Blasphemy Challenge

Uriel said:
Second, you believe they demand I follow the old testament. What are you basing this off of?
Click to expand...

Starting with the second objection first:

Matthew 5:17-20 and Deuteronomy 4:1-7

Neither of those were written by Solaris, to my knowledge.

Clearly Jesus and God say that the laws of Moses are not obsolete until the end of time. The end of time has not happened yet.
Remember that we are ignoring interpretation for the time being. This is what Jesus said. Remember, as a follower of Jesus, it is your duty to first of all - and above all things - do as he says and then begin listening to others.
Surely you don't want to base your life on an interpretation! Paul doesn't send you to heaven.



Next, the first point.

First, neither God or Jesus demand I follow them, they ask because of their love for me and they know of that Joy and Happiness that results of it. That is my belief, you obviously feel differently, however I believe this because of what I feel in my heart, mind and soul, and my personal experiences in life.
Click to expand...

Here you are treating jesus and God as fictional characters, defining them through the prism of your personal experiences instead of defining yourself through them.
Jesus is a constant, not you. He is the source of truth, not "personal experience". Personal experience is the domain of Satan: it is made up of worldly things, which are the very things Jesus implicitly demands that you reject. "No one can serve two masters."

This is not a matter of belief. This is the difference between religion and fiction. You are treating Jesus as a fictional character and not as a real person who has given you commands.

Jesus does make demands, sadly, at the very least in the sense that a terrorist makes demands in the sense of "do this or somebody gets hurt". That somebody is either yourself or those you fail to convert from heathenism, and the pain comes from the torment of hell.
The alternative might be pleasant to you, but it is nothing more than the alternative to hellfire.
Jesus loves you, but he loves you only as a shepherd can love his sheep. He is all too willing to cull the weakest from the flock. (Matthew 25:32-33, 41)

Your friends Joy and Happiness might be fun for you, but clearly you do not trust Jesus enough to believe him when he says you will face consequences for failing to uphold the old testament.
If you did believe in Jesus as more than a pleasant fiction, you would trust in His words above all things. Including the experiences of your considerably more flawed, mortal self.
 
Ok, ignorign everything in that post except the first part- ok, so he said to follow moses' law. Jesus said a whoooole lot more than that- including adding onto the moses rules.
 
Explain Que. what else did he teach. He only retaught the ten commandments in a more undertsnadable way and mabye more yes. like forgiving and erm the gospel.
 
yeeeah... next time you want me to answer a question, don't answer it yourself, ok?
 
Mechagodzilla said:
Starting with the second objection first:

Matthew 5:17-20 and Deuteronomy 4:1-7

Neither of those were written by Solaris, to my knowledge.

Clearly Jesus and God say that the laws of Moses are not obsolete until the end of time. The end of time has not happened yet.
Remember that we are ignoring interpretation for the time being. This is what Jesus said. Remember, as a follower of Jesus, it is your duty to first of all - and above all things - do as he says and then begin listening to others.
Surely you don't want to base your life on an interpretation! Paul doesn't send you to heaven.



Next, the first point.



Here you are treating jesus and God as fictional characters, defining them through the prism of your personal experiences instead of defining yourself through them.
Jesus is a constant, not you. He is the source of truth, not "personal experience". Personal experience is the domain of Satan: it is made up of worldly things, which are the very things Jesus implicitly demands that you reject. "No one can serve two masters."

This is not a matter of belief. This is the difference between religion and fiction. You are treating Jesus as a fictional character and not as a real person who has given you commands.

Jesus does make demands, sadly, at the very least in the sense that a terrorist makes demands in the sense of "do this or somebody gets hurt". That somebody is either yourself or those you fail to convert from heathenism, and the pain comes from the torment of hell.
The alternative might be pleasant to you, but it is nothing more than the alternative to hellfire.
Jesus loves you, but he loves you only as a shepherd can love his sheep. He is all too willing to cull the weakest from the flock. (Matthew 25:32-33, 41)

Your friends Joy and Happiness might be fun for you, but clearly you do not trust Jesus enough to believe him when he says you will face consequences for failing to uphold the old testament.
If you did believe in Jesus as more than a pleasant fiction, you would trust in His words above all things. Including the experiences of your considerably more flawed, mortal self.
Click to expand...

