[Azrael]

Re: No sex

I am glad someone managed to form a coherent argument. You would be right, there is not much common ground between us. I don't believe in the infallibility of the Bible. Perhaps your interpretation is literally exact, but that is not the topic of this discussion. We are talking about morals and humanity here. (Which, by the way, was the crux of Christianity last time I checked)


I don't believe in such a thing as "appropriate violence", and I am honestly astounded that someone would still believe in such a thing. Self defense is one thing, but imposing your own belief is another. What would I do in this somewhat flawed metaphorical case? I would simply sit in the driver's seat so he couldn't drive the car. I hope you now see how the comparison is flawed here. You are trying to impose your beliefs through violence, under the pretense that everyone else is damning himself. Perhaps I am damning myself, but how is violence an appropriate measure from your part? What gives you the right to force your own faith into me? It seems to me that, if you truly believe what you say, you are damning yourself by doing so.

You are like parents? No, you are like dictators. A caring parent lets a child think on his own. A dictator enforces.

PS: Originally Azrael is the Muslim Angel of Death. Quite ironic, if I may say so myself.

[Wide-Open]

Re: No sex

I am glad someone managed to form a coherent argument. You would be right, there is not much common ground between us.

Are you sure?

I don't believe in the infallibility of the Bible. Perhaps your interpretation is literally exact, but that is not the topic of this discussion.

Let's stop for a second here: for US that is exactly the topic. Many people think "yeah, Jesus was this cool hippy" and "love, huggs, kiss, other cheek". The problem is they have just invented a religion, with nothing to back it up. They are atheists without even knowing it.

As much as we don't have common ground (your words): if you believe in the Bible, should one:

a) follow and study it through and through

or

b) make up your own version, throw in some Wicca or whatever, and say "we are all about love"

I would like you to answer that one.

We are talking about morals and humanity here. (Which, by the way, was the crux of Christianity last time I checked)

Then you didn't do your research very well. The only moral comes from God, and He has also shown that he doesn't care much about humanity in many cases. Unless of course, you follow each and every word He wrote.

What would I do in this somewhat flawed metaphorical case? I would simply sit in the driver's seat so he couldn't drive the car.

So you would doubt his judgement and steal his free will?

I hope you now see how the comparison is flawed here. You are trying to impose your beliefs through violence, under the pretense that everyone else is damning himself.

So did Marx, and he didn't exactly follow the Bible. And, more importantly, I'm sorry that I'm attacking you on your own forum. I could have sworn I was on LBC.

What gives you the right to force your own faith into me? It seems to me that, if you truly believe what you say, you are damning yourself by doing so.

I'm not: only Jesus can. We can just give you some hints.

You are like parents? No, you are like dictators. A caring parent lets a child think on his own. A dictator enforces.

"Let the kid find out for itself that stoves can scar them for life?" Um, that sounds like neglect to me.

PS: Originally Azrael is the Muslim Angel of Death. Quite ironic, if I may say so myself.

Yes, we know. What you don't know is that an evil cat - hence Brother Nobar's comment in the other thread - in the Smurfs had that name as well. His owner was Gargamel.

But then again, let's face it, you automatically assumed we as "crazy nutter Christians" would be completely out of this world, didn't you?

[Azrael]

Re: No sex

Let us go one by one then.

Yes, I'm sure. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.


As with any book, one should read it, analyze it, and draw your own (hopefully intelligent) conclusions. Literal interpretation is frequently the poorest, most flawed one.


The only moral comes from God? What a sad world this is then, where there is no such thing as freedom of thought. That is one of the reasons I am an atheist. Atheism is a matter of faith too. Just as you can't prove God exists, I can't prove he doesn't. I choose to believe there is no God who would judge us by a flawed law and intransigent moral.


Again, the comparison is flawed. In the drunken driver's case there is such a thing as the possibility of harming a third party. Imposing your beliefs, however, just prevents ME from harming MYSELF. According to you, of course.


Yes, Marx was equally wrong. Again, thank you for pointing out the obvious. I am not attacking anyone. I am expressing my point of view. You shouldn't take it as an attack, but as an oportunity to understand the thought of others. And "convert" them, if that is what you want.


You aren't forcing me? Then why would you stone me?


Neglect? Hardly. A parent explains to his child, he doesn't force him. He would tell him "If you touch that stove, you will burn yourself". He wouldn't chain him.


I am well aware of the Smurf reference, but that is not the reason for the username. I thought it was pretty evident. I don't assume you as "crazy nutter Christians". I've read this forum and formed my own opinion that yes, you indeed are nutter Christians. But a crazy person isn't necessarily devoid of knowledge.

[Wide-Open]

Re: No sex

As with any book, one should read it, analyze it, and draw your own (hopefully intelligent) conclusions. Literal interpretation is frequently the poorest, most flawed one.

OK, so when you interprete, you decide for yourself which part is "true" and which part is "fiction" or "irrelevant". Can we agree on that one?

