CNN does a piece on atheists

[Mechagodzilla]

Yes, but they've got their life to repent. And the term "look! there went a good atheist to hell!" is just as much false as to say "look! there went a saint to heaven that lived a sinless life!", as there is no sinless man. Our only way to God is through His son, none other. And it depends on us whether we get deluded and just "die" or we die in Christ.

I edited my post to further clarify my point.

Jesus says specifically that the people must be killed.
No dying of natural causes. Read the quote again:

"SLAY THEM BEFORE ME"

Does that sound passive to you?

In Matthew 5:17-21, he demands you follow the Old Testament, which demands you kill people of the wrong religion.
Killing those of other religions is the very first commandment.

If your version is correct, then jesus is a liar.
In your version, he says: "Capture and kill people of other religions" but he doesn't actually mean it.
And he says "follow the old testament exactly the way it says, forever" but he doesn't actually mean it.

Jesus is not a liar, therefore you are incorrect.

Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

So are you killing people with lusty thoughts and incorrect religions?
That's the will of the father.

The will of the Father is recorded in the Old testament, which Jesus demands you follow.

 

[Walter]

http://www.goodmorningbible.com/about43.html

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Actually, what Jesus "fulfils" is the old covenant.

He replaces it with a new covenant.

A covenant is a contract with god, in which you follow his laws and are promised a reward.

What is the new covenant?

It is very similar to the old one, with a few minor differences.

From your link:

Mat 5:17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus fulfiled the old covenant, but the rules carry over into the new one. See the bold text?
Under the new covenant, you must still follow the laws of Moses forever. Jesus says so.

So what is the difference?
Jesus adds thoughtcrimes to the practices punished, making faith (and not only obedience) mandatory.

Jesus made the rules more harsh, not less.

Your incorrect interpretation is based on the philosophy of Paul, not jesus.
Only Paul declared the old laws obsolete, but he had no authority to do so. Paul contradicts Jesus.

 

[tehsolace]

I hate the fact that this thread, originally about a story about atheists, turned into a debate about Christianity...

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Actually, it's a thread about christianity bastardizing a discussion where atheists belong, making this current direction of conversation very topical.

 

[tehsolace]

Actually, it's a thread about christianity bastardizing a discussion where atheists belong, making this current direction of conversation very topical.

My mistake. I pretty much read the last few posts where people were debating quotes from the Bible (which of course I don't care about) and assumed justly.

 

[repiV]

Walter, you're an idiot of utterly epic proportions. Please STFU.

Could really use one of those "this thread sucks" emoticons right now.

 

[Walter]

Your incorrect interpretation is based on the philosophy of Paul, not jesus.
Only Paul declared the old laws obsolete, but he had no authority to do so. Paul contradicts Jesus

When the Apostle Paul wrote this he was not making up a story. When he said "it is written", he was quoting God.

RepiV, you're the most arrogantic self-promoting idiot i've ever met!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Don't flame in my forum.

Say something smart or face warnings.

That goes for both of you.

 

[repiV]

Don't flame in my forum.

Say something smart or face warnings.

Convinient excuse to continue this pointless thread.

Why are you bothering? It's a complete waste of time and energy. You might achieve more by trying to teach a monkey to read Shakespeare. At the very least, you'd leave yourself room to be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

When the Apostle Paul wrote this he was not making up a story. When he said "it is written", he was quoting God.

If "it is written", then show us where it is written.

Clearly the exact opposite of what Paul said is also written: Written by Jesus.

Also, Paul wasn't a legitimate apostle.
He declared himself an apostle, decades after Christ died.

Quite the power-tripper, this guy.
First he declares himself an apostle, and then he starts re-writing the laws of god.

But anyways, show us this quote that God said, which contradicts jesus.


Also, Rapey is now warned. Don't let it happen again.

 

[repiV]

Also, Rapey is now warned. Don't let it happen again.

King Mecha, who refers to Munro's forum as his own, has clearly never insulted anybody on the politics forum (by consistently calling them Rapey-V, for example).

I don't recall the last time I saw you giving someone a warning for calling Solaris or numbers an idiot either...which pretty much happens on a daily basis.

But so long as you think you're accomplishing something by taking the "moral high ground" and debating with someone who is completely incapable of debate, thereby wasting hours of your time and his, and ultimately harming him a lot more than any insult would by allowing him to continually make such a fool of himself, and you still get a kick out of playing the "big man" - go right ahead.