Haha, this means nearly nothing to me. I AM A MORMON! This is why I asked where you were basing your comments off of. We believe in the bible as long as its translated correctly, even so we still believe there are many "plain and precious truths" that have been lost in the translation of the Bible. You haven't even stated which version you are using. And I would love to debate the meaning of the scriptures you've posted, but I'm at work and I usually don't carry my scriptures with me.
 
I don't see the point in opening insulting people who have done nothing to them - essentially someones beliefs are being insulted.

It irritates the **** out of me when ANYONE is like this, religious or atheist, it's just designed to cause offense, no more than that.

It's dispicable.
 
Que-Ever said:
Ok, ignorign everything in that post except the first part- ok, so he said to follow moses' law. Jesus said a whoooole lot more than that- including adding onto the moses rules.
Click to expand...
He did indeed add things but they were, as far as I have been able to determine, elaborations.
For example, adultery remained a terrible sin, but jesus elaborated on the definition of adultery to include impure thoughts as well. See for yourself:

Old Testament:
'You shall not commit adultery. If a man commits adultery with another man's wife,
both the man and the woman must be put to death.'
(Exodus 20:14, Leviticus 20:10)

New Testament:
'You have heard that it was said, "Do not commit adultery." I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.'
(Matthew 5:27-28)

He made it very clear that it is not sufficent to just follow the laws robotically, or else anyone could get into heaven. You must also have faith in God and Jesus, or you will not go to Heaven.
So it's not sufficient to be a loyal husband. You must never be caught thinking of extramarital sex. That's just one example.
Jesus' job was to come down and stop people from interpreting the laws incorrectly, as Uriel is doing today.

People thought that the letter of the law was sufficient. Jesus proved otherwise.

Paul, however, took that message too far and interpreted it to mean that the laws were irrelevant if you have faith, contradicting Jesus in the process.
Uriel similarly interpreted Jesus in a Pauline way, which is a ultimately a fictionalization of Jesus' (supposedly real) teachings.

So he's letting Jesus down.

Haha, this means nearly nothing to me. I AM A MORMON! This is why I asked where you were basing your comments off of. We believe in the bible as long as its translated correctly, even so we still believe there are many "plain and precious truths" that have been lost in the translation of the Bible. You haven't even stated which version you are using. And I would love to debate the meaning of the scriptures you've posted, but I'm at work and I usually don't carry my scriptures with me.
Click to expand...

Pick any version you wish.
The point stands that you are contradicting Jesus, regardless of what was said afterwards by Joseph Smith.
As I understand it, Mormons still believe in Jesus first and foremost, and believe that salvation comes only from obedience to the laws. Do they not?
You believe in prophecy, but the mark of a false prophet is his contradiction of God's law.
And if the translation is incorrect, please tell me: how so?

Don't try to flummox me by pretending I don't understand you. You are as christian as any other; the differences between your various sects are superficial at best.
 
ComradeBadger said:
I don't see the point in opening insulting people who have done nothing to them - essentially someones beliefs are being insulted.

It irritates the **** out of me when ANYONE is like this, religious or atheist, it's just designed to cause offense, no more than that.

It's dispicable.
Click to expand...

Aye! Or hear. Or yes!

to mecha- fine, whatever, you are proclaimed king of the bible, or whatever it is you desire.
 
ComradeBadger said:
I don't see the point in opening insulting people who have done nothing to them - essentially someones beliefs are being insulted.

It irritates the **** out of me when ANYONE is like this, religious or atheist, it's just designed to cause offense, no more than that.

It's dispicable.
Click to expand...

I've never understood it myself.
 
So stating what I believe(or don't believe), as long as its contradictory to what others believe, is insulting those other people's beliefs?
 
No. I didn't watch the videos, but from people's reactions it sounds as if the people in the vids were trying to be as degrading and offensive as possible.
 
