It's baaaaaaack.

The "Bottom Line on Bible Camp" story is in non corporeal ascendancy.

The promise land can't possibly include Cleveland!!!

prounion, Just make sure you tell your eight wives and 64 children that too.

I started reading the book of Mormom this morning - it really makes sense. Joe Smith read off of these golden sheets, and there were eight - count em - eight witnesses. Eyewitness testimony is the only reliable form of evidence if I understand the view of some on these boards correctly.

Looks like the promise land was really north america if I am reading this correctly. Which seems to be more in line with reality.

DiGriz, well, if there is one, billnewbie and his ilk are in for some serious business for what they did to his truth -you know, the tortured guy on the cross, virgin birth, and Joel Osteen, stuff like that. They better hope atheism IS the truth.

teaghlesh, here's some scripture for you to chew on:

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me" Commandment

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)

"All this word which I [god] command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." --Deuteronomy 13:1

“I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, "Move from here to there" and it will move.”
Matthew 17:20

“The ear tests words as the tongue tastes food.”
Job 34:3

“The kingdom of Heaven is within you.... Seek ye first the kingdom of Heaven and all things will be added unto you.”
Jesus

“The turth shall make you free”
John 8:32

“The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases, his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning...”
Lamentations 3:22-23

“God has poured out his love into our hearts.”
Romans 5:5

“In the Lord, put your trust.”
Psalms 11:1

“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”
Matthew 5:8

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God.”
Matthew 5:9

“If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believeth.”
Mark 9:23

billnewbie and the other thumpers are still trying to get the number of that truck.

i could not, in good faith, pray to the holy herb in a place meant for consuming the 'eviler of two evils'...;)

im going to start a rastafarian church in the area. you are all welcome to come pray to haile selassie and smoke the holy herb...

Actually, I prayed for that to happen. ;~)

The lord messed with my first attempt! He prefers doing stuff like that than saving innocent humans from misery.

Never mind. I see you've had one already. ;~)

Looks like you need another cup of coffee too, GFan. ;~)

What about the people who died from drinking dirty water during the time it took you write your post? Why weren't they blessed?!

What about the people who died from drinking during water during the time it took you write your post? Why weren't they blessed?!

FAITH May God Bless Us All

http://origin-of-religions.org/chapter_8...

this link is a pretty well thought out comparison between religion and viruses. After reading all the previous posts I would have to say that quite a few people are infected with religion.

sorry, my rant was way over 3k characters, and i accidentally double posted part. =P
good night! lolz

actually kinda makes sense if you think about it this way;If you have the answers to the universe's most mysterious and intangible questions right off the bat growing up since pooping green, just by saying "god did it", well that's effectively poking a hole in the natural human wanderlust. The inquisitive thoughts about that keep us wondering. Not to call religious people stupid, but my opinion is that people with a smaller mind set or grasp on outer-worldy existence naturally cling to religion, as some sort of duvet. Thinking about those huge questions can be really mentally and spiritually taxing and impossible to come to conclusions on. The easiest,safest and most taangible way of solving everything that's "too hard" to explain is to create a being in your own image, but superior to yourself in every way.True elite and then some. To aspire to be, believe and become better than anyone in the world can realistically be.The name for that is simply Worship.A kind of way to touch base on the things you can't explain, but need answers to-that's religion.A role model that everyone aspires to be like,and live up to,an Image of stoic,unbending perfection.That'd be god.
whew nap time =) Ten points if anyone reads all three posts start to finish!

And a mysterious book does not count.I think accepting god at an early age really kind of stunts your ability to look at things from a cosmic view,a wider view than god being the answer to all unanswerable questions.Kind of puts that curious little fire us humans have about the universe right out,if you ask me.The correlation between better IQ's-and those with fewer reservations or at least a more"open"mind(wider range of thoughts=means more unique thoughts and ultimately smarter people,I think.)Kinda makes sense if you think about it this way;If you have the "answers"that's effectively poking a hole in the natural human wanderlust. The inquisitive thoughts about that keep us wondering.Not to call religious people stupid,but my opinion is that people with a smaller mind set or grasp on outer-worldy existence naturally cling to religion,as some sort of duvet.Thinking about those huge questions can be really mentally and spiritually taxing and impossible to come to conclusions on. The easiest,safest and most tangible way of solving everything that's"too hard" o explain is to create a being in your own image, but superior to yourself in every way. A true elite and then some. To aspire to be, believe and become better than anyone in the world can realistically be. And the name for that is simply Worship. A kind of way to touch base on the things you can't explain, but need answers to-that's religion.And a supreme, perfect example As far as any sort of link between atheists, agnostics, and liberals isn't really just a coincidence. I'm not claiming their IQ is higher, or that they are better, or anything like that. Let me try to explain my thoughts here. I think just being OPEN to the possibility-nay-Probability that there is more than likely not a "god" (as we think of him/her/it).And if there is a "god" concede to the point that everyone has it wrong, at least to some degree.(And if you think your religion is perfect and the right one, more power to you.But closing yourself from other possibilities is what I call ignorant.) What are the odds a religion out there is "the correct one" and has it all down to a T? And no, a mysterious book does not count. I think accepting god at an early age really kind of stunts your ability to look at things from a cosmic view, a wider view than god being the answer to all unanswerable questions. Kind of puts that curious little fire us humans have about the universe right out, if you ask me. The correlation between better IQ's-and those with fewer reservations or at least a more "open"mind(More open,wider range of thoughts, means more unique thought patterns and ultimatelysmarter people,I think.)

As far as any sort of link between atheists,agnostics,and liberals isn't really just a coincidence.I'm not claiming their IQ is higher,or that they are better, or anything like that. Let me try to explain my thoughts here. I think just being OPEN to the possibility-nay-Probability that there is more than likely not a "god(as we think of him/her/it).And if there is a "god" concede to the point that everyone has it wrong,at least to some degree.(And if you think your religion is perfect and the right one, more power to you.But closing yourself from other possibilities is what I call ignorant.)What are the odds a religion out there is "the correct one"and has it all down to a T?

I have throughly enjoyed all (well most all) of the posts with this article. I align myself (athiest for 50 years) with gfan, the kid, fool, and of course don diego. But I'm one of those individuals that can't keep up to the dialog. I wish I were more knowledgeable on the bible to be able to argue the issues with all those crazy, in your face religious people. And I tried to read that silly stuff in the bible to become more knowledgeable, but I just couldn't continue with that unbelievable, and cruel, warlike wording. Gfan, fool, and kid, you are my kinda preacher.

=D

That's what we're discussing, Freeradical. (Check out 5:43am, below.)

Understood, GFan. I thought you might consider the paranoia element to be germane. (From one amateur psychologist to another, that is. ;~)

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/lib...

Just something random. Not saying its got any sort of credibility. Thoughts?

O?! Religious debate!!
(found it kid)

Time to grab my lighter and kick back to watch this erupt into a mud slinging contest. Getting my Gallagher gear on! *ducks*

*breathes deep*
theres not such thing as a single god or entity, and no one religion is any more correct than the other!

There ya go.

foolonthehill, I wasn't blaming you. That's why I said I respectfully disagree with the "some." The "some" in your first sentence.

;~)

foolonthehill, since a person can be a Jew without being religious but instead merely a member of an ethic group, you gotta believe that most Jews are atheists -especially since non- belief correlates with high intelligence.

You state your case well, Gazettefan. No argument here. I'm just the messenger re: that link. As for intelligence v religiosity, the studies I've seen ranked Jews as most intelligent, followed by atheists in 2nd place. Oye...

Again, DBM, IJtM! ;~)

Digriz, your 633p point is well said.

foolonthehill, allow me to respectfully disagree with the "some", my godless friend. The "paranoia" mentioned not only predates religion but it predates our species as well. All animals need to anticipate the meaning of motion in the environment. Is it prey? or is it predation? And we can see this instinct continue to misfire even now when we see an animal inappropriately react to a nearby noise when that noise is neither prey nor predator nor in any way meaningful.

Early primates and eventually humans retained this misfiring instinct. With the phenomenon of death and the memories retained of the deceased, humans could only explain internal "visions" of the deceased as non physical, supernatural beings -spirits. Because the deceased were usually older than the survivors, the survivors depended on the wisdom of the deceased. The post-life "existence" of some of the more imposing deceased survived for multiple generations and became identified as gods. Eventually the psychological need for order and simplicity produce monotheism. Groups with different god(s) warred with each for various reasons, including whose god was the righteous god or the true god. The decision to go to war came from gods because their "thinking" came from the inculcation of the aforementioned misfiring instinct. That is, the adherents generalized the "is it prey or predation?" onto the gods. This is Kanatzawa's paranoia. And this is why it's apt to describe religion as primitive.

All this goes to liberal tolerance for other groups. The god/paranoia instinct is at its most vicious in group to group interaction. Precisely, if it weren't for the fact that there was more than one group on earth, the god thing would have died out a long time ago; indeed, it is the god as misfiring instinct thing that splintered the original human population. Different versions of gods continue to cause religious groups to splinter.

Since the world population is composed of many groups, it stands to reason that the liberalism of atheism is needed to ameliorate frictions between groups: The opposite of what caused the problem is required.

And it is the paranoia intrinsic to belief that is counter-evolutionary, especially now that one of the Abrahamic religions wishes to wipe out the entire species with nuclear weapons.

And it's been known for a long time that atheism correlates with high intelligence. There's something inherently smart about not believing folderol.

Bill I guess since you are not going to answer the question of if you would have paerticipated in the slaughter of thousands of children had you been present at the Numbers 31 god ordered slaughter - I will have to make a guess based on what I think is your world view based on your posts:
.
You would have participated - then rationalized it as it must be a moral action because god ordered it. You mentioned there was context to justify god ordering the slaughter of the women and children captives - you would fall back on that and engage in the spearing of infants and toddlers?

According to some, the impact of religion on evolution isn't entirely negative:

[ Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger.

"It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere," Kanazawa said. ] *

With this in mind, I'd choose Barney Fife over Tammy Faye. ;~)

* http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/lib...

thekid, don't go. billnewbie's here doing penance. He needs more.

billnewbie, the unstable nature of the book of your unstable belief system has the verse in-question with different numbers (it is 13:1 in Deuteronomy in some books). Your book(s) also has the verse worded differently, depending.

"ALL THIS WORD WHICH I COMMAND YOU, THAT SHALL YE OBSERVE TO DO; THOU SHALT NOT ADD THERETO, NOR DIMINISH IT."

