Mr.B wrote:
Correct.....Past and present atrocities committed against other races, women, religions, etc., in the name of God, Allah, or even your Flying Spaghetti Monster is evidence enough that those who were/are involved in their commission are liars and evil, regardless who or what they say they are.
Blah blah blah.
In that case most of your biblical figures are liars and evil according to your own criteria. Not that I disagree.
They did some really horrible stuff at the behest of God/Allah.
BTW, what atrocities have been committed in the name of FSM? Other than delicious meals?
Nope. A little basic knowledge of Old Testament law covenant juxtaposed against New Testament covenant of grace would serve you well in your futile attempts to make a mockery of The Bible.
"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)
Yep, so futile. Don't bother with your excuses for this verse. The bible has a million contradictions, I'm sure you'll find one.
Note that even Christians don't believe what you're saying. The bible was the major reason for the burning of witches. Those were Christians that actually tried to follow it. What do you expect from a book that taught the sun revolved around the earth.
Again, a little basic knowledge of the Old Testament law covenant when compared to the New Testament covenant of grace will serve you well. Really, you should research it a bit, and stop just posting up the talking point verses from your spaghetti monster. By the way....when was the last time a witch was burned in the name of Christianity??
Nope. A little basic knowledge of Old Testament law covenant juxtaposed against New Testament covenant of grace would serve you well in your futile attempts to make a mockery of The Bible.
"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)
Yep, so futile. Don't bother with your excuses for this verse. The bible has a million contradictions, I'm sure you'll find one.
Note that even Christians don't believe what you're saying. The bible was the major reason for the burning of witches. Those were Christians that actually tried to follow it. What do you expect from a book that taught the sun revolved around the earth.
Again, a little basic knowledge of the Old Testament law covenant when compared to the New Testament covenant of grace will serve you well. Really, you should research it a bit, and stop just posting up the talking point verses from your spaghetti monster. By the way....when was the last time a witch was burned in the name of Christianity??
Sorry, "Jesus" was recorded as having a great respect the old testament laws, repeatedly bringing them up as examples of what to do. He even said they always apply very clearly, at least according to Matthew. Since Matthew didn't even exist, and could have never know what Jesus said anyway since it was written hundreds of years after his supposed death, it's a moot point.
But yeah.... I'll do some more research because it's clearly me that doesn't know enough. Oh and the last time a witches (a few hundred?) were killed was in 1996, or at least that was the most recent I've found. They weren't burned though, they were hanged. You were saying?
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
According to Jesus you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Nope. A little basic knowledge of Old Testament law covenant juxtaposed against New Testament covenant of grace would serve you well in your futile attempts to make a mockery of The Bible.
"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)
Yep, so futile. Don't bother with your excuses for this verse. The bible has a million contradictions, I'm sure you'll find one.
Note that even Christians don't believe what you're saying. The bible was the major reason for the burning of witches. Those were Christians that actually tried to follow it. What do you expect from a book that taught the sun revolved around the earth.
Again, a little basic knowledge of the Old Testament law covenant when compared to the New Testament covenant of grace will serve you well. Really, you should research it a bit, and stop just posting up the talking point verses from your spaghetti monster. By the way....when was the last time a witch was burned in the name of Christianity??
This kind of intellectual laziness is to be expected from someone like Mad Roland.
Nope. A little basic knowledge of Old Testament law covenant juxtaposed against New Testament covenant of grace would serve you well in your futile attempts to make a mockery of The Bible.
"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)
Yep, so futile. Don't bother with your excuses for this verse. The bible has a million contradictions, I'm sure you'll find one.
Note that even Christians don't believe what you're saying. The bible was the major reason for the burning of witches. Those were Christians that actually tried to follow it. What do you expect from a book that taught the sun revolved around the earth.
Again, a little basic knowledge of the Old Testament law covenant when compared to the New Testament covenant of grace will serve you well. Really, you should research it a bit, and stop just posting up the talking point verses from your spaghetti monster. By the way....when was the last time a witch was burned in the name of Christianity??
