The rocks shall cry out.

5/1/2007 9:45:19 AM

Sigh. I didn't want to have to use these again, but if it's my only way of illustrating my point:



http://www.thebricktestament.com/acts_of_the_apostles/stephen_gets_stoned/ac07_60.html
Stephen is stoned for blasphemy


http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/sexual_discharges/lv15_30.html
When a woman finishes her period, she will once again be deemed clean when she brings two doves to the church for the priest to sacrifice


http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/how_long_to_hang_somebody/dt21_23a.html
When you hang a man (this is apparently ok as far as the bible's morals), don't let his body stay overnight


http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/prisoners_of_war/dt20_13.html
When you go to war and take prisoners, put the entire male population to death


http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/slavery/ex21_02a.html
hebrew slaves may only be kept for 6 years. 'In the seventh year he will leave a free man. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and children will belong to the master, and he will depart alone.'


http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/120000_midianites_killed/jg08_10.html
God causes the slaying of 120,000 midianites


http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/jephthah_kills_his_virgin_daughter/jg11_39a.html
Jepthah kills his young daughter to keep a promise to god


http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/samson_commits_arson/jg15_05.html
Samson commits arson using 300 jackals



http://www.thebricktestament.com/joshua/massacre_of_jericho/jos06_21c.html
God orders the massacre of Jericho (and the walls came a-tumblin' down). However, god is still pissed, because the israelites didn't destroy everything and instead kept some things they thought might be useful. I can understand, though - they should have listened.

Need more?

5/1/2007 10:18:04 AM

Does all of this match with your morals? If so, make sure and be looking out as the men in white coats come to take you away, or when the police come after you've followed the Bible's teachings and slaughtered a disobeying son or a relative who tried to get you to not be a Christian. The bits I've just posted ALMOST, and other phrases say completely, tell you that I should be murdered for saying what I've said here. That cool with you?


http://www.thebricktestament.com/joshua/twenty-four_cities_massacred/jos11_06.html


http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_children/dt21_20.html

Deuteronomy 21:21
'All the men of the town must then stone him to death. You must banish this evil from among you.'

Deuteronomy 13:6-9
'If your brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife tries to secretly entice you, telling you to go and worship other gods, gods of people living near you, or far from you, or anywhere on earth, do not listen to him.' 'You must kill them. Show them no pity. And your hand must strike the first blow.' Deuteronomy 13:9-10
'Then the hands of all the people. You shall stone them to death.'

Leviticus 18:23
'Do not have sex with any kind of animal. You would become unclean by doing so.'
Exodus 22:18
'Any man who has sex with an animal, is certainly to be put to death.
Leviticus 20:15
'Put the animal to death as well.'


Leviticus 20:13
'If a man has sex with a man in same way as with a woman, they have committed an abomination. They are certainly to be put to death.'
'Their blood is on their own heads.'

[Edited on May 1, 2007 at 10:21 AM. Reason : .]

5/1/2007 10:19:01 AM

1: the new testament frees the jews from keeping the law
2: nobody other than jews were ever meant to follow the Mosaic law (only the ten commandments, ie: God's law)
3: the lego guys are cute, but contribute nothing to a debate about God's existence seperate from using the bible as proof.

Taking phrases of the bible out of context to disprove the whole of its text isn't new, or for that matter terribly compelling.

5/1/2007 11:17:51 AM

Thanks for ruining my thread, DG.

5/1/2007 11:20:02 AM

The thread was already ruined. Anyways, the fact that Comfort/Cameron won't present their evidence before the debate just shows me this is a publicity stunt and/or his "proof" is something flashy that can be torn apart given serious thought. 5 bucks says he uses begging the question arguments.

5/1/2007 11:42:05 AM

Quote :

"Stephen is stoned for blasphemy"

I don't have time to go through all of them right now, but if you actually read the chapter instead of copying and pasting someone else's incorrect arguments, you'd see Stephen was stoned for blasphemy BY THE JEWS.

And I've already given you my opinion of the old testament, so citing examples there lends nothing to your argument.

5/1/2007 12:01:39 PM

Quote :

"""Censuses are immoral - and God killed 70,000 innocent counted Jews to punish David for counting them... "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel, And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it. . . . And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel. . . . So the Lord sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men" (1 Chronicles 21:1-14).""

Actually David was punished for counting his soldiers because it shouldn't have mattered. God aides those who fight for God. Therefore the winning side is victorious due to God's judgment, NOT because they had more troops. By counting his men David was effectively saying that the size of his army mattered, when in reality only God is responsible for victory and defeat.