“What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

I know about both wordings -how come you didn't?! And I also know that the very meaning of the verse precludes non-literal interpretations of the verse itself as well as the rest of the bible. Read your bible. It's about time. You know nothing about it.

Christians attempting to "understand" the bible bring their own flights of fancy to the flights of fancy that crucified the memory of Jesus the mortal man.

Amen, thekid.

because of your obvious belief that you are morally superior to pretty much anyone and the fact that your thought process is actually the complete opposite of superior i will not direct any more of my questions/posts at you mr newbie. ill save those for the mentally equipped and leave you to fight for the rights of the corporation and payday loan companys who do make the proper moral decisions day in and day out. good luck, yer a true american sergeant savage...

billnewbie: it was a good question. its too bad you cant just answer it, but based on the last couple posts i actually want to extend an apology. i thought you were playing with a full deck and i see now you are not.

"would the cartels still exist if everyone in the united states stopped smoking marijuana??" Good question, Kid. Too bad finding the answer isn't worth it to marijuana users to try.

I see yet another psychological term has been thrown about by the Gazette’s resident amateur psychologists again. That reminds me of another example of how people react when their actions and pretensions are called into question. I can remember not long ago a discussion about a strip club and juice bar that took place on GazetteXtra. Some argued that strip clubs and the activities that go on there are detrimental to the neighborhoods they inhabit. Others condemned those people as prudes, do-gooders, busybodies and people that just can’t stand other people having a good time. What becomes clear from discussions like these is that those who want to engage in, shall we say, morally questionable conduct and have carefully constructed rationalizations to defend it react with outrage that anyone would have the nerve to take a moral stand against it and challenge those crafty rationalizations. Eventually, they end up trying to turn the tables on those who’ve outraged them by claiming that they themselves are immoral for objecting. Usually the end up quoting the bible with the one verse they remember well “Judge not lest ye be judged”. Strange that verse hasn’t come up yet.

Gee Gazettefan, my bible has Deuteronomy 13:1 as this” If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,”. Perhaps you meant Deuteronomy 12:32? That verse is this “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”

I searched 16 different translations of Deuteronomy 12:32 and none of them match what you posted “"ALL THIS WORD WHICH I COMMAND YOU, THAT SHALL YE OBSERVE TO DO; THOU SHALT NOT ADD THERETO, NOR DIMINISH IT." I searched the King James Version (which your verse looks like) and found nothing like what you have there. Is the source of your quote from that noted self-anointed bible scholar and translator Gazettefan the pontifical, perhaps? Maybe you just made a mistake? No, that couldn’t be, could it? Anyone that careless when trying to show up another (a Gazettefan specialty) would only show up himself.

Too bad you didn’t read any more of that scripture for the context that explains what that means in detail. But that wouldn’t be simple. And it’s a reading assignment as well. Ahh, nevermind.

Some of christianity's legacy:

Adulterated Jesus' history & message
Pogroms
Crusades
"Witch" burning
Holocaust
Interference with stem cell research
Folderol
Tammy Faye Bakker

billnewbie: would the cartels still exist if everyone in the united states stopped smoking marijuana??

'I’m saying that you suppress it with rationalizations that attempt to justify your actions'

ummm mr newbie...isnt that specifically saying my conscience is not guiding me??

'And speeders who sometimes “accidentally” kill another due to their carelessness also seem to have conscience neutralizing rationalizations ready when they have to face the consequences of their actions too'

how many people do you know that have killed someone else from speeding?? based on that quote i assume its a few and you know personally that they had neutralized their conscience to face the consequences. EVERYONE i know, if they killed someone from speeding, would show guilt/remorse and not for one iota try to justify the speeding that caused the death. what kind of people are you hanging out with that wouldnt have a guilty conscience if they accidentally killed someone??

one last key point on your juvenile thought process...if i speed and kill someone that is a DIRECT victim of my speeding. not an indirect. just to show you how ridiculous your post(s) is...an indirect victim of me speeding would be if my speeding caused you to alter your route and you later ran into and killed someone, causing an INDIRECT victim.

"billnewbie, what a superb example of projection on your part:"

Now there's an understatement.

And, billnewbie, it IS simple: no context needed, no simile or metaphor needed, here's Deuteronomy 13:1:

"ALL THIS WORD WHICH I COMMAND YOU, THAT SHALL YE OBSERVE TO DO; THOU SHALT NOT ADD THERETO, NOR DIMINISH IT."

That's god talking. It IS simple.

Let the tap dance begin!!!

billnewbie, what a superb example of projection on your part:

"I’m saying that you suppress [your conscience] with rationalizations that attempt to justify your actions."

And your stance of the moral highground is laughable.

And as for proxies. You not only deal with proxies of the Catholic Church. You ARE a proxy of the Catholic Church. You foster and partake in the irrational mentality that is the basis for the church.

Bill what is so complex you can't sum it up quickly? Would you spear the children or would you defend the babies?
.
In the past you have said that god's order to execute the children was justified - you have yet to address what you would do if you had been there? Would you have participated, stood by, or defended the children?

Yes, a simple answer is all you want ever want, Prounion. They are so easy to distort and ridicule! However, I have already answered your question though it wasn't in the simple format you prefer. If you can't recall it, consult the archive. It's right here. http://gazettextra.com/users/billnewbie/...
Happy reading!

Sorry I’m so late with my response Kid, so I’ll quote your question and then answer it.

“are you implying im not guided by my conscience??”

Not at all. I’m saying that you suppress it with rationalizations that attempt to justify your actions. I point out the faults in your justifications which undermine them and as such I hope to re-enable your own conscience to question their validity.

It’s true that I do consider intoxication to be immoral. I also consider it to be immoral to deal with drug dealing gangs or their proxies. I don’t point these things out to you because I take some pleasure in your struggle with your conscience, as some do. Neither do I view myself as better than you though again there are some who would. I’m only trying to warn you as one might warn a speeder that speeding is dangerous not just for the speeder but for the innocent victims of the speeder’s carelessness. And speeders who sometimes “accidentally” kill another due to their carelessness also seem to have conscience neutralizing rationalizations ready when they have to face the consequences of their actions too. Do you think that some of these speeders may be self-styled libertarians who think that speed laws are unjust and oppressive infringements on their liberty? Is it wrong to try to persuade them to stop disobeying the law, to argue that they need to consider the possible harm that their speeding may do? Is it evil to appeal to their consciences in an effort to persuade them? I say it isn’t. Neither is it wrong for me to appeal to your conscience.

Is it a despicable false allegation of evil to point out the collateral damage done by the drug trade and the culpability of drug users for it by what the law calls depraved indifference? Not if one accepts the concept of depraved indifference and its implications. Arsonists are typical examples of depraved indifference. Their target usually is not any victim that may be in the building they set fire to but they don’t make much if any effort to check for possible victims before they set their fires. Yet the law, and their consciences as well if they weren’t compromised, holds them accountable for the “collateral damage” that results from their callous disregard of arson laws. I wonder, if one were to warn an arsonist of the possibility that someone could be hurt or killed in the fire he is about to set and that it would be wrong to disregard them so, would it be a despicable false allegation of evil to suggest that the arsonist will be to blame for indirect victims his fire may cause? I think that answer is obvious.

God wanted those babies dead - just asking for a simple answer yes or no on the god ordered baby slaughter? Would you have defended the children? Third - Bill - Talk - yet to be named christian?

ha

JustAskMe, your post is a great example of your very point.

These religious articles always draw comments from the same creepy crowd. At least the gazette knows how to lure these people out from under their rock.

I think we have billnewbie's explanation as to why he won't answer.

If the answer is no - I would like to remind you that you would have been allocated a certain number of virgin females from the group of captives.

Also what is the verse where he that denieth me on Earth I will deny in heaven? So answer truthfully - would you have speared or not speared?

Third Eye - Bill won't answer the question of what he would have done if he was there when Moses ordered the slaughter of women and children in Numbers 31 - maybe you can? Would you have aided in the slaughter of thousands based on orders from god?

There as many, MANY examples thruout the old testament of god slaughtering babies. Sometimes people claim there is context - if you read the books together, I have, yet I can't justify the spearing of babies. I have no need to claim the moral high ground - that is self evident.

By the way, ThirdEye here is your post that shows you misread a Commandment, the Commandment follows:

"A man raises his children in unbelief.
His children raise their chidren in unbelief.
This unbelief is spread to the 2nd and 3rd and 4th generations not by God, but by the original man's unbelief."

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

The Commandment doesn't say that the people are passing down the "wrong belief." It says god is punishing innocent children.

ThirdEye, read prounion's two most recent posts and you'll understand why I take the moral highground.

Well gf, go ahead and claim the moral high ground. The ongoing discussion speaks for itself.
You might refer to point 3 in one of my previous posts:
3- has already locked his mind and further discussion is futile.

A good reading of the posts on this story reveals that when belief based in the bible is exposed to reasonable comments and questions and citations, belief takes a well deserved beating.

Believers on this page show that belief stands no chance of credibility in the real world of morality and reason. Read the posts. Believers and belief are justifiably left in shambles.

Numbers 31:
17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
.
How many pregnant women would you say there are in a group of 30 thousand of age females?

Bill - had you been there when Moses/god ordered the slaughter of thousands of women and children prisoners would you have participated?

Good luck then, thekid.
I was close to someone who died of lung cancer quite certainly from smoking, but on his deathbed could not use medical marijuana to counter the affects of treatment. But, (and I have no idea if it still happens) you could have a beer, and new parents could have a glass of wine with their celebratory dinner. I would love to see a story/comment section on the logic of that- but I realize this isn't the one, so, to keep on topic (kind of), during treatment you can choose to pray or not to pray as you wish and no one will think the worse of you. At least that part makes sense.

Yes, we've embarrassed believers into no longer calling non believers satan or claiming that we are controlled by satan, but believers continue to employ "evil" as a dangerously simplistic catchall for their religiously dressed-up intolerance.

Of course that intolerance is psychologically based in believers: their religiosity is a desperate and foolish rationalization that has the effect of a security blanket.

This is an example of how religion is the gasoline thrown on the fire of human aberration.

With regard to your 6:05pm post, thekid3477: Yes! That is exactly what I was talking about. There are few acts as despicable as a false allegation of evil. It is used to rationalize every form of tyranny in a democratic society. You are living its long history.