GhostBoi said:
So stating what I believe(or don't believe), as long as its contradictory to what others believe, is insulting those other people's beliefs?
Click to expand...
No, but doing it in such a manner, for a DVD which has the purpose of what?
The same site has been raising money to get it's previous films to religious people - "So far, we've raised $437.00 for the War on Christmas. This money will be used to give The God Who Wasn't There DVDs to Christians. You can help support the War on Christmas by purchasing a War on Christmas Shirt!
You can also donate specifically to the War on Christmas effort" - what purpose does that serve other than to insult them?

It's antagonistic and childish. Simply stating your beliefs isn't even in remotely the same league.
I'm agnostic, was raised it as well - I however, respect other peope and their right to believe what they please, as long as it doesn't infringe my rights.
 
I'm an athiest, and I think these guys aren't playing with a full deck.
 
Que-Ever said:
No. I didn't watch the videos, but from people's reactions it sounds as if the people in the vids were trying to be as degrading and offensive as possible.
Click to expand...

Mabye people who are taking the Blasphemy Challenge are being offensive individually, but the intent of the challenge is not to be offensive, it is to get people to be more comfortable with stating what they believe(with a reward).

Here are the reasons given by one of the rational response crew:
1. We're putting a face on atheists, giving them a reason to come out of the closet.
2. We're striking up a conversation about religion, on a site that isn't dedicated to religion (youtube).
3. We're showing Christians how sure we are that their god doesn't exist. (no smart individual damns himself to a hell he thinks exists: it's the intent that matters)
4. We're giving back to atheists and fueling them with data that could help them win a debate on Christianity (TGWWT movie)
5. We're showing other atheists that it's ok to speak up.
6. We're likely to change a mind or two.
 
Adabiviak said:
I'm an athiest, and I think these guys aren't playing with a full deck.
Click to expand...

I always play with the instruction and joker cards. Helps keep the game balanced between a combination of seriousness, and lightheartedness.
 
I however, respect other peope and their right to believe what they please, as long as it doesn't infringe my rights.
Click to expand...
Well they believe it's fun to wear T-Shirts and send people DVDs.

I agree that it's jocularly retarded and ultimately ineffective as a form of social change, but that's what happens when you have freedom of speech: insults from drunken fools permeate the air.

I don't approve of this. I think it is stupid and harmful to the cause of secularism. But religions are far stupider, and their scope exceeds $437.00 by quite a substantial amount. There are bigger fish to fry than a bunch of drunk dudes viral-marketing their way towards nothing.
 
Agreed, I have more than enough reason to dislike those who seek out to remove religion, especially when there is little or no harm.

And in Rockland, the community is currently trying to salve the injuries inflicted by their school/church battle. The case has been settled out of court, school officials admitting their practices were illegal. In compliance with the settlement, LDS residents have built a new seminary building on donated land across the street from the public school. Church announcements have been removed from school bulletin boards, and school officials have halted the practice of praying before athletic and other school-sponsored events. Graduation this year was held in the leaky school gym instead of what Cloyd Barker calls "the nicest building in town," the LDS chapel. The ceremony did not include prayer. The objectionable religious practices have been removed from the school domain, but the hostility remains. School Board Member Cloyd Barker conceded his school had crossed the constitutional line. "I had no trouble with the fact that we were having prayer and apparently it was illegal. We decided we would no longer do tht," he said. But he dismissed as "outright nonsense" that the school district fell under LDS control. "That's never been proven," Barker said. Barker, too, claims to have suffered from the legal controversy. "It's been extremely disruptive to me personally, to my wife, to the school board members," he said. "It's been very destructive because they [the plaintiffs] included us personally in the charges."
Click to expand...

Cloyd Barker is my grandpa that I hardly remember because shortly after the law suit, his health deteriorated and he passed away. I was four years old at the time. My grandfather is someone I dearly wish I could have met, but that's not possible in this lifetime. I can't help but feel a little robbed.
 
GhostBoi said:
Mabye people who are taking the Blasphemy Challenge are being offensive individually, but the intent of the challenge is not to be offensive, it is to get people to be more comfortable with stating what they believe(with a reward).

Here are the reasons given by one of the rational response crew:
1. We're putting a face on atheists, giving them a reason to come out of the closet.
2. We're striking up a conversation about religion, on a site that isn't dedicated to religion (youtube).
3. We're showing Christians how sure we are that their god doesn't exist. (no smart individual damns himself to a hell he thinks exists: it's the intent that matters)
4. We're giving back to atheists and fueling them with data that could help them win a debate on Christianity (TGWWT movie)
5. We're showing other atheists that it's ok to speak up.
6. We're likely to change a mind or two.
Click to expand...