5/1/2007 1:04:20 PM

so he killed 70,000 people, FOR THAT

man, what a dick

5/1/2007 1:06:31 PM

Bobby, I wasn't going after you, I was going after Tulip for this:

Quote :

"Me: I mean, if you're saying you get your morals from the bible, I can show you tons of things in the bible (and I know you already know those exist) that absolutely would NOT reflect your morals. Tulip: No, you can't."

Quote :

" I don't have time to go through all of them right now, but if you actually read the chapter instead of copying and pasting someone else's incorrect arguments, you'd see Stephen was stoned for blasphemy BY THE JEWS."

I wish people would quit assuming I hadn't read these stories. I have. That's how I know about them. And yes, he was stoned by the Jews - and what's the bible's opinion of this stoning and all those other mass murders? Why, it's positive, of course. Those stories are used to teach lessons, thereby making all this murder and destruction completely fine responses to the crimes allegedly committed.

[Edited on May 1, 2007 at 3:33 PM. Reason : f]

5/1/2007 3:31:30 PM

Quote :

"what's the bible's opinion of this stoning and all those other mass murders? Why, it's positive, of course."

I don't see how you can possibly arrive at that conclusion.

The only thing that can be interpreted as positive is the courage Stephen had to die for his beliefs.

5/1/2007 3:51:06 PM

Quote :

"I wish people would quit assuming I hadn't read these stories. I have. That's how I know about them. And yes, he was stoned by the Jews - and what's the bible's opinion of this stoning and all those other mass murders? Why, it's positive, of course. Those stories are used to teach lessons, thereby making all this murder and destruction completely fine responses to the crimes allegedly committed."

Are you seriously suggesting that the Bible portrays the killing of Stephen as a morally acceptable action?

Ummm, no. It was not. Stoning is the appropriate punishment for public blasphemy - but the Bible is very clear that Stephen did not commit blasphemy, because he preached exactly what the entirety of the NT teaches. It clearly portrays the Jews who committed this as evil, wicked, God-haters who acted just as badly as their predecessors, whom Stephen also rebuked.

As to the other stories of "mass murders" in war - I have no moral objection to them. War is never to be entered into lightly, as is commonplace, but if it rightly based and has an appropriate objective, I have no problem with "total war" to the last man, woman, and child of your enemy.

In those times where God struck populations down for "minor" offenses, I also cannot bring objection to Him. All men deserve such fates. All sin can rightly be punished by God with death. Any time where any person is NOT struck down, that person is receiving compassion. But if God chooses to show justice to a few, and compassion to others, then I, as creature not creator, must acknowledge that is His right.

[Edited on May 1, 2007 at 4:38 PM. Reason : gt]

5/1/2007 4:29:11 PM

DG is a perfect example of people who get their understanding of the bible from websites

5/1/2007 8:56:32 PM

Quote :

"I have no problem with "total war" to the last man, woman, and child of your enemy. "

WOW.

And people think Islam is harsh.

But Islam lays down rules of war:

1) Women, children, elderly, religious people, and any other non-combatants not to be harmed.
2) Trees not to be cut down or burnt.
3) Live stock not be harmed.
4) No mutilation or torture of enemy soldiers and POWs.

5/1/2007 9:05:16 PM

and we see how well they follow those rules...

5/1/2007 9:06:41 PM

^ dude, you are smarter than that.

if they don't follow those rules (which they don't), are you gonna blame the religion?

of course not.

anyway, what these terrorists/extremists are fighting are not just wars from an islamic point of view anyway, so whether they follow the rules or not is moot.

5/1/2007 9:10:06 PM

well, it's hard not to blame the religion's influence, especially when every last one of the wackos go around proclaiming their attrocities as the will of their god.

5/1/2007 9:15:34 PM

^ It's only hard if you're bad at thinking. so...

Quote :

"As to the other stories of "mass murders" in war - I have no moral objection to them. War is never to be entered into lightly, as is commonplace, but if it rightly based and has an appropriate objective, I have no problem with "total war" to the last man, woman, and child of your enemy."

I would like to take this opportunity to distance myself ideologically from this nut. This guy is an example of everything that is wrong with many "christians"

5/1/2007 11:16:54 PM

Quote :

"Stoning is the appropriate punishment for public blasphemy"

You make this too easy. I should have just stopped there.

Quote :

"It clearly portrays the Jews who committed this as evil, wicked, God-haters who acted just as badly as their predecessors, whom Stephen also rebuked."

Show me. If you can, I'll admit that in that case, I'm incorrect.

Quote :

"As to the other stories of "mass murders" in war - I have no moral objection to them. War is never to be entered into lightly, as is commonplace, but if it rightly based and has an appropriate objective, I have no problem with "total war" to the last man, woman, and child of your enemy."

Quote :

" In those times where God struck populations down for "minor" offenses, I also cannot bring objection to Him. All men deserve such fates."

Either you're a troll or a very frightening "person," but either way, I'm definitely going to ignore you now.

