quote:

Originally posted by free_thinker:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Did any of those posts contain an explanation of what PMSL meant?

The internet is a wonderful thing, ya know.
Type PMSL into google and you'll find out.
Try that with your goat herder book.

It actually takes less time to find that out, than to post the question.

Smart people already know this.

Progressive Management Solutions Limited.
Right: That makes sense.
The miracles of modern technology.

quote:

Originally posted by miz'd:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Did any of those posts contain an explanation of what PMSL meant?

WCTYBTWHTKY

OK, OK I see how it works, already.
FAQS, Miz?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

My sentiments exactly.
Just that the laws which you were referring to were specifically prepared for the Jewish people, not Gentiles.
And Jesus pretty graphically gave us good reason to not apply the death penalty.
He who is without sin; anybody?

Do you know what I find most amusing Woolfie? For a group of people who do not believe, they seem ever so keen to argue, this way and that, as to whether the Bible is true.

If they were so convinced, why would they argue at all?

I know why I come on here, and I think I know why you come on here... but them... I really don't know?

Your thoughts?

quote:

Originally posted by gt:

Unfortunately the delusion that only religion is capable of this is humanities folly.

Communists with its gulags and National socialism with is brand of State terror between contributed to 10's of Millions deaths.

People are a problem in general!

Society is an option as a Christian and has been a successful assimilation for quite a few centuries now. However, perhaps you're having problems assimilating into western society; you certainly seem to have an aversion to Socratic debate?

Do you know gt, I have made this very same point on many an occasion on this forum... but the penny never seems to fully drop!

They like to find fault, anyway they can, in the Bible. Rarely will they attack another faith, which suggests to me that we have something they struggle with and perhaps deep down know that it is truth.

And the truth, at the end of the day, will set you free! Absolutely free

Regardless of their poisened barbs, it is my true desire for them, and my hope - even with their most vicious and hurtful assaults, that they come to faith in Jesus!

quote:

Originally posted by RedJooles:
They like to find fault, anyway they can, in the Bible.

I assume I am included in 'they'.
What does 'any way they can' mean?
Mostly what I do is point out absurdities, contradictions, cherry-picking, plain nonsense and immorality and challenge one of you delusional type to defend it.
The fault is in your myth and bronze age book. It doesn't take much 'finding'.

quote:

Rarely will they attack another faith, which suggests to me that we have something they struggle with and perhaps deep down know that it is truth.

I point out the absurdity in any and all mumbo jumbo I see.
This includes other faiths as and when they pop their heads up here and elsewhere.
With mostly xians here, the most common discussion is around xianity.
I am also skeptical of any other evidence-free beliefs such as astrology, homeopathy, water divining, etc.

quote:

And the truth, at the end of the day, will set you free! Absolutely free

Regardless of their poisened barbs, it is my true desire for them, and my hope - even with their most vicious and hurtful assaults, that they come to faith in Jesus!

Thanks, but no thanks.
I guess most addicts would like everyone around them to be similarly drugged.
It makes them seem less delusional.

quote:

Originally posted by RedJooles:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

My sentiments exactly.
Just that the laws which you were referring to were specifically prepared for the Jewish people, not Gentiles.
And Jesus pretty graphically gave us good reason to not apply the death penalty.
He who is without sin; anybody?

Do you know what I find most amusing Woolfie? For a group of people who do not believe, they seem ever so keen to argue, this way and that, as to whether the Bible is true.

If they were so convinced, why would they argue at all?

I know why I come on here, and I think I know why you come on here... but them... I really don't know?

Your thoughts?

Your question has an obvious answer. I'll let good old Mencken answer you:

"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.

True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge."

H L Mencken, "Aftermath" (1925)

quote:

Originally posted by Milan K:

quote:

Originally posted by RedJooles:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

My sentiments exactly.
Just that the laws which you were referring to were specifically prepared for the Jewish people, not Gentiles.
And Jesus pretty graphically gave us good reason to not apply the death penalty.
He who is without sin; anybody?

Do you know what I find most amusing Woolfie? For a group of people who do not believe, they seem ever so keen to argue, this way and that, as to whether the Bible is true.

If they were so convinced, why would they argue at all?

