OMG, Stairway to heaven is Satanic, Proof, Listen and read the lyrics

[Flip McWho]

Well, wouldn't you rather live slightly less but as a free human being, living a wholesome life with family and children, following God's laws, than live for longer in squalid, overcrowded city conditions, with no vision, no purpose in life?

Umm theres a nice little contradiction in this statement. Freedom and living to gods laws don't go together very well. Unless you mean the freedom to live to Gods laws. Which is entirely based on the assumption (yes it is an assumption) that the version of God as painted in the books you wish to refer does in fact exist as painted.

Now this belief in this assumption is entirely up to you to make. But any true god fearing person would respect the fact that many people cannot bring themselves to believe in this assumption and as such that is also their choice. Forced belief is not true belief and God, if he was anywhere near as moral as you believe him to be, would rather people accept God through their own arrival not through other peoples often wrong interpretations.

[Son of David]

Originally posted by Dis


or maybe they just don't want to be oppressed. They are funny that way.

I preferred your comment on Anglo-Saxon women being overly demanding. Much more relevant in this context.

Problem is, when you give an inch, they demand a mile more ....

[Son of David]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
assumption and as such that is also their choice. Forced belief is not true belief and God, if he was anywhere near as moral as you believe him to be, would rather people accept God through their own arrival not through other peoples often wrong interpretations.

You'll search in vain for one single faith that does not rely on interpretations of the Bible (it is, in reality, a closed book without interpretation), not even the 'Jehovah's' Witnesses are able to avoid the temptation to call in the opinions of various academics in their expounding of supposedly literal Bible interpretation.

But the point is that a truly free person is a slave to God, because God can give blessings and prosperity and life to a human being like no man or thing can. If you love God, he will give you the best you could possibly hope for.

But to be enslaved to the designs of MEN? No thank you! We have, in industrialism and capitalism, the perfect example of how people are enslaved and treated like cattle when they make obeisance to the evil designs of men.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Son of David



Could you describe your vision of the universe without believing in the existence of God?

An incidence of some kind.

What is man's purpose on this planet? Simply to have fun, do his own thing?

That actually is an easy question to answer- none - or as you say "to have fun" though I would prefer "to exist" wich is a common treat of biological specimens.

If that is true, then what do you have to say about the thousands of generations of your forefathers who fought tooth and nail to give you the material riches and opportunities you see around you?

Your religon has obviously confused you seriously - humans has the ability to prepare the future of their offspring and of course I appreciate this - though, I'm a little pissed of the fact that they allowed religion to delay it.

Surely it is your responsibility to ensure that people who are born after you are able to enjoy the fruits of your ancestors' good works too.

The problem with Europe is that it is selfish and pursuing short-term profit at the expense of long-term stability.

In the end, you can all choose to eschew God if you please - but He will likewise eschew you, and smite all of you off the face of this earth, and replace you with people who will be loyal to Him.

It's up to you. You can choose death, or life. God is life.

This is pure BS

[Dis]

Originally posted by Son of David




I preferred your comment on Anglo-Saxon women being overly demanding. Much more relevant in this context.

Problem is, when you give an inch, they demand a mile more ....

I'm not going to bull**** anyone. I do want a woman who will give me children. And I do expect that for a long term relationship. But I would never force this will on someone. If she won't bear me children, I'll move onto someone who will. Yes I do expect women to do certain things. And I'm sure they expect me to do certain things as well. Men and women are different. But that doesn't mean we force them to act a certain way.

Women can act like men all they want. Just don't expect me to be attracted to that.

[BlackCat]

@elok - it's pretty late here so I'm going to sleep soon, but there really are some pretty funny things in your fantasies . catch up tomorrow .

[Flip McWho]

You'll search in vain for one single faith that does not rely on interpretations of the Bible

Um last I checked muslims didn't rely on the bible (or rather they rely on their own version, jews on the OT and christians on the NT (not as clearcut obviously). Not to mention the many other more eastern religions out there as well. How do you tell them apart aside from your own bias'? But I agree with the literal thing. I've never quite understood how you can keep your religion and only use the allegorical method of interpretating the bible.

But then humans are inherently flawed (which is a bible tenant) and as such can we really trust any non literal interpretation of the bible?
And literal interpretation depends on a faith in God (as described literally) and a firm renouncement of a heck of a lot of science and history.

But the point is that a truly free person is a slave to God

So using the term freedom in your previous post that I quoted is a bit nonsensical to use here isn't it.

What are the designs of men exactly?

[Flip McWho]

Dis bang on.

[Flip McWho]

Also another thing SoD:

I can't remember exactly which thread you referred to the founding fathers and socrates etc in, mighta been this one even, but you're forgetting that they are products of their society and religious fervour and woman fulfilling their function is something which was very persuasive in their society at that time. You can't argue based on celebrity endorsements (as Elok puts it).

[Son of David]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
I've never quite understood how you can keep your religion and only use the allegorical method of interpretating the bible.

But then humans are inherently flawed (which is a bible tenant) and as such can we really trust any non literal interpretation of the bible?

The most obvious example is the case of the opening chapters of Genesis.

A literal interpretation would lead you to believe that God made light, separated the heavens and the seas, made trees and bushes and plants, made living creatures, made man, etc all on one day for each act.

But for God, who is eternal, a 'day' is not the same as a human day! A day in this context is quite clearly meant to mean an EPOCH, or a day in God's (eternal) sense.

God created all living things after their fashion. Thus, what Darwin called 'the infinite gradation' of a species, the mutability of a species, i.e. the development of favourable mutations and the subsequent likelihood of a species to seize on this favourable mutations and eliminate those without, racial improvement in other words, is to be understood as 'evolution' according to God's plan: Darwinists 'believe' without evidence that such transformations occur completely at random, whereas in reality such changes are wrought by the hand of our Creator.

But suppose Genesis had made a complicated reference to all this? Wouldn't that have mightily confused the people it was originally written for thousands of years ago?

The problem is two-fold:

1. Insistence on strict literal interpretation,

but also, even worse,

2. Nihilists who insist on replacing a faith in God with a faith in Nature.

Darwinists assume that Nature is beautiful, infinite, and has a tendency to improve all different species of animal infinitely, killing off those who fail to improve - in other words, they directly ascribe all the properties of God to some Nature-construct, thus robbing God of the praise He deserves, and stripping human beings of their dignity, sense of mission, and of duty to one another!

Atheism is simply a religion which denies God!

[Flip McWho]

Darwinists 'believe' without evidence that such transformations occur completely at random

Disagree.

Atheism is simply a position that denies Gods existence. Atheists make up broad categories of people that believe in many different things.

And those darwinists who ascribe properties to a nature construct have just as much evidence for their case as you do for yours. Once we remove the falliability that is the scriptures from the picture.

[Barnabas]

Close this thread mods!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Son of David
The backward messages in Britney Spears 'Baby one more time' song are particularly pernicious,...

belittling the value of sin

I just hate that!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Son of David
You'll search in vain for one single faith that does not rely on interpretations of the Bible (it is, in reality, a closed book without interpretation), not even the 'Jehovah's' Witnesses are able to avoid the temptation to call in the opinions of various academics in their expounding of supposedly literal Bible interpretation.

Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, and Islam.

We also have Ra, Odin, Zeus/Jupiter, Voodoo beliefs, and a whole mess of religions that you don't even know.

[Flip McWho]

I think I raised a similar point in another thread. We should really bring all SoDs post into one giant prove me wrong thread. Not that we could of course. Faith is untouchable.