Quote :

" I would like to take this opportunity to distance myself ideologically from this nut. This guy is an example of everything that is wrong with many "christians""

You're distanced ideologically without ever having to say that, Bobby. I know the difference. You're a respectable, good guy. I disagree with you, but at least you're willing to admit that there are tons of things in the Bible that are untrue, tons that are fucked up, and that you're going to keep your faith based on the parts you want to. If you want to say you're using the bible for your morals rather than say that you're a good person who sees things in the bible he can agree with, I can accept that (not that you need my acceptance )

5/2/2007 9:18:03 AM

OEP, you're doing the same thing everyone else does. Those are the rules of war in the Koran, but they are contradicted.

9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

5/2/2007 9:25:04 AM

Quote :

"I would like to take this opportunity to distance myself ideologically from this nut. This guy is an example of everything that is wrong with many "christians""

If you think my statements make me some sort of Christian war-hawk who just wants to kill everyone unlike me...I am actually strongly opposed to every war the US has been involved with in the last century. So when I say that my approach to war is that 'completely merciless is ok,' my standard for entering war at all is obscenely high.

Quote :

"Either you're a troll or a very frightening "person," but either way, I'm definitely going to ignore you now. "

I don't know why you think I'm frightening, other than perhaps frighteningly stupid. I never said I had the right to kill those people, nor that any man does...but only that a Creator is sovereign over His creation, and that He who gives life has the authority to take it away.

Quote :

"Show me. If you can, I'll admit that in that case, I'm incorrect."

This is what Stephen said that got him killed:

Acts7:
"51"You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it."

Stephen acknowledged Christ as the Messiah, rebuked those who rejected and murdered Him, and rebuked their ancestors for persecuting those who foretold His coming. Stephen was a Christian martyr, killed for his preaching by Jews who rejected Christ. His death is no different than all the other disciples who were killed either by Romans or Jews. Either way, the Bible clearly portrays the murder of Stephen as wrong.

[Edited on May 2, 2007 at 9:57 AM. Reason : s]

5/2/2007 9:56:44 AM

Quote :

"I am actually strongly opposed to every war the US has been involved with in the last century."

you are opposed to our involvement in ww2?

[Edited on May 2, 2007 at 10:19 AM. Reason : tense]

5/2/2007 10:18:39 AM

Yes, but let's not derail the thread.

I'm more sympathetic to the fight against Japan than Germany, but I do believe both could have been avoided had we been behaving ourselves internationally. I do believe that improper foreign policy, interventionism, etc. baited the Japs into attacking us, intentionally or not. But, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, certainly, a mammoth response on them is justified...but we were not attacked out of the blue for no reason, nor simply because of Japanese bloodlust or imperialism. So, basically it's hard to say a fight is justified by saying "They hit us first!" when we went well out of our way in ticking them off in the first place.

In Europe, my reasoning is similar, except our actions against Germany in provocation were much more overt than in Japan, and it really might be fair to say we threw the first punch, even if indirectly.

You seemed like you wanted an explanation/answer, so there you have it. Make another thread if you care to keep talkin about it.

5/2/2007 10:36:34 AM

i won't say anymore than this: good thing you weren't the one making those sorts of decisions 65 years ago.

5/2/2007 10:38:35 AM

Why? PM if you'd like

[Edited on May 2, 2007 at 10:43 AM. Reason : a]

5/2/2007 10:43:30 AM

Because, while the US might not have been dragged in at the time we had, it is quite likely that fascism & nazism would have done a great deal more damage at a worldwide scale, and still would have eventually come to us.

5/2/2007 10:45:54 AM

Quote :

"Because, while the US might not have been dragged in at the time we had, it is quite likely that fascism & nazism would have done a great deal more damage at a worldwide scale, and still would have eventually come to us."

Make a new thread, if you're that insistent on talking about this.

5/2/2007 10:53:01 AM

Quote :

"but I do believe both could have been avoided had we been behaving ourselves internationally."

Are you truly that retarded? Or are you just trolling?

5/2/2007 11:00:00 AM

Per the request, let's continue this: http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=475709

5/2/2007 11:01:29 AM

I'm truly that retarded.

Make a new thread.

5/2/2007 11:01:39 AM

Well, on the subject of stephen, you look right. So that's one out of a gazillion stories of awful situations that the bible tells in which the murderers are NOT considered to be right. There is still jericho, jepthah, samson, noah's flood, etc.

Also, I partially (though not completely) agree with you, tulip, on WWII

[Edited on May 2, 2007 at 11:42 AM. Reason : .]

5/2/2007 11:41:40 AM

Am I still frightening?

5/2/2007 11:47:06 AM

Whose dick do I have to suck to get an on topic discussion in here?