I know why I come on here, and I think I know why you come on here... but them... I really don't know?

Your thoughts?

Your question has an obvious answer. I'll let good old Mencken answer you:

"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.

True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge."

H L Mencken, "Aftermath" (1925)

Quite so: And yet society in the main seems reluctant to apply such harsh condemnation of those, for instance, who preach the folly of evolutionary theory.
Just imagine a Christian school child who completes an exam paper in which he explains how the snake has feeble withered leg like protuberences under his skin?
He'd probably fail his exam, wouldn't he, and never get a job when he leaves school.

So how is that right?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Quite so: And yet society in the main seems reluctant to apply such harsh condemnation of those, for instance, who preach the folly of evolutionary theory.

Duh, and that would be because ToE is an evidence based science not an evidence-less superstition.

quote:

Just imagine a Christian school child who completes an exam paper in which he explains how the snake has feeble withered leg like protuberences under his skin?
He'd probably fail his exam, wouldn't he, and never get a job when he leaves school.

That would only be if a xian teacher marks his exam paper and refused to accept the clear unequivocal evidence that snakes to indeed have withered or vestigial limbs.

quote:

So how is that right?

It wouldn't be right, and wouldn't happen if a science educated person marked the paper rather than some theist who refuses to accept any evidence if it contradicts the bronze-age goat herder book.

quote:

Originally posted by Milan K:

quote:

Originally posted by RedJooles:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

My sentiments exactly.
Just that the laws which you were referring to were specifically prepared for the Jewish people, not Gentiles.
And Jesus pretty graphically gave us good reason to not apply the death penalty.
He who is without sin; anybody?

Do you know what I find most amusing Woolfie? For a group of people who do not believe, they seem ever so keen to argue, this way and that, as to whether the Bible is true.

If they were so convinced, why would they argue at all?

I know why I come on here, and I think I know why you come on here... but them... I really don't know?

Your thoughts?

Your question has an obvious answer. I'll let good old Mencken answer you:

"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.

True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge."

H L Mencken, "Aftermath" (1925)

I think I agree with you on principle regarding your statements and use of H L Mencken quote if i assume in his quote "to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it" is not in the Castro Pol Pot Stalin approach. An approach far more horrendous and murder ridden than any Witch finder general sense.

Hence we as believers have the right to challenge you also, in a democratic Socratic method.

What is interesting in the challenge you bring to the forum is by deliberately mis interpreting almost every aspect of the New Testament when you quote its source.

Your argument should be able to stand up without using this "unscholastics and cheap tabloid method".

I would not dare to assume your set of principles or your interpretation of them, which you seem to do with Christianity because it at least has something measurable to attack.

Its not imbued with abstract semantics wallowing under the line of despare and then jumping to a leap of faith when it no longer can bear is desperate situation of despair.

Attacking hope to drag it into despair, misery loves company.

You are intelligent and articulate and I am confident you can achieve this. I believe you are sincere in your intent, but your methodology is dishonest.

However, besides all I have expressed, I have still enjoyed your input. I will of course continue as your conscience decides

quote:

Originally posted by gt:


What is interesting in the challenge you bring to the forum is by deliberately mis interpreting almost every aspect of the New Testament when you quote its source.

Maybe one day you will contribute a rational argument instead of empty assertions. I'm not holding my breath, though. With all due respect, so far your posts have been a waste of bandwidth.

Milan K:
I just wait for your posts like pearls of wisdom. Their copious detail in regard to rational Socratic debate are a treasure to behold, your mother must be proud.

Happy easter, I hope you don't stuff yourself silly with to much chocolate celebrating our Lords resurrection.

Theres nothing worse than two pounds of chocolate swilling around the the human plumbing system.

quote:

Originally posted by gt:
Milan K:
I just wait for your posts like pearls of wisdom. Their copious detail in regard to rational Socratic debate are a treasure to behold, your mother must be proud.

Happy easter, I hope you don't stuff yourself silly with to much chocolate celebrating our Lords resurrection.

Theres nothing worse than two pounds of chocolate swilling around the the human plumbing system.

I rest my case.

I see, you have to have the last word.

quote:

Originally posted by gt:
I see, you have to have the last word.