Personally I think you're being quite immature, in a very subtle way.

 

[Walter]

If "it is written", then show us where it is written.

Clearly the exact opposite of what Paul said is also written: Written by Jesus.

Also, Paul wasn't a legitimate apostle.
He declared himself an apostle, decades after Christ died.

Quite the power-tripper, this guy.
First he declares himself an apostle, and then he starts re-writing the laws of god.

Read Ac 9:1-6 .

 

[tehsolace]

I hate the Bible... too many words and not enough pictures. My science book on the other hand....

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Read the brick testament then, tehsolace.

It'll keep you occupied, so you can stop spamming this thread.

Rapey, the same goes for you. Politics forum is my jurisdiction, and you're disrupting it. Numbers and Solaris make joke threads and people typically add to the discussion before they start trying to ruin everything.

Here, you are admitting to trying to disrupt the discussion. That places you a hair away from getting a spam warning too, and if that's not enough to warrant a ban, it's damn close. Do you understand?

If you have an issue, bring it up in PM.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Read Ac 9:1-6 .

Acts 9:1-6 ?

"9:1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
9:2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do."

What does that have to do with anything? Where does jesus say to him that the laws are obsolete?

Also, the traditional view is that Acts was written c. 60 by a companion of Paul named Luke. Thirty years after Jesus died.

Do you know how to identify a false prophet?
The only way is to check if they contradict the laws of God. Paul lied to you.

 

[repiV]

Read the brick testament then, tehsolace.

It'll keep you occupied, so you can stop spamming this thread.

Rapey, the same goes for you. Politics forum is my jurisdiction, and you're disrupting it. Numbers and Solaris make joke threads and people typically add to the discussion before they start trying to ruin everything.

Here, you are admitting to trying to disrupt the discussion. That places you a hair away from getting a spam warning too, and if that's not enough to warrant a ban, it's damn close. Do you understand?

If you have an issue, bring it up in PM.

What discussion?

That's exactly the point. There is no discussion worth disrupting. You're repeating what everyone either already knows or will never understand (if they're as intelligent as Walter, anyway) and he's just ducking and diving.
This is a thread from which NO GOOD will ever come. Nobody's mind will change about anything, and you won't have learnt anything in the process either. Been there, done that, why watch you make the same mistake?
You're wasting your time, and I was actually trying to help you by pointing that out - in a far more direct fashion than you would, but not everyone writes essays where single lines would suffice.
Not entirely surprising, however, that your God complex got in the way and you decided to lay down the law and point out how big you are, and slap a warning point on my post which was a) entirely polite and b) a friendly word of advice to you. A post which was neither trolling nor harassment.
If that's your attitude, you ain't as great as you obviously think you are.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Strike two.

 

[Walter]

:O *runs away before the cat with glasses uses the hand of justice*

 

[Asknoone]

Debbie Schlussel is a retard in every sense of the word and should be confined to a small desert island for the rest of her days. Some of the sheer rubbish she spouted in that clip pissed me the **** off. Same goes for the other woman. Also, Walter, you are delusional

 

[Ennui]

repiV, stop. You have to understand that if you undermine a staff member publicly in a thread, not only is it not going to have any effect, but it's going to also result in repercussions. Please PM Mecha with any problems or concerns you have about this thread, rather than discussing them here.

 

[repiV]

repiV, stop. You have to understand that if you undermine a staff member publicly in a thread, not only is it not going to have any effect, but it's going to also result in repercussions. Please PM Mecha with any problems or concerns you have about this thread, rather than discussing them here.

Been there, done that.
And then got threatened with a ban if I wrote another PM, despite not breaking a single forum rule in any of my messages.

Anyhow, thanks. I appreciate the effort.

 

[Solaris]

Been there, done that.
And then got threatened with a ban if I wrote another PM, despite not breaking a single forum rule in any of my messages.

Anyhow, thanks. I appreciate the effort.

We've all been there.

They fixed me though,

All Hail the Administration!
Hail King Munro!
Hail the Moderators!

psst. meet me in the alley behind fan fiction in half an hour, theres more of us than you think

Anyway, I think everyones making some good points here, Walter you still need to address Mechas points, quoting irrelevant bits of the bible won't advance your argument anywhere.

 

[repiV]

We've all been there.

