Wonky missile aimed at Israel ends up hitting Aqaba, Jordan

[old.Tohtori]

What part of that bit didn't you understand?

I understood it completely and thank you for proving what i initially said.

 

[Scouse]

thank you for proving what i initially said.

Pfffffft. One flamey thread does not proof of behaviour make.

I've taken the others seriously and got nowhere - 'cause you god botherers (of whatever form) have thicker blinkers than dobbin the donkey

 

[old.Tohtori]

Pfffffft. One flamey thread does not proof of behaviour make.

It's not one thread, not one incident, no more then...prepare for it...

'cause you god botherers (of whatever form) have thicker blinkers than dobbin the donkey

How about you adjust your prejudice and misinformed brain a bit. You're no better then the god warrior, or other religious nut cases, since you have your cause and you will spout it at any given turn, with no listening skills, no discussion.

Only thing that you're missing, compared to the nutcase believers(not regular believers), and god is a non factor in behaviour towards others.

You are forcing your beliefs on others more then any religious person ever in the history of this forum.

I don't ofcourse expect you to listen one particle of anything said, but maybe it hits home to some other zealot.

 

[Raven]

Saying the people and events in the bible are real is like saying Eastenders is real.

Its a dramatisation of events written (in some cases) 100s of years after the event by heavily biased people and later edited by people with an agenda to make money from the masses. Very little has any indisputable proof behind it, or any proof at all.

To take it seriously as historical document is daft, it would be like basing historical knowledge on Hollywood movies.

I am willing to bet that given the same amount of brainwashing religious people go through you could actually get people to think Lord of the rings actually happened.

However, people are entitled to believe in what they wish, it's nobody's place to judge their choice to believe. In the same way it's not their (or the sky fairies) place to judge people for thinking its snake oil.

 

[Scouse]

Lol Toht

I actually tried to explain mathematically that I don't have a belief system. Me and you (and myriad others) have argued ad infinitum on this topic.

You've never understood that point.

And you still don't. Years of pointless arguing (constantly attempting to use reason) has, if anything, reinforced my view on this.

This (amongst other things) has led me to the understanding that it's probably a good thing to mock "believers" of any religion. Even if it upsets them (which it quite often does).

If there's no recourse to reasonable argument (which, where discussion of untestable-unprovable-irrational-belief-sytems are concerned, is definately the case) then I'm not going to feel bad if I lower myself to abject mockery of you poor, misled, silly little blighters


Especially when I'm bored out of my fucking skull

 

[old.Tohtori]

That again ahs nothing to do with what was said, so, i'll just ignore it as the flamebait it is.

But you keep on saying how I am, or what I believe, like a good zealot should. Afterall, only you can know the truth.

But to answer your post(as it's polite to do);

I never said anything about you having a belief system, i said you're no different from religious zealots by forcing your beliefs. Beliefs(things you believe in) are not a belief system(religion).

Also, years of trying to discuss thingd with likes of you has lead me to the same opinion, you can't.

 

[nath]

However, people are entitled to believe in what they wish, it's nobody's place to judge their choice to believe. In the same way it's not their (or the sky fairies) place to judge people for thinking its snake oil.

While everyone has the right to believe whatever they wish, no beliefs are sacrosanct. Every belief can and should be questioned and criticised.

 

[old.Tohtori]

While everyone has the right to believe whatever they wish, no beliefs are sacrosanct. Every belief can and should be questioned and criticised.

Difference in questioning and being a dick. (Not calling you a dick)

Too often what you just said is used as an excuse for ridicule, mockery and even threats.

 

[Scouse]

I never said anything about you having a belief system, i said you're no different from religious zealots by forcing your beliefs. Beliefs(things you believe in) are not a belief system(religion)

Like I said. You never could understand it.

I don't believe in anything. System or otherwise. But, as has been said before, you can't comprehend that point 'cause you live in a different reality from those who lack belief.