Based on your comments in GazetteXtra, I see no "immoral" behavior that needs defending. The burden of proof lies solely on those who make allegations of evil. For the rest of us, our duty is to be intolerant of tyrants who advocate taking the liberty of those who harm no one. The true source of evil lies in the hearts of tyrants, not in yours.

ive been to the capitol. ive called numerous times. i emailed EVERY single rep a link to medical marijuana research. i met w a city counsilman to discuss changing city law to stop arresting adults in possession of less than an ounce and was told he didnt think the city counsil was the way to go...and his opinion, and i dont disagree, is that the laws are changing at the top. slowly, but they are changing and that my time is just as well spent on the gazettextra trying to educate people. like i said, i dont disagree, id like to change the law for the city, even if it was just as a symbol. but i have SEEN people on this website change their opinion from calling me a stereotypical 'pothead stoner' to acknowledging AT LEAST the medical benefits. i wish theyd call their rep and tell them too:) but whadayagunado?? anyways...thats my 5 a.m. buzzed rant....good day...i said good day

rusersious. i appreciate the comment. it happened because people were originally told the evils of marijuana starting with henry anslinger and william randolph hearst int he 1930's. they promoted what we know as 'reefer madness'. '4 mexicans go insane after smoking marihuana,...'white women will sleep w black men after smoking'...these are just a few of the headlines that were printed in the paper. henry anslinger did it because he lost the war on alcohol in 1933, coincidentally the time he went full gear into marijuana prohibition(1937). wrh did it because he had a lot of dough in the newspaper industry and this new hemp plant threatened that. google that. in the 50's anslinger then chief of what we now know as the DEA told people it was a communist plot to make our youth like zombies by smoking marijuana. every one is STILL scared of what marijuana did to the hippies in the 60's. they actually repealed that law in '69 and re-criminalized it in 1970 w the controlled substances act. the shafer report that nixon commissioned said we need to change the laws. he completely ignored it. carter said he'd change the laws then flip flopped. then came nancy reagon and her 'just say no' campaign which took the marijuana movement back decades(imo). this whole time people of course have been consuming alcohol and forgetting about their problems or to enhance their relaxation. that is the sole reason for consuming the drug. oh, that and of course it helps people socialize. our thought process has spread over the last 70+ years as a country to believe that even though thousands of people die DIRECTLY from the use of alcohol every year, its ok because its our RIGHT as an AMERICAN to go home after work, or stop at the bar and consume a few cocktails, chat w the boys or girls night out. ultimately the main reason is because as a rule alcohol helps people step out of themselves where marijuana, paranoia being a well known side effect, usually forces one to look within themselves and NOT forget the day to day life problems. we've just morphed as a society and unfortunately most people even stop to think of a possibility of a reality other than what theyve been told...

buckyfan, play what? Your beliefs are based in writing. But you, yourself, can't express your beliefs in writing. Explain this.

Having a conversation with you would amount to your citing scripture from memory, right? Yeah, that would be fun. Why don't you and billnewbie get together and have a verse-off, dueling bibles a la dueling banjos -same mentality.

You know where you and your "atheist brothers" can go. If you do participate in such conversations, no doubt you blab over and interrupt the other person when they're speaking; this is classic behavior for believers when in spoken dialog. You'd be behaving the same way here if you could get away with it. And it wouldn't be all scripture on your part, much of it would be insults. Just like here.

The bashing here starts not from me bashing believers, the bashing comes from believers after I cite scripture, believers feel like they're being bashed when scripture is cited, explain that!

As for the internet, talk to billnewbie and the other believers, they are forever posting links here.

Now don't be sad. You told me you're a woman. I'll meet with you if you're lonely, but there will be no bible blather.

If you want to meet name the time and place in Monroe. You can't come to Janesville: no chickens allowed, read your Gazette.

ok, thekid, I see now and understand. You didn't mean what I thought you meant. And I happen to agree with you about marijuana (especially medical), especially as compared with the use of tobacco and alcohol. I really don't understand the logic of the legality of one over the other. How did that happen? On the other hand, I can see the greater probability of "danger" in the business of acquiring illegal vs legal "mood altering" (?) substances. I hope you're using some of your energy trying to change minds in places other than here.

'I am just trying to get you to see things from my viewpoint as I am guided by my conscience'

are you implying im not guided by my conscience??

you want to discuss sobriety at some point because even tho you say you dont sit as judge or jury you do. intoxication is not for you billnewbie. it is a means of relaxation for TENS OF MILLIONS of people, if you include alcohol with that intoxication of course, which i know you hold in equal immorality to marijuana.

'Yet you object to the implication that has towards your moral standing'

who implied it has anything to do with my moral standing?? oh yeah....YOU DID AND DO CONTINUE TO SAY IM IMMORAL FOR KNOWINGLY BREAKING A LAW...yet you follow that paragraph up with...

'I make no moral condemnations. If you feel moral condemnation it is from your conscience'

again, you have continually implied that i am immoral for knowingly breaking a law as well as knowingly funding the drug cartels. now you say that it is i who feels it from my conscience. billnewbie...morality would have never been discussed from my end. i have not one iota of guilt from smoking marijuana. YOU are the one who has stated i should feel it, and now you deny that and turn it on my own conscience?? i know you dont read what i write with an open thought process...but you should at least try to think about your own posts...

As opposed to your "pure" form of self-esteem which you have in abundance, eh Gazettefan?

No, Kid. I'll never get all the marijuana users to stop disobeying the law. But should I stop advocating that they should? No.

You say you admit that your money goes to finance drug gangs thereby accepting at least in part the responsibility for the things they do to bring you your marijuana. Yet you object to the implication that has towards your moral standing, claiming, it seems, that you have no choice. If marijuana is not addictive then you do indeed have a choice whether to use it or not, isn't that right? Your dilemma seems to be that you don't want to make that choice. But it is a voluntary choice you make every time you buy marijuana since there is nothing that irresistibly compels you to buy it.

And as I've said before, I'm not your judge or jury. I make no moral condemnations. If you feel moral condemnation it is from your conscience. I am just trying to get you to see things from my viewpoint as I am guided by my conscience. And as I also said before, I don't want to see you in hell or jail. Neither do I want to see you tormented in your own mind one day when you realize that you could have stopped supporting drug gangsters but refused. I advocate that you do the right thing, Kid. Stop using it until you can buy it legally from reputable, legal sources. Then you won't have to worry about whether your money has been used to buy bullets that murder people.

Beyond that, I also advocate sobriety, but we'll save that for some later date.

That old guy is just another example of how religious people don't get along any better than anybody else. Indeed, they are more lacking in that area than the rest of humanity i.e. religious wars not only between religions but between factions of the same religion too.

The only explanation as to why christianity survives at all is that it's a narcissistic conceit and strangely antithetical to a healthy society -it's an aberrant form of self-esteem.

i understand your opinion mr newbie...but that doesnt answer my questions. do you think its even plausible that we could get EVERY marijuana smoker to just stop??

i refuse to accept that the drug buyers are responsible for the indirect victims?? really billnewbie...cuz i think ive acknowledged a few times on this thread alone the responsibility. ive even stated that about 60% of the cartels profits comes from marijuana users. how is that denying anything?? where we differ mr newbie is on WHY. i say its cuz we dont have a safe/legal option and you say its because we are immoral people. THAT is the opinion i take little credence in and that is why i do what i do, to try and convince you and anyone that reads this, that marijuana consumption has NOTHING to do with ones character. nothing. i think you are a well spoken intelligent person(from what you write here). i respect your opinion, i just want to change your opinion.

rusersious: i undestand the comment 'when you donate 10% of your income to the church you wont feel any guilt for indirectly supporting child molestation' is a stretch and i actually dont think that statement is fair at all. nor do i think its fair that billnewbie continually questions my morality because i refuse to follow a law that directly infringes on my RIGHTS as an american.

side note and this is 110% true...i had a convo this morning, work related, with a gentleman who is 86 years old. hes happily retired and told me '100% of the work he does is for god'. he then asked me what religion i was. not wanting a long gazettextra like debate i told him i was raised catholic and he responded that 'he feels sorry for me'...i asked 'why??'...and he said...'dont you read the bible?? according to the bible you are going to hell'. again, i didnt want a long convo so i didnt ask him to expand. it was kind of weird tho cuz i always thought if i was hellbound it would be from my actions or LACK of religion...not because the ol rents raised me catholic;)

The only way he can set you straight is if you do up a bowl with him.

Then he'll set me straight, won't he?

That he does. But you still misunderstood him, anyway.

The Kid doesn't need you to refine his comments, Gazettefan. He expresses himself well.

billnewbie, I'm sure thekid meant: if such-and-such applies to him then such-and-such applies to you re: victims.

As thekid would say: KEEP UP!!!

By the way Kid, I'm not a member of any Church, Catholic or otherwise. But it's interesting that you accept the premise that church members who contribute to their church are responsible for the child molesters they support with their money but you refuse to accept that drug buyers like yourself are responsible for all the children murdered by those stray bullets you've helped pay for. Gazettefan is be proud of you and your agile relativism, that is until you have the nerve to disagree with him again some day.

The answers I've already given should explain my opinion well by now Kid. But I'll try to make myself clear once again.

A victim is a victim. Whether one is a direct victim or an indirect victim makes no difference to the victim. His suffering doesn't decrease when the indirect perpetrators of that suffering try to rationalize and thereby dissociate themselves from their culpability for that suffering.

I have a question for you, Kid. Your previous responses show conclusively that you assign little credence to my opinions. Why do you seek them since they obviously cause you so much consternation?

You're right on, thekid. Not truly participating when billnewbie's here and then bailing and hoping no one notices that he can't get organized is his MO. And he had that shot coming.

billnewbie hasn't posted for 20 hours so he bailed? Maybe this just isn't his first home. But the others, like me, who have supposedly not been able to "keep up", just cannot seriously debate with comments such as "when you donate 10% of your income to the church you wont feel any guilt for indirectly supporting child molestation." It's like saying if you vote for a president, or enjoy golf, (or any public office or sport from what I read in the newspapers) you're supporting infidelity.
BUT-I will give you this, it's an amusing read from time to time.

mr newbie must have bailed on this convo. surprising, that when faced with logical questions he cant answer he tucks his tail and walks. wait...thats not surprising its actually his MO.

hopefully mr newbie, when you donate 10% of your income to the church you wont feel any guilt for indirectly supporting child molestation.

Better yet, make it your house.

i apologize mr newbie. apparently i wasnt clear and concise enough on my questions. ill try a 3rd time and see if you can answer...

can you acknowledge the difference between a direct victim and an indirect victim??

is it realistic to think that every one who smokes marijuana would just stop??

Bill god tells you to follow the law and Thekid should stop an activity he enjoys because of a law that you agree is not logical. If god told you to spear babies via Moses like in the Numbers 31 story - would you have speared the babies? Would you also think that to be wrong but go ahead with the slaughterfest anyway since god told you to?

