[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Great, another tedious "debate" between Rob & Kevin. ripe for teh lock

Let's talk about SUVs instead.

[Chuckit]

Good thinking. Surely cars are a safe topic…

[Kerrigan]

Hmm, I wonder if it's safe to use my cell phone in a plane.

[Kevin]

As long as you aren't wearing chapstick.

[hart]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Great, another tedious "debate" between Rob & Kevin. ripe for teh lock

I'm creeped out. I've never been in the position of sort of agreeing with Rob. I have to go sit in my mini-van for a while to recover.

[Madferret]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Hmm, I wonder if it's safe to use my cell phone in a plane.

Sure is. Use google. I was right, and pretty much the rest of the entire lounge was wrong. SafariX had my back, but that's about it.

[Madferret]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Great, another tedious "debate" between Rob & Kevin. ripe for teh lock

Don't worry, won't happen. Kevin likes to believe in magical wizards and people behind the curtain who pull levers to make tsunamis kill all the brown people and infidels, and I have to believe in things like evidence, science, proof, logic, and reason. That's why I don't argue much with Kevin, it's like arguing with a retarded kid who thinks a wet sock is his grandmother. You can explain to him a million times that a wet sock is not related to him, and cannot be his grandmother, but the retarded kid will continue to believe whatever he has faith in, regardless of evidence, proof, reason, logic, etc.

For the record, I believe that Jim Morrison was a direct descendant of Jesus Christ. Proof? Oh, I have none. In fact, most proof goes against my religion. But taht doesn't matter, I have faith and faith means that nobody can argue with me no matter how retarded my viewpoints are!

Go faith!

[Madferret]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Let's talk about SUVs instead.

I've dominated the SUV debate. Whenever there's an SUV topic it gets locked because the mods feel bad for all the dumbshits I decimate with factual information.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by FrankeniMac

Don't worry, won't happen. Kevin likes to believe in ... <snip jr high spazzing>

More lies.

Originally Posted by FrankeniMac

I've dominated the SUV debate.

If by dominated you mean you posted the most posts then yes .

If you mean by, you being right, then most certainly not. Just like most any other thread you throw tantrums in

[Madferret]

Actually I am right. I have the books and links to back it up. Suv apologists don't.

Kinda like how christians don't have any scientific facts or proof to back their make believe magic explanations truth.

[zmcgill]

Originally Posted by FrankeniMac

You give up your mind in exchange for the belief in a book that was written thousands of years ago, edited by constantine to remove much of the material, and translated through many languages into the total cluster**** it is today where it has a stance on both sides of almost any issue.

Alright Rob, if you get off to 'proof,' 'facts,' and 'evidence' as much as you say you do, could you please give us a timeline of languages the Bible was translated into from Greek or Aramaic all the way to English, including each different language on the (supposedly) long path, and the reputable source (not a forum) from which you got your info.

If you can't come up with this, it only serves to prove you're completely full of the same crap you accuse Christians of so many times. You use unsupported and BLATANTLY false arguments.

[zmcgill]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

that aint cash

Care to take that back?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by FrankeniMac

Actually I am right. I have the books and links to back it up. Suv apologists don't.

With EVERY "book" and "link" you posted, someone posted something that smacked it down. And EACH TIME, just like our discussions about Christianity, you ignored it and self deluded.

Kinda like how christians don't have any scientific facts or proof to back their make believe magic explanations truth.

Unlike you, we don't pretend to.

Originally Posted by Gossamer

it only serves to prove you're completely full of the same crap you accuse Christians of so many times. You use unsupported and BLATANTLY false arguments.

BINGO!

And he doesn't even see it.

[Toutgood]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If by dominated you mean you posted the most posts then yes .

I'm sorry, I have no point to make, i just needed to quote this. Carry on.

[Kerrigan]

watch out, you guys just summoned Ca$h the exegete, haha

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Toutgood

I have no point to make

That is obvious.

i just needed to quote this.

Because Paully Dub, you are a fanboy.

BTW, why aren't you using your regular account? Or is this the one you use to just troll with?

BTW are those "bait car" sceenies in your sig?

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by FrankeniMac

Christians = stupid.