5/2/2007 11:59:09 AM

Cmon man, you know these topics don't last long. Besides, what else is there to say? These banana guys are fools, and everyone knows it, so what else is there to say?

Here, just for you: "I will watch this and laugh the whole way through"

feel better

And tulip, yes, your ideas are still frightening. The fact that you wouldn't carry them out yourself helps a bit, but not much. You're ok with god commanding people to slaughter innocents, but you're not ok with America doing it. That's better than nothing, but pretty scary

5/2/2007 12:12:21 PM

Quote :

"You're ok with god commanding people to slaughter innocents"

There is no such thing, and that is why it is just for God to give out such sentences. Like I said, what is unjust, but merciful, is any time God does NOT wipe everyone out.

5/2/2007 12:15:23 PM

Quote :

"Whose dick do I have to suck to get an on topic discussion in here?"

that probably won't happen until the actual debate occurs.

5/2/2007 12:23:47 PM

So has anybody heard any news on this thing yet or what?

5/5/2007 11:33:28 AM

it's been rescheduled to may 9 per http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=9229

5/7/2007 10:39:32 AM

Now it's a matter of what to watch: hilarious religious debate or Lost?

5/8/2007 1:44:04 AM

i would not be surprised if the evangelists won this one. they have tons of junk science that is geared specifically towards proving things like that dinosaurs and humans lived together. if anyone looks at the data later, it's pretty easy to discredit. even if it is discredited, they continue to use the data as fact. they will probably say that scientists have found x and that it is science, not the bible the proves it. with that, it's very tough to challenge because they can't look at the data independently.

5/9/2007 10:05:54 AM

i'm so excited i could shit my pants

5/9/2007 11:00:23 AM

i already did just for fun. is it supposed to be on abc.com at 1pm? i don't see a link to it anywhere.

5/9/2007 11:06:33 AM

According to what I've read over at stardestroyer.net, the debate was pretty disappointing as fas as the athiests' arguments went. Not that they necessarily lost or anything, but apparently they mixed up some of their scientific arguments and relied more upon "science rulez and religi0n is t3h 5uc|<."

5/9/2007 1:12:01 PM

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/comfortcameron_performed_as_yo.php

5/9/2007 1:20:11 PM

arguing that there is no god would be every bit as hard as arguing god's existence. Proof of one would disprove the other, but no such proof exists either way.

5/9/2007 1:24:57 PM

actually, that was just some amateur video. here's the full thing

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3156022

^actually, you're right. Luckily, they're not arguing that god doesn't exist. They're arguing that he can't be proven, which is what ray and kirk say they can do.

5/9/2007 1:31:49 PM

Yeah technically there is no "proof" that God doesn't exist. It's impossible (or rather very impractical) to prove that something doesn't exist because that would require going over every last piece of evidence and testimony, and checking to make sure that it doesn't explicitly cover that which you seek to disprove. However, it's much easier to go about proving that something DOES exist. That's why the burden of proof usually falls upon the person who claims that something exists or something occurred. They might very well be correct, but it's up to them to come up with the compelling evidence to convince others. Expecting others to try and and prove that something doesn't exist is a logical fallacy.

The philosophy of science (specifically the tenet known as Occam's Razor) does not actually say that God does not exist, merely that his existence is not necessary to explain all phenomena. Saying that "God did it" is a redundant explanation that only adds unnecessary complexity. Why say that God has angels come down from heaven and pull/anchor everything to the ground when the theory of gravity does the same thing, and does so very elegantly? The friction between science and religion comes from when religious people try to pass things off as scientific when science itself does not actually endorse said claims, specifically when they contradict things that fly in the face of a huge body of evidence that points to the exact opposite conclusion.

5/9/2007 1:48:50 PM

comfort failed in the first few minutes by discussing heaven, hell, and the ten commandments. he even quotes the bible - even though the whole point was NOT to quote the bible.

the RRS didn't do a great job - there are much better atheists for this job - but they still won.

5/9/2007 1:51:09 PM

^So basically it's not so much that the athiests won as much as it is that Comfort/Cameron lost by violating their own condition to the debate?

5/9/2007 2:05:25 PM

no no, they won because they won. I guess I put those sentences together badly; I was making 2 points.

1.) Comfort lost the debate in the beginning by quoting the bible.
2.) Even disregarding that, the RRS still won. Comfort and Cameron did what they shouldn't ever try to do - prove god using "science." You can't prove god using science; you'll always lose. If you want to believe in god, you can't use science as proof. For instance, they made the "there's no paint without a painter, and there's no building without a builder, etc" argument. The RRS responded that by that logic, since god exists and is perfect, he also must have had a creator. That's true, using the Christians' arguments, but what was their response? "God doesn't count in that argument, because god is outside of time."

5/9/2007 2:14:26 PM