Have the last word -be my guest, by all means. The issue is not who has the last word or the first word; the issue is that you seem totally unable to say anything of any substance. And the worst thing is that you seem totally unaware of it.

Milan K:


we must be twins...

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Just that the laws which you were referring to were specifically prepared for the Jewish people, not Gentiles.

Fair enough but they must, and do, apply to followers of Christ. Jesus specifically stated that he was only interested in the Jews not gentiles - So how can you believe in someone who in his own words isn't interested in saving gentiles.

quote:

And Jesus pretty graphically gave us good reason to not apply the death penalty.
He who is without sin; anybody?

Given some of the comments you have made in your various incarnations on these fora then obviously that is a comment of your man-myth which you don't really subscribe to or choose to comply with.

quote:

Originally posted by gt:
Unfortunately the delusion that only religion is capable of this is humanities folly.

Did I say such. Making up your own strawman arguments again. Stick to what people actually say instead of trying to obfuscate.

quote:

Communists with its gulags and National socialism with is brand of State terror between contributed to 10's of Millions deaths.

So what, did I say otherwise? Just because some other non-religious societies have done as you say does not absolve christianity from its responsibility for causing much death and
destruction. Two wrongs don't make a right.

What you fail to see (or wish to avoid facing up to) is that christianity is worse since it does its killing in spite of its proclamations that it is all about peace. None of the secular regimes you mention had such a doctrine. Anyway no secular regime has managed to kill off virtually every living thing yet - That accolade belongs to the god, you venerate and extol, alone.

As for the figures you quote - Again, so what the large figure is due to technology not ideology. It is almost a certainty that if the inquisitors had had the means to kill 10s of millions of heathens and heretics they would have. Of that there is little doubt.

quote:

People are a problem in general.

Quite agree, we are what we are - Of course, our animal nature isn't helped in any way by the prejudice and bigotry which all religion has in its doctrines.

quote:

Society is an option as a Christian and has seem a successful assimilation for rather a few centuries now.

Eh? WTF are you trying to say. Typo aside the sentence is meaningless and nonsensical. Doh!

quote:

However perhaps your having problems assimilating into western society, your certainly seem to have an aversion to Socratic debate.

The only one with a problem is you, I fear. And that problem is with reason and reality.

quote:

Originally posted by gt:
Your argument should be able to stand up without using this "unscholastics and cheap tabloid method"...

Just what scholastic methods do you christians use? "You just have to have faith and believe" is not a scholarly (only inane and unreasoned) argument.

quote:

Attacking hope to drag it into despair, misery loves company.

Not as much as the delusional desire the company of fellow delusionals.

quote:

I believe you are sincere in your intent, but your methodology is dishonest.

LOL, that's rich coming from any theist, who interpret, cherry pick and otherwise move the goalposts to make their apologetics for a book of mythical nonsense.

'But that part is allegory'
'But that part is metaphor'
'But that part is literal'

These arguments would be fine if only you could state the valid criteria which allow you to make such declarations. To date no theist including yourself has - when asked for such criteria you just ignore the request. Who is being dishonest then?

Joliet,
The feeling is really mutual at this point, I see you as very bitter and misery loves company.

We should agree to disagree at this point.

despite that, I hope you have a wonderful and jolly day.

quote:

Originally posted by gt:
We should agree to disagree at this point.

Another theist runs away when asked to justify their nonsense.
Surely not.

quote:

Originally posted by Joliet:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Just that the laws which you were referring to were specifically prepared for the Jewish people, not Gentiles.

Fair enough but they must, and do, apply to followers of Christ. Jesus specifically stated that he was only interested in the Jews not gentiles - So how can you believe in someone who in his own words isn't interested in saving gentiles.

For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son, that whosoever beliveth in Him, so long as he is a Jew, should not perish, but should have eternal life.

Oh: No. That's not right, is it?

quote:

And Jesus pretty graphically gave us good reason to not apply the death penalty.
He who is without sin; anybody?

Given some of the comments you have made in your various incarnations on these fora then obviously that is a comment of your man-myth which you don't really subscribe to or choose to comply with.

Sorry: Wrong again: I never stoned anybody.