As for the rest of your point - I was up front about my flaming mockery yet you still took the bait and ran with it

While everyone has the right to believe whatever they wish, no beliefs are sacrosanct. Every belief can and should be questioned and criticised.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Like I said. You never could understand it.

I don't believe in anything. System or otherwise. But, as has been said before, you can't comprehend that point 'cause you live in a different reality from those who lack belief.

And claiming you don't believe in anything is a simple lie to comfort you(because you could never ever accept something that could in any way be linked to religious terms).

Here's a definition for you;

Belief
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

Even science has belief, marriage has belief, LIFE has belief.

Unless you're some form of hermit.

Belief is not religion.

But, like you've said earler;

You can't accept anything but your own truth.

i went with your flamebait for the simple reason of showing how little your opinions on this thread mean, since you only do it to mock other people.

You are blind, argue nul points, don't answer, reject everything and all in all, act like a religious zealot without a cause.

Not to mention you think i'm somehow angry about all this.

 

[Jupitus]

Fuck me, guys - didn't we do all this just a couple of months ago???

 

[Scouse]

And claiming you don't believe in anything is a simple lie to comfort you

Been through this shit before Toht, and you called me a liar then too.

There are multiple reasons you do that - but the main one is that you're not capable of comprehending life without belief.

I disagree fundamentally that "life has belief" and your cut-and-paste of the dictionary hasn't done anything to dissuade me of that fact.

So you go ahead and continue to believe that I'm lying, and I'll continue to bait you for being the sky-fairy worshipper you are

 

[Scouse]

Fuck me, guys - didn't we do all this just a couple of months ago???

Yes. I made that point already Jup. We're rehashing, dontcha know

 

[nath]

Too often what you just said is used as an excuse for ridicule, mockery and even threats.

I should have clarified, I'm all for ridicule and mockery too - it reinforces that no belief is sacred. Threats I don't really have a major problem, I just think they're a dick move. I'm pretty sure I've not seen a threat in any of these discussions before though.

Fuck me, guys - didn't we do all this just a couple of months ago???

To a certain extent, though I'm actually interested in continuing the discussion with Turamber about homosexuality and Christianity. Though I couldn't be more opposed to his viewpoint he's capable of discussing things rationally so I'd like to pursue it, if it pleases the Mods not to lock it .

 

[old.Tohtori]

Been through this shit before Toht, and you called me a liar then too.

There are multiple reasons you do that - but the main one is that you're not capable of comprehending life without belief.

I disagree fundamentally that "life has belief" and your cut-and-paste of the dictionary hasn't done anything to dissuade me of that fact.

So you go ahead and continue to believe that I'm lying, and I'll continue to bait you for being the sky-fairy worshipper you are

More assumptions, but fair enough. You believe what you do.

I call you a liar based on facts of the language(not because of your assumed psycho bull), that have nothing to do with religion, that state that belief is not simply religion based. It is used in language for other uses as well. Denying this, well, as i said it's only to confort you.

I don't need to comprehend a view of life that has no basis;

The moment you explain how you can deny parts of language so your world is jsut so, then i might consider your viewpoint as anything relevant.

I should have clarified, I'm all for ridicule and mockery too - it reinforces that no belief is sacred. Threats I don't really have a major problem, I just think they're a dick move. I'm pretty sure I've not seen a threat in any of these discussions before though.

If you believe in any mockery being ok, then i can understand that. Selective sanctioning of mockery on the other hand is not something i'd condone.

 

[old.Tohtori]

And to kill the off-rails discussion(which was not my intent), i'll give scouse a final word;

I can fully well understand a lfe without religious belief, but the word belief is still valid outside it.

In other words; you forcing beliefs is the same as saying you forcing ideas.

Don't get hung up on a word.

Now i should've left it at the point where i showed my initial point true, my abd for taking a bait on, but i'll leave it now.

 

[nath]

If you believe in any mockery being ok, then i can understand that. Selective sanctioning of mockery on the other hand is not something i'd condone.