Your are possibly the most offensive person to ever grace these forums. Just because you scream something loudly enough doesn't make it true. At least try to add a little decency to your posts.

[Kerrigan]

prepare to be amazed by ca$h's deep biblical and classical knowledge

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Your are possibly the most offensive person to ever grace these forums. Just because you scream something loudly enough doesn't make it true. At least try to add a little decency to your posts.

He's been doing it for years. Shows no signs of stopping, or wanting to.

Yet when he comes back, and gets reported, the mods do nothing.

Which is probably why people are starting to make threads like this

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

prepare to be amazed by ca$h's deep biblical and classical knowledge

I hope that was sarcasm.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by FrankeniMac

You devalue your own life salty. You ignore your own brain and accept the values that the current church says they are, instead of using your most powerful, wonderful ability: To think.

Unfortunately Rob you're simply ignorant. It takes far more thought to understand a complex system of doctrine, dogma and teaching, than it does to simply come up with your own half baked one.

[Toutgood]

Originally Posted by Kevin

That is obvious.

Because Paully Dub, you are a fanboy.

BTW, why aren't you using your regular account? Or is this the one you use to just troll with?

BTW are those "bait car" sceenies in your sig?

Jeez, I've had this account for ages, and I hide nothing. I love that you responded.

Listen, you and ca$h have at least one thing in common - you tend to not back down from an argument. I've noticed a certain similarity in your modus operandi and found your comment amusing, that's all. No response is needed, but it's always a pleasure.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Toutgood

Jeez, I've had this account for ages, and I hide nothing. I love that you responded.

Having the account for ages changes nothing.

Please, just stop being a troll. I don't care how many accounts you use.

[Madferret]

Originally Posted by Kevin

With EVERY "book" and "link" you posted, someone posted something that smacked it down. And EACH TIME, just like our discussions about Christianity, you ignored it and self deluded.
.

You're totally false Kevin. I don't even see how you could say that considering I've provided statistical data from the national highway safety administration to back up my arguments, information about stiff frames not crumpling in an impact, federal roof standards from 1972, etc etc etc.

I mean, what you just said basically devalues anything else you could ever possibly say. Ever.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by FrankeniMac

You're totally false Kevin. I don't even see how you could say that considering I've provided statistical data from the national highway safety administration to back up my arguments, information about stiff frames not crumpling in an impact, federal roof standards from 1972, etc etc etc.

I mean, what you just said basically devalues anything else you could ever possibly say. Ever.

Rob I am not saying that the SUV is as safe as the regular car.
I am saying you are singling it out when other cars are even more so dangerous.

Because you get obsessed with hating things or actions. You clasp onto them.

Your beliefs about SUVs and reactions toward them are exaggerated and unhealthy.

Dig?

And for everything you have posted, Someone came up with something that said the exact opposite.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Salty

Unfortunately Rob you're simply ignorant. It takes far more thought to understand a complex system of doctrine, dogma and teaching, than it does to simply come up with your own half baked one.

He only cares if it supports his way of thinking. As long as it follows under that. It's the most right thing ever.

He cares less about the facts.

[Kerrigan]

For the record, even though I like to call priests and ministers gay, I say so with a slightly tongue in-cheek-attitude, because it's tacitly implied that it doesn't matter whether or not they're gay.

ca$h's attacks on christians are different in that they're provocative generalisations about the validity of christianity as such. I don't go round telling people that their religious is false.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

For the record, even though I like to call priests and ministers gay, I say so with a slightly tongue in-cheek-attitude, because it's tacitly implied that it doesn't matter whether or not they're gay.

ca$h's attacks on christians are different in that they're provocative generalisations about the validity of christianity as such. I don't go round telling people that their religious is false.

Ah, thanks for that clarification.

Sometimes it's hard to see the intentions through text. Body language means a lot.

[kmkkid]

Sooooo... Anyone up for some mad gay sex?

[Kerrigan]

hit me up haha

[Madferret]

Originally Posted by Kevin

And for everything you have posted, Someone came up with something that said the exact opposite.

Please don't tell me you're referring to the SUV owners club of america attempting to dispell the 'myths' of SUVs.