They fixed me though,

All Hail the Administration!
Hail King Munro!
Hail the Moderators!

psst. meet me in the alley behind fan fiction in half an hour, theres more of us than you think

More of the humour and less of the communism and I might even buy you a drink one day.

But not now...I really need to go to sleep. Night!

 

[Ennui]

Careful, he's really an agent of Big Brother posing as a member of the resistance. Check behind the picture, there's a telescreen or whatever it's called.

 

[PvtRyan]

I'm gonna play the devil's advocate (or Jesus' in this case) and ask Mecha what he thinks about people claiming the Old Testament was made void in the book of Hebrews (chapter 8):

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=8&version=31

Specifically this passage:

For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."[c]

By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

For starters, Hebrews doesn't match the rest of the bible, stylistically. What it does match, however, is in its repeated references to the letters of Paul of Tarsus. Very nearly all the bible's biggest contradictions can be linked to Paul in some manner, and this one was written either by him or one of his followers.

The purpose of the Book of Hebrews was to prevent the many Christians who still followed the Old Testament from leaving the church after Pauline doctrine took over.
So, the book itself is specifically a defense of Paul.

The parts being quoted in the passage are actually misquoted from Jeremiah.

Jeremiah, a prophet, predicted that Jesus will make a new covenant that is "not like the covenant
I made with their forefathers".

However, the covenant made by Jesus is very similar to that of the forefathers.

Therefore, there are two options:

1) Jeremiah was incorrect.
The measure of a false prophet, after all, is if he contradicts the laws of god. Since this is seemingly the case, then Jeremiah may have to be discarded. A man simply cannot contradict Jesus.

or

2) This specific new covenant has not yet happened.
This is also possible. It's a common misconception that there are only two covenants in the Bible. In actuality, the Old Testament is comprised of nearly ten seperate covenants.
If Jesus will make a covenant where the old laws are refuted, this has not yet occured. Perhaps it will during the second coming, but not yet.
Since it refers to "all people embracing christ" the covenant described is more accurately linked with the end times, when it is promised that all non-christians will be eliminated by the forces of god.
After all, no-one can legitimately say that evangelism is over because all people now follow christ. That definitely isn't the case yet.
Jesus says that the laws of moses last until the end times, but not afterwards. So this makes a good deal of sense.

Either way, Paul's followers misinterpreted Jeremiah.
In any other scenario, Jesus would be contradicting himself, and that's not possible.

 

[Bill Lumbergh]

Sorry to intrude on the discussion here, but it seems this thread is suffering from a lack of agreement in definition of terms. Walter seems to operate on the standard that truth is what he can intimate from 'God' or the bible, while Absinthe for one uses the operational standard that truth is determined via evidence of the senses, logical exposition, etc. While I might associate myself more closely with Absinthe, I would point out that a lot (maybe even a majority) of people utilize Walter's standard outside the constraints of religion, i.e., 'a thing is true because I say it is, dammit!', so Walter doesn't hold the corner on that market alone.

I won't presume to hold forth on the subject at hand here, but suffice it to say that the two sides are never going to meet without that fundamental common ground as a starting point. You're never going to convince someone that the sky is blue if to him blue is actually green.

[butts back out]

 

[Geogaddi]

Mecha! I can't believe you slept with Lumbergh!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I would if he was a lady.

He's absolutely correct that christians, and religious folk as a whole, operate on an entirely different set of rules for making sense. Ones that fundamentally don't make sense.

That's why, until Walter ran away, I was talking to him on his own terms, by using his non-logic against him and taking Jesus' side.

Thank god that the bible uses so many unimaginative absolutes! God is "infallible", the laws last "forever" and the morality is black-and-white.
The rules are so simple that it's actually far easier to argue with the bible than against it.
The bible shoots itself in the foot with Jesus' lessons of violence.

What aren't simple, however, are the various hoops you need to jump through in order to twist the words into a pacifistic love-in instead of a genocidal rampage.
Christians would call the whole idea of peace retarded if Paul hadn't done all the work for them 1900-ish years ago.

So now there's the simplest rule of all: "Ignore almost the entire bible because Paul said so".

It's a shame it's based on false prophecy.

 

[Ennui]

Sorry to intrude on the discussion here, but it seems this thread is suffering from a lack of agreement in definition of terms. Walter seems to operate on the standard that truth is what he can intimate from 'God' or the bible, while Absinthe for one uses the operational standard that truth is determined via evidence of the senses, logical exposition, etc. While I might associate myself more closely with Absinthe, I would point out that a lot (maybe even a majority) of people utilize Walter's standard outside the constraints of religion, i.e., 'a thing is true because I say it is, dammit!', so Walter doesn't hold the corner on that market alone.

