If you believe in god, you're an idiot...

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

Its dying though, and i will be here to feel its last breath crushed out of its twisted incoherent frame. Die you idiotic thread... die....

[chtulu]

Originally Posted by DetroitVelvetSmooth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Its dying though, and i will be here to feel its last breath crushed out of its twisted incoherent frame. Die you idiotic thread... die....

Speaking of death, let's show a few examples of why the bible is insulting and violent. Anyone who believes that God word = perfect and true then the bible = perfect and true because God made the bible.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vkXOwBIRX7Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


And so with that in mind, 90% of the population should be killed.

[chtulu]

But, I do agree with this part of the bible; does this make me a christian?


Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. - 1 Corinthians 14

And:

Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. - 1 Tim 2

We can find dozens of verses that are just as sexist. The Bible’s sexism is both ridiculous and repulsive.

[Alawen Everywhere]

Originally Posted by Boggwin Bramblefoot [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here are some examples:

* Clay Tablet, Ebla. Photo copyrighted.The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.

Clay tablets written in Sumerian and the local Ebla dialect, with no connection whatsoever to Hebrew or Israelites do not prove the truth of the Bible, despite the unfounded religious fervor drummed up before they were translated. No evidence here.

* The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.

References to Kheta/Khatti/Hatti were discovered almost 150 years ago. You make absolutely no sense whatsoever here. Even if you did, the existence of a Syrian culture unrelated to the Hebrews does not prove the validity of the bible. No evidence here.

* Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.

Some kings were very rich, therefore Solomon really existed. I don't think I need to say anything else about this. No evidence here.

* It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.

An Akkadian king named Sargon probably existed, therefore the bible is true. Another impossible logical jump. No evidence here.

* Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

A Babylonian king named Belshazzar probably existed, therefore the bible is true. Same bad logic. The fairy tale associated with Belshazzar is that his great wealth was stolen from Solomon's temple. We have evidence (Nabonidus Cylinder) of the Babylonian but no evidence of Solomon or Solomon's temple. Funny, huh?

So if I write a book that has Reagan and Gorbachev in it and in my book I was the emperor of a country greater than the US or USSR, is my book true? Also, Switzerland stole all my gold. Give it back.

[Alawen Everywhere]

Aww, they all left. No one left but us hell-bound heathens.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Boggwin Bramblefoot [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

First off...nice quote off of Wiki. You guys and you open source Wiki knowledge...lol.

And you? Are you implying that all your material is learned? I find that highly suspect. As to the credibility of Wikipedia:

By 2010 reviewers in medical and scientific fields such as toxicology, cancer research and drug information reviewing Wikipedia against professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a very high standard, often comparable in coverage to physician databases and considerably better than well known reputable national media outlets. Wikipedia articles were cited as references in journals (614 cites in 2009) and as evidence in trademark and higher court rulings.


Now I'm very aware theology wasn't mentioned, however, Wiki has grown to be an extremely accurate and credible source. Much less could be said for your own source material - although I DO suspect you use Wiki as liberally as the rest of us. Step off the soap-box, sir.

Originally Posted by Boggwin Bramblefoot [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Secondly I am not sure how I can get you guys to grasp the basics of the English language. I said and I quote, "(You do realize that thousands of History scholars even agree that many of the events in the bible are historically accurate and coincide with accepted historical teachings.)" I did not allude to events that you guys find questionable, but rather events in general like the ones I listed earlier.

Now...to what I said:

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My issue was more with the fact that you made an implication that "thousands of historians" validated the acceptance of the Christian Bible as a historical document (granted you qualified that statement with "many instances", but the implication is - nevertheless - there). More accurate historical data could probably be found in the manuscripts that comprise the Kolbrin Bible than can be found in the Christian Bible.

Now, dear Boggwin...who missed what?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Alawen Everywhere [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Aww, they all left. No one left but us hell-bound heathens.

Awww...snap.

I AM a theist, though...just not impressed with bible-thumping bullshit.

Does that count?

[Alawen Everywhere]

I'm curious about something here. How many of you who are agnostic or atheistic are quite about it in real life? I never talk about it with anyone except my mother, who is also an atheist. I have one very dear long-time friend who I still attend church with once in a while. She has no idea I'm an unbeliever. I had one very devout employer who promoted me in large part thinking I was a practicing Catholic. Whenever I fill out any form, I classify myself as Catholic.

[Alawen Everywhere]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Awww...snap.

I AM a theist, though...just not impressed with bible-thumping bullshit.

Does that count?

It's very hard to argue with any theists who keep their faith in the realm of faith and don't try to clobber anyone over the head with its undeniable truth. Buddhists are particularly difficult this way, and especially Zen Buddhists. We need us some bible thumpers.

[Kassel]

I never annouce my political or religous beliefs. I dont hide it if asked but why would anyone care.

And now for something Hilarious !

[IMG]<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2BCipg71LbI?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2BCipg71LbI?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>[/IMG]