[Madferret]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

For the record, even though I like to call priests and ministers gay, I say so with a slightly tongue in-cheek-attitude, because it's tacitly implied that it doesn't matter whether or not they're gay.

ca$h's attacks on christians are different in that they're provocative generalisations about the validity of christianity as such. I don't go round telling people that their religious is false.

Mine attacks are generally tongue in cheek also. But then sometimes I just get pissed off that so many people have been killed over manmade bullshit that I feel that anyone who calls themselves a christian might as well call themselves a murderer.

[zmcgill]

Originally Posted by FrankeniMac

You're totally false Kevin. I don't even see how you could say that considering I've provided statistical data from the national highway safety administration to back up my arguments, information about stiff frames not crumpling in an impact, federal roof standards from 1972, etc etc etc.

I mean, what you just said basically devalues anything else you could ever possibly say. Ever.

Ignoring my post I see. Good job.

Like Kevin said, Rob doesn't necessarily take valid stands for good reasons, but he takes certain issues and latches onto them (SUV's, Christians believing something different from him, people dropping cigarette butts on the ground, etc) as if the world would fall into the sun if all of humanity doesn't agree with him.

Feel free to ignore this post too, Rob, as has been your pattern toward posts that decimate you, and contine posting your asinine crap.

[Madferret]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Ignoring my post I see. Good job.

Like Kevin said, Rob doesn't necessarily take valid stands for good reasons, but he takes certain issues and latches onto them (SUV's, Christians believing something different from him, people dropping cigarette butts on the ground, etc) as if the world would fall into the sun if all of humanity doesn't agree with him.

Feel free to ignore this post too, Rob, as has been your pattern toward posts that decimate you, and contine posting your asinine crap.

Sorry... I wasn't ignoring you on purpose, I just generally only respond to posts that I feel are remotely interesting. I don't know who you are, what you said, and I don't really care, but now that you've accused me of ignoring you... I guess I'll go back and try to see this earth shattering revelation that I somehow missed.

[zmcgill]

Originally Posted by FrankeniMac

Mine attacks are generally tongue in cheek also. But then sometimes I just get pissed off that so many people have been killed over manmade bullshit that I feel that anyone who calls themselves a christian might as well call themselves a murderer.

Ha!!! You CANNOT claim that your posts are tongue-in-cheek when you have literally thousands of them full of anger, hatred and rage. Tongue-in-cheek is usually a quick, witty comment meant to illustrate a point. It is not a widespread pattern of, like I said before, anger, rage, and hatred.

Now, please show me an example of someone acting out of true Christianity as preached by Jesus that killed millions. If you can do this, I will not only retract my arguements against you, I'll delete every post I've ever made here and give you $10.

[zmcgill]

Originally Posted by FrankeniMac

Sorry... I wasn't ignoring you on purpose, I just generally only respond to posts that I feel are remotely interesting. I don't know who you are, what you said, and I don't really care, but now that you've accused me of ignoring you... I guess I'll go back and try to see this earth shattering revelation that I somehow missed.

Okay, so you know each and every other person on this board with whom you've conversed, I see. I also see how a post addressing and placing a burden of proof on you would not be 'remotely interesting.' Nice try.

[Madferret]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Alright Rob, if you get off to 'proof,' 'facts,' and 'evidence' as much as you say you do, could you please give us a timeline of languages the Bible was translated into from Greek or Aramaic all the way to English, including each different language on the (supposedly) long path, and the reputable source (not a forum) from which you got your info.

If you can't come up with this, it only serves to prove you're completely full of the same crap you accuse Christians of so many times. You use unsupported and BLATANTLY false arguments.

Um.. I really don't see how that's relevant to anything. If... for example, I had memorized the order and dates that the bible was translated from one language to another, it would mean nothing, for surely other scholars disagree on said dates or order of language translations.

Or, if I did say I knew all that stuff and reiterated what I could learn from a google search that took me less than 2 minutes, would that somehow give my points more or less validity? I doubt it.

Or what if I just posted a few links like these:

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-en...formation.html

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-en...bible-history/

And said look it up yourself, I really don't give a **** because the fact remains that the bible has been translated from one language to another and anybody who's EVER studied ANY foreign language knows that you cannot translate ANYTHING with 100% accuracy or implied meaning or the tone or definition from one language to another, thus I think it's stupid you mindless sheep base your lives from a book that has gone through all these changes, AND been edited by constantine to remove any mention of reincarnation to help keep the masses under control.