That's right, Billnewbie, it's ALL ABOUT YOU! Poor Bill...

I understood your assertion that my conclusions and opinions are wrong, Fool_on_the_Hill. I too reject your conclusions and opinions. Whether they are the result of "Reductio ad absurdum" on my part or yours is a matter of opinion as well.

So, you've reassured yourself that you are right with a few contentions aimed at me about my lack of ability to reason, my irrationality, that I'm deceptive and dishonorable, that I'm self-righteous and evil, that I can't carry on a linear discussion and that I'm addicted to my inherently flawed dogma. Wow! You get credit for variety in your disparagements, I'll give you that. Since Gazettefan has pretty much covered all that (though not as creatively as you have) without the result he hoped for, did you really think it would be different coming from you? Obviously not. Your smarter than that. So then your purpose must be to reassure yourself by discrediting me in your own mind. I understand. But if I'm wrong and you really do think these disparagements will have some desirable effect on me, well, your going to be just as frustrated as Gazettefan is with me, maybe even more so.

How's this for an answer, Kid. In both cases, direct or indirect, they are both victims. And what is a victim? A person whose life, liberty, property or well-being is adversely affected through no fault of their own by the blatant, incidental or indifferent disregard of same by another. I contend that your indifference towards the criminality of the people you buy your illegal substance from makes you at least partially culpable for the harm to those indirect victims as opposed to your and Fool_on_the_Hill's apparent claim that the criminality of drug sellers is incidental to the actions of the buyer. That could only be true if you had no knowledge of your dealer's criminal activity and no reasonable way that you could have known it, which is well established that it this not the case.

And as I wrote before, you yourself reject the notion that marijuana is addictive, therefore it's use is wholly voluntary. If it's true that it's not addictive then you can quit using it if you want to. Not using non-addictive marijuana seems like a reasonable alternative to me. Much more reasonable that saying "I won't stop no matter who gets hurt since I haven't personally pulled any triggers".

Here is a reading assignment, Billnewbie:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...

Now that you are aware of your support for the manufacture, distribution and use of cocaine --arguably far more violent than the marijuana industry-- I trust you will start working to curb your addiction to currency, as well as everything you have ever purchased with it?

But, before you respond in your usual fashion, here is another reading assignment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad...

billnewbie: thank you for acknowledging my points again. i always enjoy an adult conversation. please reread my previous post. i asked you several questions and you answered none of them. nvrmnd...ill type again...

can you acknowledge the difference between a direct victim and an indirect victim??

is it realistic to think that every one who smokes marijuana would just stop??

I'm just stating my opinions, Fool_on_the_Hill. You don't have to like them.

Are you incapable of carrying on a linear discussion, Billnewbie?

Oh, I see. So as long as drug users don't know, then it's OK. But how likely is that? And in the Kid's case, he admits he's aware of it. And you do too. Buy an weed lately, Fool_on_the_Hill?

"That's a very revealing statement which should fill those of us who actually use their brains with horror. It indicates that you feel yourself so morally superior to others, so sanctimonious, that you will even pray for them."
--DiGriz

Do people who actually use their brains just make assumptions about how I feel or why I pray? Your assumptions are wrong.

Does your ability to rationalize your addiction to dogma have any bounds, Billnewbie?

Your key phase is, "(just as drug users SHOULD be suspicious that they MAY very well be buying from a gang member directly or indirectly)".

Paying close attention to words I have highlighted above, try reading this again:

If you want to make a case for thekid3477 as "evil", then be prepared to provide evidence of him doing direct harm to others.

Anything less is self-righteous sanctimony and, in my opinion, quite evil.

DrTalk, here read this.

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

Now try to direct your misdirected diligence toward explaining the above to ThirdEye.

ThirdEye, you are wrong, read it again. It is god doing the punishing. It doesn't have anything to do with subsequent generations spreading disbelief. Even billnewbie didn't try that one:

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

But I'll give credit for trying. billnewbie has abondoned his book -the source of his beliefs.

billnewbie, and now you are the knitted booties?!!!!

billnewbie. first of all, relating me buying weed from someone to you buying a stolen car from someone isnt accurate. the guy i bought my weed from also paid for that weed and wants to resell it at a profit. he didnt steal the pot from someone to sell it to me. in your scenario there is a victim in the first step of the transaction, the owner of the car. in the weed scenario no one is victimized to obtain the product. are there people potentially hurt because of the drug trade?? absolutely...please see FOTH's alcohol prohibition post below. can you at least acknowledge the difference between a direct victim and an indirect victim??

of course if everyone stopped smoking marijuana the cartels would lose profit and there would be less misery in the world. seriously billnewbie...is that a realistic option?? or would a more realistic option be to allow those adults who choose to smoke marijuana the option to support our economy and our tax base??

gazettefan,
"You can't face the fact that you misread a clearly written sentence because you read the word "those" as a pronoun. How petty of your."

Your previous posts makes it clear that it was YOU who said "those" was a pronoun in your original, unmodified sentence. Go ahead and read your previous posts. Particularly your post dated Feb 23, 2010 at 4:16 p.m.

I've also explained to you the vagueness of your sentence. If you can't see the vagueness in it, it's not my problem.

We'll make it simple for ya, gazettefan. I'll just copy and paste from an old post:

So prounion and gazettefan are not willing to meet, then? Sorry to hear it. It seems you two are afraid to play, just like you claim Christians are when they decide it's not worth trying to make points in this forum.

Truth is, we see the futility of our typing to respond to a couple of troll-like posters with marching orders from the pridefully arrogant Richard Dawkins. Civility and genuine interest in exchanging viewpoints is wasted on you. I respect my atheist brothers greatly for their willingness to hear me out instead of trying to "beat" me with condescension--and I extend to them the same civility. We all enjoy a solid discussion that starts with respecting one another--something I strongly believe you lack in your debates in this forum.

Let me know when you want to have a real discussion. I might not have all the answers, but I certainly could challenge many of your statements/false claims (especially yours gazettefan).

And I'll use the logic you so proudly beat your chest about having all the while claiming we have none. (Both sides of any argument believe they are more logical and more correct than the other side. That's why our government is so polarized.)

Methinks the truth is that you are afraid to meet with me, (inserting gazettefan sted prounion), because you will not be able to mine the internet for more arguments and talking points. Have YOU really read the Bible? Or are you both shrinking violets who only get their strength in the anonymity of your keyboard?

A man raises his children in unbelief.
His children raise their chidren in unbelief.
This unbelief is spread to the 2nd and 3rd and 4th generations not by God, but by the original man's unbelief.

Only you can find the answers you seek.

I wear your disparagements like a badge of honor, Gazettefan. And you must need to offer them to maintain your own morale.

I see you're still sitting there with your line in the water offering the same old bait and getting the same results. You must be sure that eventually you'll get a different result from doing the same thing over and over again. Oh well, I'm sure it's more entertaining than knitting booties, but it's just not as therapeutic.

Never argue with an idiot.
They will beat you with their experience and people looking on will not know the difference.

So, people are responsible for their own actions only, Fool_on_the_Hill, not the actions of others they deal with? So if your car is stolen and I buy it from the thief knowing his possession of it is suspicious (just as drug users should be suspicious that they may very well be buying from a gang member directly or indirectly) will you hold me blameless? If you say yes, would you still feel that way if the car thief murdered you wife when he stole it?

A lot of people the world over are suffering greatly due to the drug trade. Drug users support that misery with their purchases. If they would stop that support, a lot of misery in the world stop. I'm surprised that you are having trouble grasping this.

buckyfan, let's test your imagination. Pretend you and I are together and I say to you what I wrote to billnewbie and ThirdEye below.

Now type out what you would say to me in response.

billnewbie, how appropriate to render yourself as "stupid fish." And the inadvertent admission that you can't articulate your own stance is duly noted.

ThirdEye, you established that you're as intellectually deficient as billnewbie in the record time of about one second. Congratulations.

And the shame of both you is obvious when it comes to your inability to deal with the Commandment and verses below -don't overlook the newer one -it's a killer.

Are the both of you in christforlife's bible club?

"All this word which I [god] command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." --Deuteronomy 13:1

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)

Billnewbie, with a lot of time and effort, I could probably apply your rationalization to nearly any other example of commerce in practice today. Thekid3477 is responsible for his own actions only, not the actions of others. If you want to make a case for thekid3477 as "evil", then be prepared to provide evidence of him doing direct harm to others.

Bullseye, Third_Eye!

By repeatedly demanding an answer to the Exodus quote from the bible, gazettefan;
1- is nothing more than a troll
2- wants to discuss things on his terms only
3- has already locked his mind and further discussion is futile.

Let him who has ears hear.

Poor Gazettefan! His bait has gone sour but he doesn't seem to realize it. To get new bait he'd have to take reading assignments and as we all know, he finds clicking a link too difficult to justify the effort. So like a lazy fisherman, he sits with his line in the water getting frustrated that the stupid fish won't take what he offers on his terms. Don't they realize that he's an expert and knows better than they do what it takes to snare a fish???

Fool_on_the_Hill, you are quite right. The inevitable consequence of drug dealing gangs cannot be asserted as a reason to prohibit drugs. But it certainly is a reason to obey that law until it's changed which any rational person could see if he wouldn't let his desire/addition cloud his reason like so many do.

Yes, welcome back DiGriz, your friends need all the moral support they can get.

Yes, we've missed you DiGriz! Especially on this particular blog, for reasons that should be reasonably self-evident if you are caught up on the whole thing. :~)

Welcome back, DiGriz.

Sorry, honey, buckyfan, but there's no space available on my chin up bar. Good luck.

Oh gazettefan, you continue to amuse the dickens out of me. I alreadly offered to meet with you about all your questions about the Bible, and you ran with your tail between your legs.

Stop trying to bait me a la prounion with your Bible quotes. You want the answers, you know I'm more than ready to discuss them with you. I'll even be in your fair city this weekend. Just name the place, and we'll get down to business.

Otherwise, leave me out of your posts.

DrTalk, pray for yourself. You're only pleasuring yourself when you pray anyway.

You can't face the fact that you misread a clearly written sentence because you read the word "those" as a pronoun. How petty of your.

As for bibledude and context, if that's what you mean. Here's what chased him, now you, away.

"All this word which I [god] command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." --Deuteronomy 13:1

Do you understand what that means, DrTalk? Do you?!!! It means you can't change the literal meaning of what god says. What Paul did and what people of your ilk want to do is bullcrap about what the bible means because you can't come to terms with what it really means. You sold your self respect to a bunch of vicious nonsense. Repent!!!

