automatically deserving of respect.

Most of the time people's beliefs don't impinge on me and I'm content to let live. When they do impinge I'm angered.
Go along with that.
And on a thread such as this, where people choose to air their beliefs, possibly for discussion, then they must accept that others may see their beliefs as nonsense and post accordingly. Some beliefs are worthy of mockery.
I agree that if one airs one's beliefs on here one knowingly opens to, shall we say, a variety of comments. I don't think anyone who has a belief on here is trying to change or bring anyone over to their POV. So what they are doing is expressing something that they have thought about and made part of their lives. However wrong or misguided it may be from another POV it still deserves some respect. People like Bigpod have decided that their faith is worthy of following and use it to actively attempt to help others. I think that's worthy of discussion but not mockery because we aren't in the NAAFI.
As you have seen I disagree with the fundamental tenets of modern christianity for historical reasons especially, and also spiritual and philosophical reasons, but I've thought about it.
All too often the mockers haven't really thought, they have just adopted a simplistic stance based on both peer pressure and apparent scientific disproval of a man made God. Just like a Bible-belt American will adopt a literal faith because everyone around him accepts it as normal.
I see the 'sky pixie' style comments as a facile, and often juvenile, way of ridicule while adopting a moral high ground, and I find it detracts from the rest of the argument. If those who put forward the 'imaginary friend' argument are free to use it then I am equally free to express what I think about it.
 
Bit down today?
Ill-considered view perhaps?

Go along with that.


I agree that if one airs one's beliefs on here one knowingly opens to, shall we say, a variety of comments. I don't think anyone who has a belief on here is trying to change or bring anyone over to their POV. So what they are doing is expressing something that they have thought about and made part of their lives. However wrong or misguided it may be from another POV it still deserves some respect. People like Bigpod have decided that their faith is worthy of following and use it to actively attempt to help others. I think that's worthy of discussion but not mockery because we aren't in the NAAFI.
As you have seen I disagree with the fundamental tenets of modern christianity for historical reasons especially, and also spiritual and philosophical reasons, but I've thought about it.
All too often the mockers haven't really thought, they have just adopted a simplistic stance based on both peer pressure and apparent scientific disproval of a man made God. Just like a Bible-belt American will adopt a literal faith because everyone around him accepts it as normal.
I see the 'sky pixie' style comments as a facile, and often juvenile, way of ridicule while adopting a moral high ground, and I find it detracts from the rest of the argument. If those who put forward the 'imaginary friend' argument are free to use it then I am equally free to express what I think about it.
Bigpod's beliefs don't impinge on me and from my perspective, he's free to believe as he wishes. I don't think his beliefs do harm to anybody and his actions are highly meritorious and worthy of my respect.

But all beliefs are not equal. Not all are worthy of respect. Some are not simply different. Some are obscene. Some are worthy only of contempt. Some are arrant nonsense.

And being the fair minded chappie that I am, others are free to find my opinions or lack of belief nonsensical or 'fuckin' stupid'.
 
Bigpod's beliefs don't impinge on me and from my perspective, he's free to believe as he wishes. I don't think his beliefs do harm to anybody and his actions are highly meritorious and worthy of my respect.

But all beliefs are not equal. Not all are worthy of respect. Some are not simply different. Some are obscene. Some are worthy only of contempt. Some are arrant nonsense.

And being the fair minded chappie that I am, others are free to find my opinions or lack of belief nonsensical or 'fuckin' stupid'.
"First do no harm" is often associated with the Hippocratic Oath taken by Drs (although it isn't actually in it). But it is very much on a par with the core of Christianity I have often quoted - Love God and Love everyone else".

If you have no belief in God, its a fairly good maxim to live by.
 
"First do no harm" is often associated with the Hippocratic Oath taken by Drs (although it isn't actually in it). But it is very much on a par with the core of Christianity I have often quoted - Love God and Love everyone else".

If you have no belief in God, its a fairly good maxim to live by.
I'm just me. I need no maxims to live by.
 
But all beliefs are not equal. Not all are worthy of respect. Some are not simply different. Some are obscene. Some are worthy only of contempt. Some are arrant nonsense.
I'm not going to disagree, but the point is that apart from periodic bursts ot atheist sneering and occasional 'I have seen the lighters' in the main posters on here are genuinely engaged in a debate. Yes it's arrse but there are other forums for dumping on religion and I just think it should be respected.
Naive? Very possibly.
 

Trans-sane

LE
Book Reviewer
How about this then?


Not that I agree with him.
It's what is known in polite circles as bullshit baffles brains. He starts with explaining a complicated scientific theory that the majority of the audience won't be able to understand and THEN introduce a logical falacy
 
How about this then?


Not that I agree with him.
Don't worry he'll probably grow up to be Sheldon.

However where do you disagree with him? Or just the conclusion?
Because if you go along with his drift then what you will find is SOMETHING, but what is certain is that it won't be God as people tend to understand the concept, the bloke sitting on a cloud and capriciously interfering with humanity. It won't be the God of The Bible, the Koran, the Talmud or any other book, it will the the principle for the cause of the universe, a very different thing. So again, don't worry.
It's what is known in polite circles as bullshit baffles brains. He starts with explaining a complicated scientific theory that the majority of the audience won't be able to understand and THEN introduce a logical falacy
And the fallacy is?
 
Don't worry he'll probably grow up to be Sheldon.

However where do you disagree with him? Or just the conclusion?
Because if you go along with his drift then what you will find is SOMETHING, but what is certain is that it won't be God as people tend to understand the concept, the bloke sitting on a cloud and capriciously interfering with humanity. It won't be the God of The Bible, the Koran, the Talmud or any other book, it will the the principle for the cause of the universe, a very different thing. So again, don't worry.

And the fallacy is?
He makes the assumption that there is a purpose for something existing. It's a common human trait.
 
He makes the assumption that there is a purpose for something existing. It's a common human trait.
So your point is that the Universe is an accident?
 
To simplify his argument:

The universe came from a singularity, so where did the singularity come from?

Answer............god.

At which point his scientific principle brakes down and is the same argument used by man for every question they did not know the answer to for the past 130 thousand years.
 
To simplify his argument:

The universe came from a singularity, so where did the singularity come from?

Answer............god.

At which point his scientific principle brakes down and is the same argument used by man for every question they did not know the answer to for the past 130 thousand years.
There is the brane theory, comes under the m-theory (string theory). One idea bounced around is two branes touch each other like a collision (like holding two bits of paper and waving them till they touch) . Which creates a new universe. Rather simple explanation of reasonable complex theory to get your head round :)
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top