So again, your point is stupid. Me being able to cite the history of languages translated in the correct order with dates does not alter the following points whatso freaking ever:

I.) SELECTIVENESS FROM THE BIBLE:

According to our current culture, there are certain things in the bible that would be considered completely socially unacceptable today. My discomfort with mainstream Christianity is that people seem to gloss over these uncomfortable passages and focus only upon the good ones, which they want to emphasize. Before I go further, I will cite an example from each major category of my complaint : Slavery, Brutality, Sexism, Intolerance, and Contradictions (quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible) Keep in mind, unless you endorse and agree with every piece of the text, you advocate selectiveness from the bible:

Note with the passage Matthew 5:17 Jesus quotes, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” So it is an invalid argument to assert that the new testament rejects the harshness of everything depicted in the old.

1.) Slavery:
Exodus 21:20-21 “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.”
What did we learn?: It’s okay to treat your fellow human beings like savage animals if they are your slaves—furthermore it’s alright to beat them to a bloody pulp, as long as they don’t die. The bible supports ownership of human life and actively endorses cruelty upon it with this passage.
2.) Brutality:
Numbers 16:41-50 ; God kills 250 people because Korah challenges Moses’ leadership. Then, when the rest of the travelers languishing in the desert complain that the lord has killed his own people, he sends down a plague ; “But those who died by the plague were 14,700, besides those who died on account of Korah.” (Numbers 16:49)
What did we learn?: God kills anyone with the nerve to exert their own free-will and dissent against his unjust conduct. Not just that, but wholesale slaughter. This kind of Stalinism is regarded as evil on Earth. How is it right for a divine creator to get away with such atrocities? Even if you want to argue that those people were evil and deserved to be destroyed, you still are forced to concede that God gave them no chance to change their minds or see his viewpoint; he didn’t argue with them and say, “Hey, you’re missing the point,” he simply destroys them for using their own power of free-will to make distinctions and choose based on the evidence in front of them.

3.) Sexism:
“The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.” (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) and “In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives” (1 Peter 3:1)
What did we learn?: next time you go to church, you’d better keep your trap shut, and when you find a guy who you want to marry, you have to sacrifice every part of you to his will. If he wants you to give up everything you love about life, you have to do it.

4.) Intolerance:
Mark 16:16 “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned”
What did we learn?: God won’t allow any of those dirty Buddhists, or those awful Muslims into paradise. Just because you live your life according to the basic principles of coexistence and even if you live a life of fruitfulness and great accomplishment, that’s not enough; you have to administer faith in some guy, even if you have no rational evidence for it or logical proof. By that rationale, the prerequisite for salvation is blindness.

5.) Contradictions:
Hmm, maybe that quotation by Mark wasn’t right after all... Isn’t it true that Jeremiah 17:10 says “I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds.” So maybe it IS good enough simply to live your life the best you can and be a good person. Then again, “Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me.” John 14:6 or if you don’t like that one, how about this one : "But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 10:33) Oh wait, Matthew also said, “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.” (Matthew 16:27)


Now at this point, even IF you can magically explain away all the ugly things recorded here, you are still stuck with a book that teaches people how to be great based on what NOT to do. So much is conveyed by negative example. Wouldn’t it be better to have a book that depicted how to be good, instead of sinning and wrong, so that people might learn by example how to be great? Christianity shows kids a book of rape, murder, pillage, and all other varieties of brutality and indecency with the caption “Here’s what NOT to do.” That’s not a good way of teaching someone how to live his or her life.

These examples did not take long to find. I could easily find more. The point is this: YES, there are good things in the bible, and yes, in some parts, it portrays good example and a great way to lead your life. We all know this. But those parts are equal in consequence and in validity to all the parts that are sick and wrong. You can’t tear pages out of this book and still call it the word of God, or even a history lesson, or even a path to follow. Biblical times were very different than today’s times but do personal opinions and social norms allow us to discredit certain passages of the bible because they simply are not convenient or do not fit in with the morals we hold today? In my view, absolutely not.