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)

"All this word which I [god] command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." --Deuteronomy 13:1

This is also why billnewbie shut his yap about scripture.

;~)

Gazettefan,
Remember the day when finally found out the difference between the word "those" as a pronoun and "those" as an adjective? You should, it was only yesterday. Well, you haven't admitted that you were wrong, but I'm guessing that's due to your hubris.

If you don't understand "insignificant" things such as the difference between pronoun and and adjective, how would expect to understand significant things like the Bible?

By the way, remember months ago when BibleDude schooled you about those verses from Matthew 10? That was awesome. And yet for some reason you keep bringing up those verses.

Sorry, gazettefan. I'm not interested in playing games. It's quite clear that your intent is to mock the Bible and those you believe it rather than learning more about the Bible.

I'll be praying for you.

good post foth.

ATTENTION BILLNEWBIE ATTENTION

PLEASE READ FOOLS LAST POST

AND THEN RE-READ IT

Alcohol dealing gangs were prevalent in the United States between 1920 and 1933. (Quick... name the most recent local moonshine gang bust!)

Illegal trade and the gangs who operate in it are a logical and predictable CONSEQUENCE of prohibiting any high demand substance. Therefore, the inevitable consequence of drug dealing gangs cannot be asserted as a REASON to prohibit drugs. (Not by anyone who is rational, that is.)

Ya got that, DrTalk?

But on the other hand, christforlife, you're as sad as DrTalk and billnewbie are when it comes to focusing on the insignificant instead of addressing what's truly important. But I guess that's what you and those other two and all the other people of your ilk are doing when you embrace a narcissistic belief system in lieu of facing reality.

I didn't write the stuff in question. Your god and someone claiming to write for your god did. And where's your god's IMMENSE love for the innocent children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and great great grandchildren of the person who doesn't succumb to your jealous god? And what about all those other family members and relatives?

Verse, verses, address the point. Explain it. And don't forget about that pesky Commandment, you sly dog.

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)

By the way, your statement:

".....he [god] sent his son to die on the cross for all sinners so that they may have evrlasting life and spend eternity with him"

isn't true.

Jesus never said that. People who never knew Jesus made it up decades after he died.

And as for how open "mr newbie's" mind is: it's about as open as yours is when comes to dealing with the book that is the sole source of your crazy belief system.

O.K. here goes, Drtalk; this is a blog about lent, prayer etc. etc. This is not a blog for disagreeing about someones english and how words are used.

gazettefan, maybe you should learn to read or figure out what a verse is. The last count from the millions of times you have posted them there are 7 VERSES not VERSE. As far as those verses are concerned, I can not explain them as I have said. You are making God out to be the perverbial kid with the magnifying glass burning ants. He has such immense love for us that he sent his son to die on the cross for all sinners so that they may have evrlasting life and spend eternity with him. I have nothing else that I can say, as mr. newbie said, that you will open your mind to. I will still be around to bring truth to the blogs so I am sure I will see you around. (I am now shaking the dust off)

God bless all ; )

billnewbie and buckyfan, your opinions might garner some validity and respect if you could reconcile with your morality and reality the excerpts from the book that is the sole source for your beliefs:

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)

buckyfan: you have a point that it IS hypocritical to tell someone to follow the law of the land while you are not.

kraut: i would embrace the hell out of that hypocrisy my friend;)

thanx for the love kruat. yer a true american sergeant savage;)

thank you mr newbie for the props too. it would seem im an easy target in the fact that a lot of people judge me because i admit to smoking marijuana. as mr newbie says, i am actually a hard target because agree with me or not, if you deny my knowledge or passion for legalizing an adults right to choose you make yoself look silly. all the regular bloggers have figured this out and most avoid the convo. because they KNOW that there is NOT ONE SINGLE point anyone can make that i will agree is justification for keeping the plant illegal. not one. i dont hate on anyone for using me as a target at all...i sort of volunteer for that:)

Kraut60, you already explained who you are, so there's no need for you to explain any more.

And I am by no means the moral compass for others, but when you signed up to be a Scout leader (as I did, also), you agreed to abide by the Scout Law.

If you are not doing it, while suggesting that those you lead do it, well, then, I don't think it's too great a leap to define that as hypocrisy. No need to "go back and forth" at all.

Kraut60, I was raised in a Lutheran Church, went to a Lutherans school and rejected it all before I was 18. For 10 years I snidely derided the religious as hypocrites that loaded up on sin 6 says a week then went to church on Sunday to "wash" themselves clean so they could start up again right after the service was over. I self-righteously patted myself on the back, glowing in the conviction that I was smarter that all those fools. So you see, I don't have to “sober up” form religion and step away from God to know the joys of atheism. Been there, done that.

The Kid isn’t the “easy target” you take him for, by the way. In fact, he’s pretty tough. And I actually support his position on medical marijuana and I’ve told him so. But while there are drug dealing gangs of murderers running the streets of America, Mexico Colombia, etc., murdering each other and any that may happen to get in the way then yes, I object to anyone who feels any justification for breaking this law and funding these murderers just so they can have their recreational drug whenever they want it. Maybe you find that too self-righteous of me too, but I can live with that.

clarification: "thread," not "site" in the first graph.

kraut60, who is picking on whom here? Thekid started the fight on this site, not billnewbie.

I'm assuming you are claiming to be a Boy Scout leader? How do you reconcile your disregard for the Scout Law with this excerpt from the Boy Scout Handbook?

"A Scout is Obedient.
...He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them."

While you're explaining that, could you define hypocrite for me?

ha. i appreciate your concern about my finances mr newbie but the fact that i am a responsible citizen of the united states of america who enjoys and wants to smoke marijuana kind of negates that 'alternative'. a safe alternative to smoking marijuana is not stopping the smoking. a safe alternative is a shop on milton avenue that sells responsible adults small amounts of marijuana to those who(pay attention key word coming up)...CHOOSE to smoke it. if marijuana caused even one negative in my life id consider it...same as i did w alcohol/tobacco...but thats...just...not...the...case.

LOL, thekid, re: Koresh.

billnewbie, you don't have to click on anything to read what I want read.

By the way, the non responses to the Commandment and the verse amount to very telling responses. The stultified responses from you and your ilk say everything.

i have no doubt you will not be deterred mr newbie. thats what blatant disregard for logic will get ya...

I've got a suggestion for you, Kid. Try sobriety for a while, just to see if it's a viable alternative. If nothing else, you'll save a bit of money!

i have no doubt jesus existed. he was as real as david koresh

Stick and stones may break my bones, Kid, but desperate disparagement will never deter me as Gazettefan could attest.

I've read that dozens of time, Gazettefan. About half of those times as a result of your pathetically continuous attempts to bait responses from people that you want to disparage for their beliefs. But as always, you like to issue reading assignments but you never take any. However, I did not post that reference for your benefit, though you could benefit from it if you could only open your mind. I'm such a dreamer!

i have the CHOICE to not smoke but how is that even an alternative?? i am an american. i want to smoke marijuana. an alternative would be a safe way to secure that marijuana. are you a politician mr newbie?? you certainly lack the intelligence to qualify!!

Thanks for saving me the trouble, billnewbie. Here's some reading material for you:

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)

None that you'll accept, Gazettefan. Happy reading!

billnewbie, what is the point of your post and citation? If I go to that site, will there be direct or indirect proof of supernatural events?

Futurerichguy, try this cite for some of that evidence you say doesn't exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan

I don't generally rely on Wikipedia, but in this case, while they aren't the only reference for this archeological evidence, I suspect that you might reject some of the others I found due to their associations either with the state of Israel or Christian ones. Wikipedia was the only "neutral" source that I found with such a brief search.

What's the matter, DrTalk? Do you have the feeling that someone isn't properly responding to what's important here?

Great post, futurerichguy. The blinders to the real problem of the bible is disturbing.

kinsohn, may I suggest that you learn how to read. And when you do, please offer us your thoughts on this Commandment and this verse:

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)

"By the way, admit you misread the sentence because you misread "those" as a pronoun. Unless you have another reason for misreading the sentence."

Once again, YOU said "those" was a pronoun, referring to your original, unaltered statement. I have always maintained that it was an adjective. Check out your post dated: Feb 23, 2010 at 4:16 p.m. It's clear that it was YOU who said it was a pronoun.
.
No, I did not "misread" it. As I already explained to you, your statement was vague and needed clarification. You clarified what you meant (thank you), but you wrongly stated how there could have been no misunderstanding. If that was the only sentence of our conversation, then the meaning would have been clear. But it wasn't the only part of the conversation making which beliefs that were being talked about unclear.

Here's your safe alternative Kid, stop buying and using marijuana until it's legal. Since you claim it's not addictive, that alternative should be a viable one for you.

kinsohn, the bible is historical fiction. The historical frame-work with the major power players are all there, but the main characters and day-to-day anecdotes are fiction. Even some of the power players, such as David and Solomon though are arguably mythical, with no historical or archeological evidence of their existance. My guess though is that Jesus did exist, and he probably was a decent guy, but look at all the characters through history who have claimed to be the son of God or son of a god. Even Julius Caesar believed he was descended from Venus.

"Gee, this is fun. I hope you keep painting and posting and painting and posting, Billnewbie."
I intend to, Fool_on_the_Hill. Perhaps you may yet find wet paint at your feet and walls at your back. Enjoy!

"..it's possible that none of what's in the bible is true." Anybody who believes such things is a kook and cannot be reasoned with, as they believe things that are patently and demonstrably false.

My last post was for DrTalk.

By the way, admit you misread the sentence because you misread "those" as a pronoun. Unless you have another reason for misreading the sentence.

DrTalk, let's have your thoughts on the Commandment and verse below:

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)

kinsohn, yet another believer with a comprehension problem. I said it's possible that all of it isn't true. The point is that important contradictions do sever damage to the credibility of the bible. Such as, if the biblical god and Jesus are kind and loving gods, then this Commandment and this verse can't possibly be true:
---
"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)
--

Note that christforlife accepts the "truth" of the Commandment.

The focus is on the supernatural elements of the bible. Contradictory accounts of what god and Jesus are supposed to be should cause anyone to doubt the scribes of the bible. Christianity is a book-based belief. It's supposed to be the inspired word of god. But it was written by men who didn't agree. Why would god have his scribes disagree on what he is all about? If the bible lacks credibility, then there's no reason to believe in god.

No mainstream school of thought has ever discovered direct or indirect proof of any supernatural event.

Be sure to read the post I left for christforlife.