Nothing is above mockery. I happen to feel certain mockery is more worthwhile but that's just me.

 

[Scouse]

More assumptions, but fair enough. You believe what you do.

There you go again

But you've cheered me up so I'll continue.


I presume you accept that language is, at best, a shared but inexact tool for trying to communicate concepts held in the minds of two separate individuals.

Bearing that in mind do you think that hiding behind the dictionary definition of the word belief is OK, simply because you can't accept that a human being can exist without it?

I don't need to comprehend a view of life that has no basis;

I agree. You don't need to comprehend any form of life. But more importantly you don't want to.

However, I disagree strongly that that particular form of life has "no basis" - because it exists.


And, not getting hung up on the word - but getting hung up on the action (for this is what it's all about):

I can fully well understand a lfe without religious belief, but the word belief is still valid outside it.

A lack of belief thereof is still a possibility (and I assert a reality) outside of religious belief




Oh, and mockery of all and everything is not just OK - it should be mandatory

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm not continuing that further, if you want to discuss it, start a thread or take it to PM. All i can say is that your assumptions about me are competely flawed.

But i'd also like to remind of this(as the thread continues);

Posts that are generally harassing, offensive, abusive – especially those aimed at sexual orientation, gender, race, colour, religious views, national origin or disability – will not be tolerated.

From the CoC.

So in this case, mockery towards the person should be kept to a low.

 

[Wij]

Christians aren't Jews, they have a different relationship with God and are not required to keep the Mosaic Law Covenant. However some laws were re-stated to Christians as being binding on them in the New Testament, no laws against shellfish were included but fornication, homosexuality and the eating of blood were amongst those re-stated as being objectionable. (Check out Colossians 2:14-17 amongst other scriptures).

There's no mention of the gays in there

As the wiki article states, the passages which do mention man-love are open to interpretation as the meaning of words changes vastly over time and then has to be durther translated into another language with vastly different nuancing.

Paul's position on Jewish Law is widely known to be a little muddy and not entirely consistent.

For Nath: If you want to know about the New Testament then knowing about Paul (and his "Road to Damascus" moment, ever wondered where the phrase comes from?) is arguably more important than knowing about Jesus

 

[ECA]

New Testament and Old Testament are quite in harmony. A fair amount of the NT deals with future events where the earth will be judged and those that reject God and his standards will be destroyed.

The NT also shows that God was pretty tough with people who claimed to follow him (like Ananias and Saphira), just as he had been in the OT.

There are plenty of examples of God's mercy in the OT, but neither is Jesus a "hippy". Pontius Pilate calls him "the man" because of the punishment he endures. He also didn't shirk from calling a spade a spade when he had to.

All of the Gospels give different images of Jesus as they were each intended for a different audience, and the writers saw things from their own angle. If Jesus was just made up, or the Gospels had been anything but eye witness accounts, the writers would have made an effort to make their books even more similar than they are.

Anyhoo, the Bible says that man is made in God's image, so we have his moral standards in our being. Hence most reasonable people find murder abhorrent.

Oh, and whoever mentioned Lot needs to do some re-reading. The account clearly shows that his daughters got him drunk and their actions were not approved, they are shown in a bad light. But the Bible records good and bad, yet again an indicator of its truth and not otherwise.

Are you one of these the bible is the literal word of god people or something?

 

[Scouse]

Posts that are generally harassing, offensive, abusive – especially those aimed at sexual orientation, gender, race, colour, religious views, national origin or disability – will not be tolerated.

From the CoC.

So in this case, mockery towards the person should be kept to a low.

Oh sod off Toht. Stop being such a pussy. Any mockery has been very light and I've not called anyone bigotted or a liar. The ramping up of language in this thread has been done by the religious-types.

And, frankly, I don't care! Flame away at me. I won't go crying to the CoC no matter what you type

 

[Bugz]

This whole 'I don't have belief' argument is confusing me.

Are you saying you don't hold belief...at all? In anything?