Sorry, "Jesus" was recorded as having a great respect the old testament laws, repeatedly bringing them up as examples of what to do. He even said they always apply very clearly, at least according to Matthew. Since Matthew didn't even exist, and could have never know what Jesus said anyway since it was written hundreds of years after his supposed death, it's a moot point.
But yeah.... I'll do some more research because it's clearly me that doesn't know enough.
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
According to Jesus you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Keep trying banni because the more you post the more it becomes obvious that your spaghetti monster's talking points are letting you down and you are truly ignorant on the subject....especially when trying to compare the New Covenant with Old Testament law.
Keep trying banni because the more you post the more it becomes obvious that your spaghetti monster's talking points are letting you down and you are truly ignorant on the subject....especially when trying to compare the New Covenant with Old Testament law.
You could attempt to address his points. Or you could keep making a fool of yourself. The choice is yours.
Where's your gun(s)? I recommend you go admire and fondle them; maybe even cycle a few rounds through the chamber just for good luck. After that, go and ponder selective excerpts from the bible. Maybe you'll feel better. Maybe not.
bannination wrote:It's like talking to Wendy Wright.
Apparently she must be much smarter than you on the subject as well then.
You would probably think so. That's certainly not a compliment either.
I don't think so...your regurgitation of spaghetti monster talking points and their inaccuracies pretty much prove it. Like I said, a little knowledge would serve you well. However, we all know that is something that you will never seek.
Roland Deschain wrote:
I don't think so...your regurgitation of spaghetti monster talking points and their inaccuracies pretty much prove it. Like I said, a little knowledge would serve you well. However, we all know that is something that you will never seek.
LOL - What a clown. No wonder he needs so many screen names.
O Really wrote:"given by God..." seriously? That's your argument? OK, you win. What-everr.
You disagree? Please share with us how my statement is not true, when all things in nature will vehemently defend themselves or their young.
You can believe what you want. But invoking "God given" in a discussion on secular legal matters has no more validity than "the Devil made me do it" as a criminal defense.
O Really wrote:"given by God..." seriously? That's your argument? OK, you win. What-everr.
You disagree? Please share with us how my statement is not true, when all things in nature will vehemently defend themselves or their young.
You can believe what you want. But invoking "God given" in a discussion on secular legal matters has no more validity than "the Devil made me do it" as a criminal defense.
OK then....allow me to rephrase.....the though process of defending one's self is biological in nature and part of the natural order. Again, corner a cougar or get between a sow and her cubs and see what happens. Now do you want to tell me that defending one's life or family's lives is not natural.
O Really wrote:"given by God..." seriously? That's your argument? OK, you win. What-everr.
You disagree? Please share with us how my statement is not true, when all things in nature will vehemently defend themselves or their young.
You can believe what you want. But invoking "God given" in a discussion on secular legal matters has no more validity than "the Devil made me do it" as a criminal defense.
OK then....allow me to rephrase.....the though process of defending one's self is biological in nature and part of the natural order. Again, corner a cougar or get between a sow and her cubs and see what happens. Now do you want to tell me that defending one's life or family's lives is not natural.
Are you an idiot or just a troll? No one, not one goddamn person, has claimed you don't have a right to defend yourself. Why keep pretending that's the argument?
Ombudsman wrote: . . . Are you an idiot or just a troll? No one, not one goddamn person, has claimed you don't have a right to defend yourself. Why keep pretending that's the argument?
One can be both. This is the Straw King, here. He loves to argue with something you haven't said, then demand that you prove him wrong.
People are crazy and times are strange. I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range.
I used to care, but, things have changed.
True that, but even regarding the comment, living in a society places some restraints on biological and natural impulses. Like crapping in the street. The mama bear can be excused for not knowing that someone "between her and her cubs" isn't necessarily a danger. A human, on the other hand, is expected to make a finer distinction between what constitutes a danger and what does not.
Boatrocker wrote:Perhaps the RW simply isn't evolving. Or- worse, yet- perhaps they are devolving. Might not be long before they are crapping in the street.
That would be "biological in nature and part of the natural order" wouldn't it?