"Again, what Diego said was not a syllogism. And, intention had nothing to do with the matter of developing a conclusion. He was merely stating facts, two of which were synonymous, and one of which was a time reference as to the statement of the first two facts."
--gazettefan

Again, his last statement was still false.

"DrTalk, the whole point wasn't whether "those" is a pronoun or not."

Yes, it was part of the point because it caused the confusion. And you were wrong about it. It's OK, you can admit you were wrong about it. The word "those" was an adjective in that sentence, not a pronoun as you claimed.
"
The whole point was that you misread a clearly written sentence. There was nothing confusing about the two mentions of the word "beliefs" in my sentence.
"

I already explained how the second "beliefs" didn't necessarily reflect back to the mention of "your beliefs." You have to consider the entire context, not just a single sentence. (It's no wonder you keep taking Bible verses out of context.) But I do thank you for clearing up which beliefs you were talking about. You could have left it at that instead of saying that there was no way I could have been confused by which ones you were talking about.

"The odd thing is that the source of your confusion came from seeing the word "those" as a pronoun -there's no other explanation for your confusion."

No. Again, the word "those" was not a pronoun in your original, unmodified statement. YOU claimed it was but it wasn't. It was an adjective. And, again, I explained to you that you take the entire conversation in context. If you are unwilling to accept that, then there's nothing I can do.

christforlife, what a sad, pathetic intellectually deficiency displayed by you and your posse. The point of the Commandment question is why would you accept and believe in a "god" that would be so cruel? The answer is: you and your crew are just as heartless, you condone cruelty toward innocent children. AND YOU THINK YOU ARE A GOOD, KIND PERSON!!! I wonder if you and they would repeat what you wrote here on nationwide TV. Would you?

You really have to shutdown your morality to accept something like that. Just like the terrorists who crashed planes on 9/11. (And what about the verse from Matthew, ADHD problems?)

As for billnewbie, he's just like you, he ran away a long time ago, he just doesn't realize it.

Bring this post to your think tank and get them to blog here. billnewbie needs the help.

As for you getting into the word more, I know I've planted the seed of truth in your head. After all, you are a human and what's truly human about you wants to be free.

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"
---
BELOW IS YOUR "JESUS" SPEAKING:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)

"And if some of the things in the bible are definitely not true, then that also means that it's possible that none of what's in the bible is true."

How could a coherent person make such a statement? What might not be true - that the Romans occupied Jerusalem? Maybe that they didn't crucify people, and that disciples really didn't exist, and further that they really weren't persecuted because of their beliefs? Maybe, in fact, they never met Jesus, who never existed. Yeah, that's it - they made up the whole story and chose to die for it! Yeah - that's it - maybe all the disciples are still alive!

To hear people who make such patently false statements like this - and better yet believe them - ridicule others for their 'beliefs' should make rational people laugh out loud. Further, those of us who believe that ten devout people who knew Jesus personally and chose to die rather than renounce him probably didn't do it for no reason can be even more secure in our faith when the best counter-arguments that can be made actually call for more 'faith' than ours!

Hi there gazettefan, back again. I did bring up that we had been conversing on here and pretty much came up with what I thought I would. they don't understand why you fight against something you don't believe in. The scripture from Exodus you keep quoting Exodus 20:5
"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"
The fault is the people, not God. The people not choosing God are the ones that are punishing the children by worshiping other Gods. Then that will go down the line of generations. I will continue to study but I think for now I am done with this "debate" unless I see something that I know about that I feel lead to post. I still have to thank you for being an answer to prayer by getting me into the word more.
Well billnewbie I really see your point now. I will keep up the good fight and will probably see you on other stories posting the truth.

God bless all.: )

DrTalk, the whole point wasn't whether "those" is a pronoun or not. The whole point was that you misread a clearly written sentence. There was nothing confusing about the two mentions of the word "beliefs" in my sentence. The odd thing is that the source of your confusion came from seeing the word "those" as a pronoun -there's no other explanation for your confusion.

Again, what Diego said was not a syllogism. And, intention had nothing to do with the matter of developing a conclusion. He was merely stating facts, two of which were synonymous, and one of which was a time reference as to the statement of the first two facts.

"...shows you lost the handle on your attempt to talk your way out this."
--gazettefan in response to DrTalk's comment: "It doesn't matter that the conclusion doesn't directly follow his premises. What matters is that he DID offer them as reasons to believe his conclusion."

It does not show that I lost the handle, gazetefan. Here's an small excerpt from "A Guide to Good Reasoning" by David C. Wilson: "What matters in identifying an argument is not whether the premise SUCCEEDS in supporting the conclusion, but whether it is INTENDED to support it -- wether...a stanment is OFFERED as a reason to believe another statement." (emphasis was also in the text.)

Gazettefan,

"Furthermore, DrTalk, it is you and the people who share your beliefs who claim those beliefs cannot be questioned.

"Now look at the sentence after it's been made legitimately shorter (though syntactically less elegant):

"Furthermore, DrTalk, it is you and the people who share your beliefs who claim those cannot be questioned.

"The second "beliefs" has been removed. I never said that "those" wasn't adjectival, but you wrongly claim that it's not a pronoun."
--gazettefan

Well, I never said the word "those" could never be a pronoun. I just said it wasn't a pronoun in your original sentence -- which it isn't. It's an adjective. It is a pronoun in your second, revised sentence. Did you see what happened when you removed the noun? "Those" was no longer modifying "beliefs" and became a pronoun.

"In the shorter sentence, it should be more clear to you that "those" is a pronoun i.e. it takes the place of a noun."
-- gazettefan

Yes, in the second sentence it is a pronoun, but not the first which is the whole point. Hopefully you understand now. But just to be sure, here's some extra credit for you: In which sentence is "those" a pronoun and in which sentence is it an adjective?

1. Those are his beliefs.
2. He told me about those beliefs.

Yes, christforlife, my point is that your belief is based in the bible and the bible is supposed to be the inspired word of god. But serious and numerous contradictions in the bible mean that everything in the bible cannot possibly be true. And if some of the things in the bible are definitely not true, then that also means that it's possible that none of what's in the bible is true.

Partly untrue or entirely untrue means that the basis for your belief -the bible- is invalid -entirely invalid. And the god you speak of doesn't really exist.

The god you speak of is really a personification of your natural urge to be good and your natural wish that other people be good too. You do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is known as the golden rule and is wrongly believed to be exclusively from the bible. But that rule exists in all other culture, including the ones that have nothing to do with judeo-christianity. That rule even predates judeo-christianity.

In other words, you don't need the bible to justify or dictate your practice of the golden rule.

The golden rule is a phenomenon of biological and cultural evolution as evidenced by its universal practice throughout the human species.

;~)

Hi again gazettefan, I have to apoigize for that last comment I must have misread something down the line. I do have to say that I am not bailing on anything. I do have a life and have to work for a living so I do not have the time to look things up at my leisure. I will be bringing things up at the bible study tonight. I may be able to talk some people into getting on here but I think they have the same view as futurefirefighter as I am getting to as well. The bible says to spread his word and if the people won't listen shake the dust from your feet and keep going. You keep trying to make God this mean being that wants to destroy humanity but he is just the opposite. He wants us all to believe in him so we may have everlasting life. Some people can't seem to give up their control to do that though. I am signing off now but I will return to either explain scripture or "shake the dust off". bill I am getting the drift of your comment when all of this started and I see where you are coming from. Thank you to all that have "put their 2 cents in" on this subject I do enjoy talking about my faith on here. God bless all. : )

billnewbie: first of all i think by taking my stance and rephrasing it that because other people hurt people i want that same choice makes you look like an idiot. do you REALLY think thats what its about??

you dont irritate people because your strong opinion hits close to the mark. i actually dont think you could be further from the truth. people get irritated with you because you THINK your strong opinion hits close to a mark and you refuse to acknowledge any counterpoint made to you. ive acknowledged NUMEROUS times the indirect victims of marijuana smoking and have yet to see why indirect victims are ok with already legal drugs but its a valid reason in your opinion to keep marijuana illegal. ive also acknowledged our role in the drug cartels profit(psssst...even in this thread) and you for some reason see none of it. give us a safe alternative or stop blaming us. actually i think i may know why you cant see my AGREEMENTS with you and im no dr but it may be because you have your head firmly stuck up your own....

Futurefirefighter..., I don't think that's it. I think it's a matter of you being unable to keep up and discuss biblical stuff like this:

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)

And your new stance is especially interesting in that christianity is the most proselytizing mentality in the history of humanity.

Careful, foolonthehill, they like to bite when they're cornered!!!

To Gazettefan: I'm ending this discussion between you and I. Not because I'm afraid to man up and face your arguments, but because I'm going to man up and say this. The bible says to not argue, and to not do this especially with a fool. So, on that note, I'm going to end my discussion on here and not put up with ignorance. God Bless You Dude.

Gee, this is fun. I hope you keep painting and posting and painting and posting, Billnewbie.

So then, Kid, as long as others are getting away with hurting people with their favorite intoxicants then you should be able to hurt some people too? I'm shaking my head...

When a person states a strong opinion that hits close to its mark, people will be irritated. As you've seen, I seem to irritate a lot of people. But irritation is not what I'm trying to do, that's just a natural reaction. I'm just trying to get you to see my point of view just as you try to get me to see yours.

And I want you to know that in spite of the contentions of some people, I do not want you or anyone else to go to hell or even jail. That's why I write what I write. I hope you can accept that.

Fool_on_the_Hill:
The first line that I didn't bother to quote is as follows, "So I am clear on your position regarding law versus moral conscience..". To me that’s a clear statement that didn’t need to be included since I wasn’t taking issue with it even though it’s obvious that you are not “clear” about my positions. With it you claimed that you understand my position and then with the part I did quote and still take issue with you mischaracterized my position with your assertions of what you claim I would do which as I said you have no basis for. And to be clear, in my opinion, posing your assertions as a rhetorical question doesn’t change its unmistakable meaning. But now you claim that you were just trying to keep me from “painting” myself into a corner. How condescending of you. So, do I accept your latest assertion that your statement “you (Billnewbie, personally) would have outed the witches in Salem, escaped slaves in the South and the revolutionaries soldiers in the British colonies, believing that your God would reward your lawfulness while said lawbreakers rotted in Hell along with thekid3477, correct?” was just a condescending device to correct me or was it an attempt to disparage me as I originally perceived? Gee, what a choice.