And you can do allllllllll of that without hostility....# 3 is a little hard to do without offense.
 
Uriel said:
Agreed, I have more than enough reason to dislike those who seek out to remove religion, especially when there is little or no harm.

Cloyd Barker is my grandpa that I hardly remember because shortly after the law suit, his health deteriorated and he passed away.
Click to expand...

Wait, so the US Constitution killed you grandfather?

Surely you understand the reasoning behind removing religion from schools, and that it doesn't create evil voodoo magic.

Schools are secular by design. A religious school is called a church.
That's like saying you wish you could add wings to your automobile, for the symbolic freedom of flight, when in reality they'd do nothing and endanger oncoming traffic.
 
Uriel said:
And you can do allllllllll of that without hostility....
Click to expand...

And some people do, while some people don't, but blaming it on the project itself is silly.

Uriel said:
....# 3 is a little hard to do without offense.
Click to expand...

People can take it as offensive, but I don't see how in and of itself it is offensive. But I really must go to bed, I need my sleep.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
Well they believe it's fun to wear T-Shirts and send people DVDs.

I agree that it's jocularly retarded and ultimately ineffective as a form of social change, but that's what happens when you have freedom of speech: insults from drunken fools permeate the air.

I don't approve of this. I think it is stupid and harmful to the cause of secularism. But religions are far stupider, and their scope exceeds $437.00 by quite a substantial amount. There are bigger fish to fry than a bunch of drunk dudes viral-marketing their way towards nothing.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
Wait, so the US Constitution killed you grandfather?

Surely you understand the reasoning behind removing religion from schools, and that it doesn't create evil voodoo magic.

Schools are secular by design. A religious school is called a church.
That's like saying you wish you could add wings to your automobile, for the symbolic freedom of flight, when in reality they'd do nothing and endanger oncoming traffic.
Click to expand...

Read the quote again. My Grandpa completely agreed it was breaking the law, however he stated "It's been very destructive because they [the plaintiffs] included us personally in the charges." It turned into a personal attack on him and the LDS religion. How do I know? I live in this town and have spoken with numerous people about it. It was a way for this person to "get back" at Mormons and try to get a cash settlement. His child who attended the school did not care in the least about seminary being held in the school. It was an attack not based out of fairness or upholding the constitution, but out of hate.
 
So they were absolutely right to remove the religion, the law was broken and then they got sued for breaking the law.
I don't see the hate here, or why this is a "reason" to dislike people who separate church and state.

If he was falsely accused, that would make sense, but that's not the case here.
And it's not a question of whether the kid cared or not. Kids will accept anything they're fed.
Law is the domain of adults, and adults protect children from people who break laws.
 
zleppelin said:
Atheists: "Since you cannot prove that He exists, it follows that he doesn't exist."
Christians: "Since you cannot prove that He doesn't exist, it follows that he exists."

Both groups embrace the same type of circular logic.
Click to expand...

What a moronic and uneducated simplification. Let me guess. You exist on the wise and balanced "middle ground", right?

Any way, who cares if it adds more fuel to the fire. If you don't want to watch the videos, then don't. I personally think this is stupid and a waste of time, but why should I care? I'm entirely capable of not engaging myself in it (like not actively searching for the videos on Youtube and clicking on them).

Angry Lawyer said:
As agnostic as I am, I always find the argument "You can't pick and choose your religion" to be an odd one. It's like saying you can't have changing opinions on science. Without the ability to question certain beliefs, you're stuck in a progressless rut. Science is all about questioning previously-held beliefs and creating newer, closer-to-reality ones. Why do you refuse that religious people can do the same?

-Angry Lawyer
Click to expand...

That comparison is flawed. Science is an ever-changing, progressive, refining body of knowledge that accepts fallibility.

