Jump to content


Photo

Greetings & Hellos


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#21 menes777

menes777

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Wichita, KS

Posted 12 January 2010 - 01:51 PM

Oh yes to get something clear from the beginning, because I might do it again in this post. The X in Christian is short for Christos or Christ. I could type Christ every single time, but I usually get a typo of some sort and I don't like typing that much. If you think that makes me afraid to say the name of Christ, I will start typing Christ out.

Was there something wrong with it?

View Post


There wasn't, I thought it was very nicely presented.

When people have to justify an act deceitfully. it means they know they have done wrong and are trying to cover for what they did.

I agree 100%.

God did not condone what they did. The people were enraged because the kings son had raped one of the girls of the Israelites. Jacob, head of the tribe, was very mad about what they did behind his back.

I think it all depends on how you interpret the Bible.

There is a difference between war with an enemy, and having to kill those who do evil.

View Post


I see what you are saying, that their enemies were to be treated differently than the people guilty of sin (or doing evil). I was just stating (but not directly) that if or was or was not in the bible, a conqueror like Constantine would never follow by it. He could have used those verses to justify his actions (although really who would he justify them to?), but I doubt he even gave it a second thought.

It was never recorded that God directly told Constantine to kill anyone. And because most of who they killed were not even considered enemies, he would have had to kill them for their evil if he was doing this for God. But whom he was killing was innocent civilians. So your logic here does not work.

View Post


I'm not sure which logic you mean here as there are several points. Could you clarify which you mean?

Shall I start naming people who have killed, torture, racism, deception in the name of evolution, atheism, communism, humanism?

View Post


I could probably name many myself. Josef Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, George W Bush (LOL j/k seeing if you were still reading or not).

Darwin's cousin Sir Francis Galton headed up Eugenics. They did experiments for the Nazis. http://www.eugenicsa...ader.pl?id=1589

View Post


I was going to say I was going to look at this later, but it just appears to be an image of Truman State University did you mean to link me somewhere else?

Notice the head measuring device in the window from link above. That is how they determined how evolved a person was from being an animal, or in this case a highly evolved human. Evolution experiments were done upon animals in the name of eugenics: http://www.eugenicsa...images/961.html

View Post


See above, I think it's fascinating and something to learn more information about.

You see, here we have the double standard. Regardless of what evolutionists do in the name of evolution, it's okay. Why is it okay? The individual defines the morals of the actions of everyone involved, as you just demonstrated above with that last comment. There are no moral standards or you would not have been justifying putting people in a zoo for display like animals. What if I had justified that same thing by making the same comment? You'd be all over it.

View Post


Is it not ok when evolutionists (or anyone) do it. It can never be justified for putting people in zoo's. In fact being part Native American myself it is an outrage that anyone would consider the natives of this and those lands to be inferior to anyone else regardless of skin color. If it indeed was an an exhibit of evolutionary progress, then I am very ashamed that it was used as such. Can I change it now that is done? I cannot. The same as you cannot change what Constantine or the Pope or what Scott Roedor has done in the name of religion. What do I expect you to do? Not a darn thing, because it would be wasting your time. I would expect that the next time you have the chance to show what it is to be Christ like or just another human, you let Jesus shine through you. I'm not saying you never have, because I don't know you. Outside of this forum you could be the male Mother Theresa. I can only speak from my experience from other Christians who are not. If someone wants to be called a Christian they should be Christ like, if not then they are going to get lumped into religion.

You basically have all the ear markings of a professional Bible scoffer. One whom presents himself as a fallen Christian in the attempt to take down the Christian faith while all along making his own belief look perfect and without flaw by justifying actions you hold against us, to be okay for yourself. It is not only bias, but prejudice.

Now Bible scoffing is not calling anyone names because I don't determine it by just a name I want to call someone. I determine it by their actions against the Bible and the Christian faith. You have basically shown here that you are 100% against all that. So no matter how you try and soften it, it shows with every word. Your refusal to use the name Christ in your wording, but would rather X-Christ out also confirms this.

View Post


I openly admit that I am a Bible scoffer and I know that is not an insult or a label. I must appear in your eyes to be throwing down your bible and spitting on it and doing my best to discredit it. While the opposite is not true (I am not trying to prove it), I consider myself relatively benign to the bible. Sure I sometimes will pull a passage or two out to show a point but you see how often I do that. I do however do not believe in everything that is written within it. I think some of the parables within ring true and some of the principles are great ideas no matter who you are. Some of it I consider myth (or fairy tale) and more allegory or metaphor than literal truth. It's just not what I believe anymore.

I however do not consider evolution perfect, and I don't think that it will ever be perfect. There are no moral standards in it which can make it a highly dangerous concept in the wrong hands. Just like a scalpel can be very useful in the right hand, it can also be extremely deadly in the wrong (or even the misguided). The scalpel knows no pain and it has no feelings. The same with evolution and really atheism could be grouped into that too.

Also, the human zoo still goes on today. Here is a site that did this and promoted it: http://www.humanzoo....u/thehumans.htm

My, the link seems to be broken. I wonder why. It seems that when evolutionists do things that hurt evolution more than it helps. They remove the website, or the whole page. But luckily, I have a few links that show it was actually done. And that the site actually existed: http://www.cbsnews.c...ain798423.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.u...900/4188996.stm

The problem is with the web is that once you put up anything of interest, others will promote it. And even though it's take it down for whatever reason. The others usually don't.

View Post


I think you are being a little paranoid. Websites of all kinds go away all the time. I use to visit www.kent-H*vind.com (which is really the opposite of what you might think) and it's gone. Wiped out. No more. Do I think that Eric H*vind got it taken down? Probably. Do I consider it a Creationist scheme to hide the truth? Probably not, the site was a character assassination although it did have some really great info in it too.

I have more respect for people's honesty about what they believe whether I agree or not, when they can just come out and say it. Then I do for those who present themselves as someone halfway between two beliefs, but when pinned down actually show which belief they will stick by in every situation. And then use the most common Bible scoffing subjects to try and discredit the book they despise.

View Post


Ok you got me, I am an atheist who believes in evolution. However, it seems more like your belief in the Bible is a little shaky if those few passages were considered to a discredit for the bible. Remember I used those verses to answer your question, and not just as a blanket statement to show the bible is bad. While I do not believe all of the bible I do not find any need to discredit it. If someone makes a statement that is untrue of the Bible I will give my POV on what I considered to be false. It is not my attempt to discredit the Bible, which really requires a qualification to it. Such as discredit the Bible as the written word of God. Which if it seems like I have done that I apologize as that was not my intent.

Edit: 10 quote boxes per post is what the forum program allows. It's not an option we can change. So for every quote you make over 10, you use a code box instead and the boxes will show up.

#22 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 January 2010 - 08:48 PM

Honesty is the best policy.

Welcome to the forums.

#23 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 February 2010 - 10:35 AM

Oh yes to get something clear from the beginning, because I might do it again in this post.  The X in Christian is short for Christos or Christ.  I could type Christ every single time, but I usually get a typo of some sort and I don't like typing that much.  If you think that makes me afraid to say the name of Christ, I will start typing Christ out.

View Post


No, it's basically used as an affront to the name of Christ. I doubt anyone thinks you're afraid to use the name of Christ, but some use it as a derogatory remark. Like Christian or xmas.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users