So if I take exception to your assertion that I would “out” witches, escaped slaves and revolutionary soldiers while enjoying rewards for obedience to the law while others rot in hell, then I’m “a truly dishonorable person’ who “would attempt such a deceptive ploy” because I didn’t include the part of your statement that said that you are clear on my position regarding law and moral conscience. Just who is it that you think I’m trying to deceive? You? That was a direct response to you. I wasn’t meant for anyone else. So you could claim I misunderstood you, but to say I’m being deceptive is a fallacy.

As for your assessment of the failure of my defense of my “inherently flawed dogma”, I assume you mean my religious beliefs. You must assume that my success of failure can only be measured by its effect on you. If that were the only standard by which it could be measured then yes, it is a failure. It had a high probability that it would fail to convince you. You have much invested in what you have chosen to believe. But though this may be a surprise to you, your opinion is not the standard I use to assess success or failure of my defense of my “dogma”. I wonder, would you be even more irritated if I said that your “inherently flawed dogma” fails to convince me? Do I even need to state it?

Welcome back, christforlife. Your claim that I'm telling everyone that they need company has no basis in fact -where did you get that? did you read too fast?

This site is a place for lively debate. Such debate is a problem for people who can't sustain their stances. Posting here is difficult for you and you can't understand why anyone would do it more than you do. You are especially troubled by the fact that your beliefs, which are book-based -the bible, cannot be referenced to sustain your stance. Instead, referencing the bible works against you! The basis for your beliefs is untenable -your bible is one huge problem -if you truly read and study it! The anguish you are experiencing is obvious. billnewbie has the same anguish.

Someday you might grasp that your bible study leaves you unprepared for experiences like this and especially the experience of life in general.

For your bible study, you should print out this blog and pass copies around. Better yet, you should have your bible buddies blog here too.

In any case, you should ascertain that this exchange between us is based on the fact that you can't adequately respond to this Commandment and this verse from your bible:

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)

You seem to be bailing on your claim that you are going to make the effort to expand your intellectual horizons.

In closing, I hope you eventually notice that despite your bible study and whatever good that is suppose do you, you cannot respond in a debate any better than anyone else who isn't up the task.

;~)

bravo fool. bravo.

That's what he does, foolonthehill. He can't effectively discuss scripture and religion.

"Fool_on_the_Hill, you wrote "you (Billnewbie, personally) would have outed the witches in Salem, escaped slaves in the South and the revolutionaries soldiers in the British colonies, believing that your God would reward your lawfulness while said lawbreakers rotted in Hell along with thekid3477". Those are mischaracterizations based on assumptions that you have no basis for. Posing them as a question is just that, a pose. So yes, those are intentional mischaracterizations."

Nice try with the selective quoting. Your attempt to deflect attention only highlights the fact that you have backed yourself into a corner and know it. Here is what I ACTUALLY wrote:

"So I am clear on your position regarding law versus moral conscience... you (Billnewbie, personally) would have outed the witches in Salem, escaped slaves in the South and the revolutionaries soldiers in the British colonies, believing that your God would reward your lawfulness while said lawbreakers rotted in Hell along with thekid3477, correct?"

Now, most anyone will recognize the ENTIRE quotation above as reductio ad adsurdum in the form of a rhetorical question, not the "assertion" your misquote attempts to imply. I had hoped that question might cause you to pause, reconsider and hopefully stop painting yourself into that corner. (Something I cautioned you to avoid, if you recall.)

You have failed miserably in your futile attempt to defend your inherently flawed dogma, Billnewbie. In an effort to remain in denial, you deflect attention toward me as villain, rather than face the fact that your deeply held beliefs are indeed based on specious reasoning. You broached the subject and then proceeded to prove yourself wrong. The best evidence is your very own words, Billnewbie. They are all right here on this page.

Why would anyone intentionally misquote something documented on that very same page? Only a truly dishonorable person would attempt such a deceptive ploy.

billnewbie. i wish you could see me shaking my head. you irritate me because ive acknowledged NUMEROUS times the indirect victims created by marijuana users. what you, or anyone else, has failed to convince me of is why those victims are worse than the victims created by currently legal drugs. you irritate me because i see you say all the same things that i say, only in defense of payday lenders and corporations and yet you cant grasp why i would say those things, or feel that i as an american should have certain rights. what irritates me about you mr newbie is that you seem like a fairly intelligent individual yet you cant grasp the simple fact that we dont want to support that network. give us a safe alternative or stop blaming us. what really irritates me is that you wont even try to comprehend this...

for what its worth...i have made many points about why its ok for me to disobey that law. even if there were DIRECT victims i as an american should still have the right to do w my body as i choose. your ONLY point is that we support a criminal network...

Thanks, futurerichguy. Yes, and believers want to attribute morality solely to religion. Compassion for the unfortunate is entirely explainable by evolution -biological and cultural.

And notice how billnewbie's christian tribal mentality has him attributing group affiliations to others for the purpose of disparagement.

Right out of the blue, he comes up with the global warming thing.

billnewbie, conclusions should follow logically from other facts. You're just making stuff up. Stop it! And I said your statement was sick, not silly.

Interesting, one denies the paradox, the other embraces it. You 2 act like a couple of global warming advocates.

By the way Gazetefan, I'm not trying to "scathe" you. That's your game. If I were, I wouldn't use silly as a description. I can see though why you think my post was so silly. A person like you has trouble comprehending any scenario where you would willingly subjugate your self-interest for the sake of another. So naturally, you assume no one else would either and for me to suggest such a thing is silly in your mind.

Great post gazettefan! Another thing people don't realize about evolution is that just because it's true, we don't have to apply it. Applying it of course would be considered eugenics. The sad truth is though, before we became a successful civilized species, birth defects typically resulted in a dead end for the genes that caused it.

Ouch, billnewbie, what a scathing comeback.

The only things your word-piles are worthy of is a larger scoop and a bunch of baggies.

There are far sillier things written that anything I've written, Gazettefan. Just read your own archive for proof of that.

"I’m not the center of universe,” Haldeman said. You realize it was your church that used to burn people at the stake for saying things like that.

billnewbie, your muscular disthropy statement is one if the sickest things ever written. What a find tribute to you and your religion: Children born with defects are born that way so that people who are born without such defects can experience an exercise in self-improvement?!!! What?! You got the order mixed up. Evolutionarily we have compassion for non kin as a natural extension of the compassion we have for our own kin. This extension of compassion is important to group formation.

As for how birth defects can take place within evolution: Here's a news flash: Evolution is not perfect. No one ever said it was.

However, your god is supposed to be perfect but we nonetheless have stuff like this from it:

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)

"I am so thankful that I do not need a god or ridiculous dogma to do positive things for my fellow man. Now no one can question why I do them."

Sorry Diablo, I mean Diego, we forgot that you and your fat slob idol Michael Moore care oh so much more than everyone else. Your high moral superiority, in comparison to others, is so special.

Every now and then, Gazettefan turns up a nugget in that sty he likes to root around in. He wrote “Are babies born with muscular dystrophy gifts from god?” The answer is emphatically, yes. All babies are gifts from God, particularly the ones who have birth defects or are born with or develop diseases. Such babies cause us to refocus ourselves from ourselves and towards selfless sacrifice towards others. In other words such babies and all stricken children, or anyone stricken for that matter drive us to forsake our natural self-centered tendencies.

Now let’s turn that around and see how it plays. Why does nature, and evolution, result in so many defective children that are harmful to the evolutionary progress of the human gene pool yet evolved in us a desire to protect and nurture such children? If evolution is true, its interest would be to have evolved in us an abhorrence for such offspring that we should desire to kill like all other animals in nature do. Can such a paradox in the nature of evolution exist? Obviously not.

Fool_on_the_Hill, as for your philosophical differences of libertarianism from mine, I understood your assertion of self-ownership the first time you mentioned it. I remain unconvinced. Liberty for all is libertarianism, whether that agrees with your referenced “expert” of not. And as I said, the law is the guarantor of liberty for all. If we violate or ignore the law then we also violate and ignore the liberty of others in favor of our own which as I stated isn’t libertarianism but libertinism. Also as I stated before, there are unjust laws. But one must be sure that the law is truly unjust and not just inconvenient for oneself. Self-interest is a powerful deceiver. Take marijuana laws for example. According to your theory of libertarianism, marijuana should not be prohibited in any way. Do you buy into TheKid’s assertion that marijuana use is victimless? If so, then maybe your libertarianism isn’t so different from mine after all. However, if marijuana use does create victims (those whose liberty is impaired by the marijuana users) wouldn’t there be justification for it’s prohibition from a liberty for all philosophy? If there is, can one then justify from a libertarian point of view disobedience to this law? In my opinion, one cannot. The Kid even recognizes the validity of that in his vehement denunciation of the very idea that marijuana use is not victimless. He knows that the only real justification he has for disobedience to that law hinges on that point. That’s why he’s so irritated with me, because I point out all the victims that the marijuana users help create with their disobedience to the law.

Fool_on_the_Hill, you wrote "you (Billnewbie, personally) would have outed the witches in Salem, escaped slaves in the South and the revolutionaries soldiers in the British colonies, believing that your God would reward your lawfulness while said lawbreakers rotted in Hell along with thekid3477". Those are mischaracterizations based on assumptions that you have no basis for. Posing them as a question is just that, a pose. So yes, those are intentional mischaracterizations.

You also wrote "I am talking about Billnewbie's red herring argument". Do you really think I am just trying to divert the discussion in another direction to avoid something left unanswered? These discussions typically extend well beyond the original topics. You yourself have strayed like that from time to time. Mischaracterizing such redirection as a Red Herring” is erroneous. Besides, you don’t need me to stay on topic to make your point, now do you? Red Herring diversions may work well in verbal debates, but on written ones like this, if you don’t want to change topics, you don’t have to.

I’ve also noticed a tendency of yours to throw around the “non sequitur” tag (though you’re not alone in this). But that is also a fallacy. Anytime debaters disagree on a conclusion, one side of the other could use that tag line, but disagreement is the reason for the discussion. The use of the term “non sequitur” among others, particularly when one has not proven his own argument is, in my opinion, just an attempt to discredit the opposition for the purpose of discounting their conclusions without real consideration, or the result of a deep-seated conceit that assumes one’s superiority and therefore the discounting of the possibility of errancy in one’s opinions. I’m not sure what you’re intention is in these cases, Fool_on_the_Hill, but one could reasonably come to one of those conclusions. I think you would do well not to use them.

Welcome back, christforlife. Your claim that I'm telling everyone that they need company has no basis in fact -where did you get that? did you read too fast?