I won't presume to hold forth on the subject at hand here, but suffice it to say that the two sides are never going to meet without that fundamental common ground as a starting point. You're never going to convince someone that the sky is blue if to him blue is actually green.

[butts back out]

Holy christ. We have intelligent lurkers. Well said.

Still, I don't know if that impacts discussion beyond clarifying the source of the way that neither side is making any ground - Absinthe's standpoint and Walter's standpoint are both completely opposed to the opposing ideal, because for Walter to accept Absinthe's reasoning would require him to invalidate his own views on reason in general, and vice versa.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

But I present a middle ground! :O

 

[Absinthe]

Mecha, the way you thrive on this kind of dialogue is almost scary. D:

 

[Jerry_111]

D: lol look wut my thread turned out like

 

[Cole]

Mecha get on CNN and pwn.

 

[Faizu]

I don't see why atheists are wrong... I mean really, everyone has their own opinions. And it is very wrong that Muslims and Christians criticizes atheists and forbid them to speak their mind. It is no wonder! Why Richard Dawkins would want to criticize religions as "dangerous nonsense".

And not to mention, this is also a recap of what happened in 9/11 and the World Trade Centre incident and Al Qaeda executions and terrorists justify their killings for Allah, that's full of crap.

 

[Walter]

Acts 9:1-6 ?

"9:1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
9:2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do."

What does that have to do with anything? Where does jesus say to him that the laws are obsolete?

Also, the traditional view is that Acts was written c. 60 by a companion of Paul named Luke. Thirty years after Jesus died.

Do you know how to identify a false prophet?
The only way is to check if they contradict the laws of God. Paul lied to you.

Paul was not chosen by other apostoles to be one(like Mathew), he was chosen by Christ.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

According to his prophecy.
However, his prophecy was false because it contradicts with the teachings of Jesus.
That's the definition of a false prophet.

I hate to say it, but any idiot can have hallucinations, yet only a special few can actually communicate with Christ.
It doesn't matter what Paul thought he saw. What matters is whether it came from God or someplace else.

Christ said the laws of the prophets are permanent until the end of time.

Is Christ a liar or did Paul make a mistake?

 

[Walter]

Sorry to intrude on the discussion here, but it seems this thread is suffering from a lack of agreement in definition of terms. Walter seems to operate on the standard that truth is what he can intimate from 'God' or the bible, while Absinthe for one uses the operational standard that truth is determined via evidence of the senses, logical exposition, etc. While I might associate myself more closely with Absinthe, I would point out that a lot (maybe even a majority) of people utilize Walter's standard outside the constraints of religion, i.e., 'a thing is true because I say it is, dammit!', so Walter doesn't hold the corner on that market alone.

I won't presume to hold forth on the subject at hand here, but suffice it to say that the two sides are never going to meet without that fundamental common ground as a starting point. You're never going to convince someone that the sky is blue if to him blue is actually green.

[butts back out]

Hmm...Bill Gates here is right at some point. But still, what does persecution of atheists got to do with Jesus? I keep saying, people shouldn't take one sentence out of the whole context. The problem is, many here look for reasons why not to believe in Christ, not the other way around. They don't want to search for the truth that in most cases has nothing to do with salvation, they instead put it all on my back.
Furthermore, reasons for their deconverting is most crazy. If a follower of Christ never opened the Bible (word of God) then he has never checked if the teacher he was learning from says the truth.

Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. -(Matthew 7:15-20)

Edit: sorry Kitty, but i've not seen your post before written this.

 

[Faizu]

According to his prophecy.
However, his prophecy was false because it contradicts with the teachings of Jesus.
That's the definition of a false prophet.

I hate to say it, but any idiot can have hallucinations, yet only a special few can actually communicate with Christ.
It doesn't matter what Paul thought he saw. What matters is whether it came from God or someplace else.

Christ said the laws of the prophets are permanent until the end of time.

Is Christ a liar or did Paul make a mistake?

Hard to say, one might say that Christ is telling a lie, Paul making a mistake or both. But my take is that Paul could have made a mistake, because from what I can see Jesus' teachings were different from what Paul have taught to the people he met. Well nevertheless, Jesus still helped Paul and guided him.