That would make the Bible totally void. If one does that, one plays "God".

What a sad world this is then, where there is no such thing as freedom of thought.

I was not aware that we had stopped your freedom of thought. Or even of speech for that matter.

That is one of the reasons I am an atheist. Atheism is a matter of faith too.

You do know that many atheists would disagree right? What you are describing sounds like agnosticism to me.

Again, the comparison is flawed. In the drunken driver's case there is such a thing as the possibility of harming a third party. Imposing your beliefs, however, just prevents ME from harming MYSELF. According to you, of course.

Aren't you a third party according to our beliefs?

You shouldn't take it as an attack, but as an oportunity to understand the thought of others. And "convert" them, if that is what you want.

I don't take it as an attack, and I don't think we have censored a single word of what you said so far.

You aren't forcing me? Then why would you stone me?

Can you point out where I said I was going to stone you?

Neglect? Hardly. A parent explains to his child, he doesn't force him. He would tell him "If you touch that stove, you will burn yourself". He wouldn't chain him.

Not even a little slap on the whrist when the kid decides it wants to take its own decisions? Now don't lie to me.

The metaphor isn't that far out as you seem to think.

I've read this forum and formed my own opinion that yes, you indeed are nutter Christians. But a crazy person isn't necessarily devoid of knowledge.

I have not called you any names yet, and still you decide to call us (and me) a "nutter". That hurts friend.

You formed an opinion based upon what you read. You are convinced. NUTTERS! All of them.

What if you are jumping to conclusions?

What if you were wrong? Why don't YOU do that stuff about being a "critical reader".

Deuteronomy 27:18
Cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander out of the way. And all the people shall say, Amen.

[Nobar King]

Re: No sex

Let us go one by one then.

Yes, I'm sure. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.


As with any book, one should read it, analyze it, and draw your own (hopefully intelligent) conclusions. Literal interpretation is frequently the poorest, most flawed one.


The only moral comes from God? What a sad world this is then, where there is no such thing as freedom of thought. That is one of the reasons I am an atheist. Atheism is a matter of faith too. Just as you can't prove God exists, I can't prove he doesn't. I choose to believe there is no God who would judge us by a flawed law and intransigent moral.


Again, the comparison is flawed. In the drunken driver's case there is such a thing as the possibility of harming a third party. Imposing your beliefs, however, just prevents ME from harming MYSELF. According to you, of course.


Yes, Marx was equally wrong. Again, thank you for pointing out the obvious. I am not attacking anyone. I am expressing my point of view. You shouldn't take it as an attack, but as an oportunity to understand the thought of others. And "convert" them, if that is what you want.


You aren't forcing me? Then why would you stone me?


Neglect? Hardly. A parent explains to his child, he doesn't force him. He would tell him "If you touch that stove, you will burn yourself". He wouldn't chain him.


I am well aware of the Smurf reference, but that is not the reason for the username. I thought it was pretty evident. I don't assume you as "crazy nutter Christians". I've read this forum and formed my own opinion that yes, you indeed are nutter Christians. But a crazy person isn't necessarily devoid of knowledge.

This post was tough to read without the reference quotes. I made a video yesterday which will explain how you can do this easily:

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?p=349336

[Azrael]

Re: No sex

You don't decide what part is "true" and what part is "fiction". Even taking for granted that everything is true, people draw different conclusions from the same literal facts. That is what you don't seem to understand. Literal interpretations are limited.


I don't mean you. You have been civil enough. I mean God. He would punish me for thinking differently? What a sad place indeed...


No, that is not agnosticism. This is literal atheism. Agnosticism is believing that God's existance is irrelevant and unprovable. Atheism is choosing to believe God doesn't exist. You are right, many atheists wouldn't agree, but that is my own personal view on the subject. I choose to believe there is no God, just as you choose to believe he does. Agnostics never speak of belief, but of facts.


No, I'm a second party. You would be the first party, the one making the decision. I am the second party, the one on which the decision is enforced upon. A third party would be someone harmed by either the first or the second party.


I never said you did, did I? But you have. Yesterday all my posts were deleted.


Take a look up at the title of this forum. "Straight 4 Jesus! (Back Door Christians) At LBC, we will cure your perversion of choice (even if we have to stone you)." Even if it is a joke, it is in very poor taste.


That depends. Is the kid an infant incapable of thought? Then yes, a slap on the wrist is in order. But I hardly consider myself an infant. So the metaphor IS far out.


I didn't call you a nutter. You called yourself so, I was merely agreeing. I am indeed trying to be a critical reader. I wouldn't be having this conversation to you otherwise, I would simply dismiss you as a fool. Which I don't.

[Wide-Open]

Re: No sex

I wouldn't be having this conversation to you otherwise, I would simply dismiss you as a fool. Which I don't.

Fool or not Az, I have to attend dinner a prayer circle, and I don't want to be rude, but I'll get back to you on this, OK?

[Azrael]

Re: No sex

Very well. Enjoy your... whatever it is.