Most religions are defined by doctrines of command that are unquestionable and passed down from God. While picking and choosing sensible aspects of one's religion and disregarding the filth is a step towards sanity, it only further undermines your faith with what is pretty much shallow emotional fulfillment. You subscribe to an infallible deity but only hold onto the parts that you want to. That is retarded, and while I appreciate the move away from fundamentalist extremism, the fact is that you are still being intellectually dishonest. It begs the question as to why you don't abandon the bullshit altogether.

I would personally love to see the dismantling of organized religion, or at least have it marginalized to the point where it holds as much social sway as the star-worshiping crazy cult down the street. I do not believe it to be a necessary evil of humanity, but simply a colossal brain fart that people have tolerated and could be dispensed with if most were willing to embrace uncertainty instead of curling up in comfort with ancient fairy tales. Militant antagonism (yeah, because there's certainly a lot of that from atheists :rolleyes: ) would be a horrible and backfiring method, but an increase in brutal honesty within the public domain is a must. Contrary to what a lot of people believe, that is possible without looking like a total dick.
 
Oh "GOD" no.

Okay. Here we go.

Everybody has their own opinion even if they are wrong. This statement can be concluded by saying that most religion's (are) have been guilty of participating in war. This is a BIG f*cking fact that most know, but in the end, overlook.
No matter what side people fight on, no matter the cause, it eventually boils down to one stupid asshole arguing with another stupid asshole. Girls have seen this for ages, and i mean ages. Many blokes dont realise that (generally) chicks dont like guys fighting with each other, typically because they beleive fighting is beneath them. This couldn't be closer to the truth. At one stage, ignorant aggression lost me one that i loved. War and hostility are both unattractive qualities in the human condition. Isn't this obvious? HALLO?
One can even venture further by saying that it is only one of many terrible attributes of the human condition. This is also true. Human beings are both f*cking beautiful and hideously revolting at the same time. What sets one human characteristic apart from the other is the individual inside, ie: each person's independant personality.... hang in there guys, imma gettin there.
Fella's (pretty sure there aren't any sheila's out there) i'm not gonna go all hurdy f*ckin' gurdy and tell ya how each individual is equally beautiful and all that soppy shit, because simply it isn't true; look at urself. Most of you are, or know someone who is a dickhead, and all you buggers out there can't deny that. Because of the nature of the beast most of us wont realise when we are at fault, and thus wont be capable of saying sorry. Thus a new human characteristic is born. Arrogance. It is a stupid f*cking trait that is becoming more and more common in the entire populus of the whole goddam world.
Take my home country, Australia, for example. During the 1950's things were so relaxed here, one could chat about anything (almost anything ;)) to a passerby in the street without fear of being scorned. The point is; at one stage there was versatility and character in society. Nowdays the air and quality of character has deterioated drastically, people who are different and who act "out of the mold" (ie: no "stranger chat's") are seen as freaks and are scorned to the endth degree. It almost brings a tear to my eye, to tell you the truth, but a real bloke doesn't cry in public. In other words, the change in modern human behaiviour is prolific in arrogance and f*cking pathetic in traits.
Anyway, BACK TO THE BLOODY POINT ALREADY!
Religion.
Now that little chat about ethics wasn't all in vain, for it does have extreme significance to the point, and this thread (DONT BLOCK THIS POST DAMMIT!). Through the ever expanding universe of technology, the media has become a massive oracle of information, false and true. Everyone is susceptible to the media. Half-life + CS are products of the media. He he, as you can see, this is both a good and a bad thing (no one can escape from the media ha!). In my personal belief, it is the media that is responsible for the degradation of morals in Australian society. It IS the media (eg: movies, sponsorship (loriel, armani, steam he he) eg) that is making us lifeless, arrogant monsters (however i am not an extremist. I prefer not to act against the mass, but to optimistically go with the flow... kind of a contradiction to my morales i know).
The media as a whole comes into the religious debate by answering to the highest bidder. Ever heard the phrase, "the victor always writes the history books? This statement is entirely true and defines the result of the second world war. At the end of the holocaust the Jews were the only religion that held biggest amount of funds. Thus many considered that the world had a soft spot for their cause (yes they did suffer immeasurably, I am not denying that at all).