 

[nath]

And, frankly, I don't care! Flame away at me. I won't go crying to the CoC no matter what you type

YOUR FACE LOOKS LIKE A FACE THAT A CAMEL WOULD HAVE. ALL UGLY AND HAIRY LIKE.


Hah, you got so pwned.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Oh sod off Toht. Stop being such a pussy. Any mockery has been very light and I've not called anyone bigotted or a liar. The ramping up of language in this thread has been done by the religious-types.

And, frankly, I don't care! Flame away at me. I won't go crying to the CoC no matter what you type

I was merely pointing out the CoC at you and others, so they don't accidently step over lines. Nothing, i mean nothing, you say is taken with any heavy heart.

I didn't call you a bigot either, all i said is that you're lying about holding NO belief at all. (which btw is a topic you went to)

But again, keep on taking parts of posts that suit your argument. Just like the blind religious folk do.

 

[old.Tohtori]

But yeah, all the mumbo aside, still would like to know how no belief at all is possible since it's been a thorn between us for a good while.

 

[Turamber]

From the wiki link the most clear point about homosexuality in the NT seems to be this line.

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practising homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Is there anything more significant in the NT that cites that homosexuality is wrong?

Well that is pretty clear. Also Romans 1:26,27 talks about homosexual behaviour. There are other scriptures that use the Greek word "pornea", some scholars think this includes homosexuality and others don't.

 

[Turamber]

Are you one of these the bible is the literal word of god people or something?

Inspired by God, yes. Shocking isn't it

 

[Turamber]

As the wiki article states, the passages which do mention man-love are open to interpretation as the meaning of words changes vastly over time and then has to be durther translated into another language with vastly different nuancing.

Paul's position on Jewish Law is widely known to be a little muddy and not entirely consistent.

Paul trained at the feet of Gamaliel, possibly the most prominent Jewish lawyer (in the Mosaic Law, that is) of Bible times. His opponents in the 1st century certainly took him seriously, and much of his explanation of Jesus and his fulfilment of OT scripture was key to the development of Christianity.

I just read that Wiki article. The word in question is "pornea". Some scholars think this includes homosexuality, some don't. One explanation I heard of that word from somebody who knew his Biblical Greek was that it involved anything that could happen in a Brothel. Would that include homosexuality?

Phrases like "men who lie with men" are pretty clear though, certainly if you approach it from a neutral point of view.

 

[nath]

Paul trained at the feet of Gamaliel, possibly the most prominent Jewish lawyer (in the Mosaic Law, that is) of Bible times. His opponents in the 1st century certainly took him seriously, and much of his explanation of Jesus and his fulfilment of OT scripture was key to the development of Christianity.

I just read that Wiki article. The word in question is "pornea". Some scholars think this includes homosexuality, some don't. One explanation I heard of that word from somebody who knew his Biblical Greek was that it involved anything that could happen in a Brothel. Would that include homosexuality?

Phrases like "men who lie with men" are pretty clear though, certainly if you approach it from a neutral point of view.

Just to clarify, I wouldn't try to suggest that the bible (NT or OT) has nothing to say about homosexuality. For one, I don't know enough about it so that'd be silly. Another, being an atheist/anti-theist I don't really need it to be one way or another, I've my own opinion on the matter and that's fine.

I guess what I'm trying to highlight is (what I perceive to be) the disproportionate attack on homosexuality from certain religious institutions and people and using The Bible to justify this. For example, the passage Wij originally linked includes drunkards and slanderers but I don't see people having anywhere near as strong opinions on those people. I'd posit that it's peoples innate distaste of homosexuality that inflames this attitude where as folks don't tend to have so much of a problem about slander.

Also I'm not sure I'm getting your meaning on the last part - anything that could happen in a brothel - dunno about you but if someone says "brothel" to me, I think straight sex between a man and a women (albeit a trafficked sex worker). Is recreational sex between a husband and wife considered equally taboo?