Saying you are Christian, and sorting through the bible, picking out only the passages which are convenient for you to use is like saying that tater-tot casserole is your favorite food, but whenever you eat it, you pick out everything except the tater-tots themselves. Obviously you do not like tater-tot casserole at all—you like just tater-tots only. So why claim that you like the whole thing. Christian morals are great. I embrace Christian morals, but guess what? Those two words are an oxymoron—MORALS are a concept that is independent of all religion. Are all atheists evil and sick people? No, there have been a great number of them who have made fascinating and wonderful contributions to our world. So eat your tater-tots, and forget the casserole. You don’t need it. Just like you don’t need a book full of obscenity and injustice to advocate the golden rule, the ethic of reciprocity, and the beauty of all that we can achieve together and the love we are capable of, given freedom to do so.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by kmkkid

Sooooo... Anyone up for some mad gay sex?

Up just had too many dang implications.

[Madferret]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Now, please show me an example of someone acting out of true Christianity as preached by Jesus that killed millions. If you can do this, I will not only retract my arguements against you, I'll delete every post I've ever made here and give you $10.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Ha!!! You CANNOT claim that your posts are tongue-in-cheek when you have literally thousands of them full of anger, hatred and rage. Tongue-in-cheek is usually a quick, witty comment meant to illustrate a point. It is not a widespread pattern of, like I said before, anger, rage, and hatred.

You misunderstand, long drawn out, full of anger, rage and all that other crap, IS Rob's version of wit. And if you don't agree that that's wit, then he'll just give you some facts to let you know you're wrong.

[zmcgill]

Originally Posted by FrankeniMac

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Two things:
1. You failed to show me the path that our current English Bible translations took to get here from the Greek and Aramaic. That's because the current translations came DIRECTLY from the thousands of manuscripts we have and, if there are any inconsistencies or uncertainties in translating, they are noted at the bottom of the page. So you used an invalid, unsupported, and completely false argument, which makes you no better than the Christians that you hate so much

2. Please point out where in Jesus' teachings did he promote the crusades. I specifically stated, "someone acting out of true Christianity as preached by Jesus," with the crusades specifically in mind. I have yet to see any proof of your claims, Rob.

[Mithras]

Luke 12:51-53

12:51 Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division! 12:52 From now on five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three; 12:53 they will be divided: father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

= Matt 10:34-36
10:34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 10:35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 10:36 and one's foes will be members of one's own household.

[Kevin]

Ah so Rob's knowledge is him posting from OTHER non-thinking sites on the internet.



And he says he thinks for himself!

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by FrankeniMac

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

a) the Crusades did not kill millions of people

b) no understanding of the Crusades is complete without taking into account what directly preceded them: the Islamic conquest of Christian holy lands.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

b) no understanding of the Crusades is complete without taking into account what directly preceded them: the Islamic conquest of Christian holy lands.

But no one seems to mention those.

Heck, most of the people that keep mentioning the crusades don't even know what it was about.

[brassplayersrock²]

knights templar and how the guy who was ruling them at the time was stupid at that one battle and decided to go into the desert and lost, which ultimatly led to the christin lands being over taken, or something like that. right kevin?
gotta love the discovery channel

Brass

edit:
to stay on topic of this post. i'm bi, leaning more on the girl side though

[zmcgill]

Originally Posted by Mithras

Luke 12:51-53

12:51 Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division! 12:52 From now on five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three; 12:53 they will be divided: father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

= Matt 10:34-36
10:34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 10:35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 10:36 and one's foes will be members of one's own household.

This is not Jesus promoting violence, but instead acknowledging that His message is a controversial one and that it is capable of tearing families apart.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

This is not Jesus promoting violence, but instead acknowledging that His message is a controversial one and that it is capable of tearing families apart.

And this is exactly what I am talking about.

People reading the word, but not getting it. Then repeating their nonsense making others believe the same tripe.



No offense Mithras, but come on...

[Doofy]

Muhahahahahaha. <--- laughing at how easy it is to push Ca$h's buttons.

[Mithras]

Oh, wait, this is the gay thread? I wasn't paying attention. Let's drop the stupid religion brouhaha right now.
Back on topic: I like girls, but now and then I've had the urge to kiss a male friend.

[nredman]

wow this thread is still open