And so, when lectured on Hitlers policies, the highlighted religion is the Jewish religion. This fact, while being about a sombre cause is quite funny. Many other ethnic minorites suffered just as bad and in same numbers than the Jews (no, my source is NOT wikipedia dammit), but simply did/do not have the effects to make their cause heard. The media makes the voice of the Jewish population heard by shunning and quieting those that speak independantly (remember that bloke who said the holocaust didn't happen [i disagree with his point however, the evidence is too circumstantial] he was shunned and quietened by the media community). The point is, the media controls the masses through mass indoctrination. And again, this is only my opinion. I AM NOT A F*CKING CONSPIRACY NUT!
Ok then... thank you... Anyway, remember when Israel invaded Lebanon this year? Yeah? Do you remember how long it took the UN to persuade the Israeli forces to pull out? AGES! In that time, Israel had beaten the shit through Lebanon, not caring about women and children and had methodically raped Beirut in and out repeatedly. One of the unspoken reasons (apart from America's F*CKING INDIFFERENCE) that the UN failed to intervene was because of Israels past history, which the media constantly highlights. Israel's story goes: "We suffered from the holocaust, so we shouldn't take this crap!" and the goddam UN procrastinated and failed to act. The fact is, due to the greed and hatred of mankind; soldiers, women, and children died in their thousands, not hundreds which would be worse still.
I don't know about you blokes, but the pictures of the dead children make me think about the future. I understand that it would sound corny, but if war ever came to Australia and I was lucky enough to have a family; i'd try my hardest to get them outta the reach of those who would try and bring harm to them.
Anyway, back to the point. Religion.
If one looks at the big picture, i mean the really BIG GODDAM OBVIOUS IN YA FACE picture, one can realise that religion isn't the cause of the many of the problems that people blame them on. Think about every conflict America has been in during the past ten years. What is it really based on? A belief.
Whether that belief is terrorism, justice, to free a country; it is ALWAYS the people pulling the strings that are causing the problems. ALWAYS! ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS!
But then again, if one takes a minute and examines that picture, an even BIGGER PICTURE THAT IS SOOOO HUGE ZOMFG IT WILL CONSUME YOUR MIND IT IS THAT BIG forms and shows us that it is the human condition that causes this massive cock-up in the world we live in.
In my twenty-five years on this earth i have seen many things that most in the Australian population will not. I have witnessed human behaving like rabid animals, scratching aggression and angst into the tombstone of the human condition for barely any f*cking cause at all. Anyway, about two weeks ago, i realised that in the end angst and aggression are truly pointless. It solves nothing.
Hitler, Pinochet, Franco, Sadat, ****ing Tito in Yugoslovia, Alexander the Great; shit, even Dubya himself are only face which represents the main bloody thing that is at the heart of the bloodshed. They are the faces that show the human race what it is really is. Selfish. Cruel. Malevolent. Greedy. Aggressive. But at the same time, mankind can be a wonderful and truly enlightening race. Once again it is the face that represents the emotion, and the character + personality that defines humanity as we know it.
ANYWAY! THE POINT? getting there?

Virtually, what I am sayin? is that religion is just something that people point the finger at so they can face the bigger picture without guilt. I shouldn't really have taken that long to explain it; should have just said like that HA!

In on a more humerous note - It isn't religion's fault that the human condition sucks!

*ready for flaming now...*

Please note: I am an atheist, i do not hold any religious beliefs and this is only my opinion. Feel free to pick holes in my comments.
 
Koola Mena said:
Take my home country, Australia, for example. During the 1950's things were so relaxed here, one could chat about anything (almost anything ;)) to a passerby in the street without fear of being scorned. The point is; at one stage there was versatility and character in society. Nowdays the air and quality of character has deterioated drastically, people who are different and who act "out of the mold" (ie: no "stranger chat's") are seen as freaks and are scorned to the endth degree.
Click to expand...

Hole 1: Australia during the 50s was really, really, really conservative.

And I couldn't read the rest of the piece because it seriously hurt my eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tollbooth Willie
HL2.NET HORROR SLAP
Replies
7
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Chris D
Forum update
Replies
8
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
To Those That Stand, Those That Fell
Replies
6
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Hectic Glenn
Moondust Tech Demo by Valve [Video]
Replies
1
Views
21K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Back
Top