This site is a place for lively debate. Such debate is a problem for people who can't sustain their stances. Posting here is difficult for you and you can't understand why anyone would do it more than you do. You are especially troubled by the fact that your beliefs, which are book-based -the bible, cannot be referenced to sustain your stance. Instead, referencing the bible works against you! The basis for your beliefs is untenable -your bible is one huge problem -if you truly read and study it! The anguish you are experiencing is obvious. billnewbie has the same anguish.

Someday you might grasp that your bible study leaves you unprepared for experiences like this and especially the experience of life in general.

For your bible study, you should print out this blog and pass copies around. Better yet, you should have your bible buddies blog here too.

In any case, you should ascertain that this exchange between us is based on the fact that you can't adequately respond to this Commandment and this verse from your bible:

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)

You seem to be bailing on your claim that you are going to make the effort to expand your intellectual horizons.

In closing, I hope you eventually notice that despite your bible study and whatever good that is suppose do you, you cannot respond in a debate any better than anyone else who isn't up the task.

;~)

You know gazettefan for somebody that is telling everybody else that they need company it sure does seem like you are on here a lot getting your own company. I will be going to a bible study tonight and I will be bringing up this whole thing to get some more knowledge about it before I post any more. You have a wonderfull day keeping everyone on here company. God bless all : )

futurefirefighter........, it is sad that you need the company of a stranger so badly, but I won't be joining you. Your two-bit psychology is pathetic.

And you are wrong, Jesus taught from the Old Testament. He was a rabbinical Jew. He didn't think he was god. And the trinity makes no sense.

If Jesus and god and the holy ghost are all the same, then why is there a trinity. The explanation is: theologians wanted to establish a monotheism while attempting to appeal to pagans who believed in multiple gods. It was all a marketing ploy that doesn't stand up to reason. The theologians pulled it off back then but guess what: people have gotten smarter -some people, anyway.

Would you care to discuss this verse?:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)

By the way, that was Jesus talking.

DrTalk, again, here's the sentence:

"Furthermore, DrTalk, it is you and the people who share your beliefs who claim those beliefs cannot be questioned."

Now look at the sentence after it's been made legitimately shorter (though syntactically less elegant):

"Furthermore, DrTalk, it is you and the people who share your beliefs who claim those cannot be questioned."

The second "beliefs" has been removed. I never said that "those" wasn't adjectival, but you wrongly claim that it's not a pronoun. In the shorter sentence, it should be more clear to you that "those" is a pronoun i.e. it takes the place of a noun.

And my statement re: pronoun reference was an attempt to understand how you misread the sentence. Sometimes pronoun reference is a problem for writers. There was no pronoun reference problem in my sentence, you misread it. And the sentence was self-contained. There was no reason to confuse my usage of the word "beliefs" as used in that sentence with anything outside it -my sentence can stand alone: it doesn't require context. Again, you misread it.

-----

Here is Diego's statement:

"i am so thankful that I do not need a god or ridiculous dogma to do positive things for my fellow man. Now no one can question why I do them."

Where are the major and minor premises? They would have to be contained in his first sentence:

"i am so thankful that I do not need a god or ridiculous dogma to do positive things for my fellow man."

That sentence would have to include a general statement and a particular statement and thus produce a logical conclusion. Instead the sentence only renders its two parts as equivalents -the word "or."

And while his last sentence may have an appearance of a conclusion, it is really only a statement of another fact. It is not a statement that acts as a product of a syllogism. His use of the word "Now" refers to the fact that "now" he has made his assertions KNOWN (your failure to see "assertions" and "statements" as synonyms is a problem for you). Now that we know IT, not that IT now followed from his previous statement(s).

And your statement....

"It doesn't matter that the conclusion doesn't directly follow his premises."

....shows you lost the handle on your attempt to talk your way out this.

You have a better evening, you've accomplished nothing redeeming for yourself here.

To Gazettefan: Jesus said to follow the laws of the land. He did not preach from any book, Jesus was God. Ever heard of the Godhead aka Trinity, Father, son, holy ghost? well, considering this why would Jesus need to teach from a "holy book" in the first place? I'm sure you know, if you've done as much research as I have with things of that nature. Usually when someone is in a state of questioning things and arguing there point, they really are searching for truth and for someone to prove them wrong or show them they are totally off base. Jesus taught straight from constant prayer with his father, he did not teach from a holy book and that is proven through scripture whether you believe the bible is true or not. it constantly says, "and Jesus said..." it does not say, and Jesus began to read and teach the people or whatever. In addition to that, Jesus CHRIST. Look at that name. another question for you. If Paul and whoever else you mentioned went off and created a different religion called Christianity. why would they call it something based off of the guy they just left because they didn't agree with him? sounds pretty ilogical to me.

billnewbie, Jesus preached that his followers should submit to the law, the Torah, the Old Testament. Read your bible.

Andre....., how are your efforts to make yourself invisible going?

foolonthehill, have you ever seen me give a sermon? I dance like James Brown:

Good god, yahhhw!!! gazettefan's got a brand new bag!!!

gazettefan,

Pronouns take the place of nouns. Adjectives modify nouns. "Those" as in "those beliefs" is an adjective; it modifies the word "beliefs." Modify comes from the Latin "modus" meaning "to limit." It's limiting beliefs to a certain ones. Thus, it's an adjective.

"No one else's beliefs are mentioned in that sentence. Therefor, there is no uncertainty."

You're forgetting the context of the entire conversation. Don_Diego said no one should question why he does things. After which I made a syllogism out of his comments insinuating they could be questioned. Then you made your beliefs comment. So it wasn't entirely clear which beliefs.

And you're wrong about Don_Diego making mere assertions. There is a clear conclusion indicator in his comment: the word "now."
"Now no one can question why I do them."
It doesn't matter that the conclusion doesn't directly follow his premises. What matters is that he DID offer them as reasons to believe his conclusion.

Did I misstate him? Yes, but not intentionally. I forget to mention his thankfulness. The fact that he's THANKFUL that he doesn't need a god or religious dogma to do positive things for his fellow man doesn't answer why he thinks no one can question why he does them. Which is why I'm guessing you think that they were just mere assertions.

But even if Don_Diego's entire comment consisted of just mere assertions, his last statement is still false. Of course people can still question why he does positive things for his fellow man.

Have a nice day.

nice posts foth. if i could figure out the dewey decimal system i would align with yo party!!

Are babies born with muscular dystrophy gifts from god?

So then you would violate a law if said law forced you to violate your conscience, Bill?

I don't know where you came from but my children were a gift from God to my husband and myself. We never could of had such beautiful children if God hadn't made them.

I would never intentionally mischaracterize someone's position, Bill. Methinks you are back-pedaling.

Bill, the essence of libertarianism is the recognition of every person's right of self-ownership. What makes someone libertarian is not the defense of one's own self-interests; every self-serving narcissistic tyrant does that. Libertarianism is the defense of another person's right to liberty from such tyrants. Such as, how I oppose any violation of your right to practice your religion or Thekid3477's right to put whatever he wishes into his own body. I do this despite being an atheist who doesn't smoke pot. In fact, I am opposed to tyranny in all forms, regardless of whose rights are being violated. Libertarianism is simply the natural extension of the Golden Rule into politics. It is both a social philosophy and a political philosophy.

No libertarian would accept your premise that Jesus --or anyone for that matter-- could advocate submission of one's self and still be considered libertarian. Such submission fundamentally negates the basic principle of self-ownership. (We don't even have to go into whether or not the God of your Bible qualifies as a tyrant but doing so would certainly not help your case.) The authority granted TO government BY a libertarian is not submission by any stretch of the imagination! It is simply a pact --a voluntary transaction. (Note who is granting authority to whom there. This is a fundamental tenet of libertarianism! Your current understanding of this tenet is based on religion, which, when applied to libertarianism, comes out exactly backward, Bill.)

There is plenty of information on the web explaining libertarianism and the axiom of self-ownership, in particular the writings of Robert Nozick.

DrTalk, here's the sentence again:

"Furthermore, DrTalk, it is you and the people who share your beliefs who claim those beliefs cannot be questioned."

The word "those" is a pronoun. It demonstrates the second mention of the word "beliefs" which is a repetition of the first use of the word "beliefs." Both "beliefs" in that sentence refer to your beliefs and the people who share your beliefs -same beliefs.

No one else's beliefs are mentioned in that sentence. Therefor, there is no uncertainty.

I'll get back to the rest of you rascals later.

Fool_on_the_Hill, like Gazettefan, you seem to have a penchant for mischaracterizing my positions as well as those of Christ, or perhaps you don’t understand them as well as you may believe you do. For instance, I have never advocated blind submission to anything, and neither does Christ or the bible. It’s true that there are Christian sects and cults that do, but their justification for that is either from misapplied scripture or from the claimed authority of figures outside of scripture.

You are not clear regarding my position to the law verses moral conscience, Fool_on_the_Hill. I stated that evil people can come to control the civil government and thus civil law. I stated that when that occurs, laws that violate God’s law (our conscience) must not be obeyed. Didn’t you see that in my last post? As for your examples, you chose some interesting ones. You chose them because you seem to believe that they are indisputable examples of unjust law. Take the witches of Salem, for example. You don’t call them alleged witches because that doesn’t fit your assertion, but that is why you really think that they were dealt with unjustly, because they weren’t really witches. And another thing about them that you don’t say is that you preclude the possibility that they could have actually been witches, since, like you-know-who, you can’t accept the possibility of people (witches) drawing supernatural power (which you refuse to acknowledge) to use against their neighbors, the definition of a witch. The real injustice of the Salem witch trials, then, is that the law was used by the unjust to accuse the innocent (of the charge of being a witch) for the purpose of using the law for revenge against their neighbors or whatever else may have motivated them, what the bible calls bearing false witness. Your assertion that I would participate in that is very much like what the false accusers of Salem indulged in. Isn’t it rather pompous of you to make such assertions about what I would do? The next thing you know, you’ll assert that I would have run a Nazi death camp.

What is the root of libertarianism, Fool_on_the_Hill? You say it’s the principle of self-ownership. I say it’s liberty. Your definition doesn’t take into account my liberty or that of anyone else. If we all are self-owned, what arbitrates the conflicts between us that must eventually arise between liberated, self-owned and self-directed beings? The answer is the law. You seem to argue that the law negates libertarianism but I say it protects and nurtures it. Without law, only the strongest of us have liberty. Therefore, a libertarian must accept and be willing to submit to the law or he is not a libertarian but instead, a libertine.

In that same vein, Fool_on_the_Hill, your this or that proposition that Jesus could either advocate for the submission of oneself or be libertarian but not both, is in error. A libertarian can in fact choose to submit, or subjugate his liberty to another yet still be libertarian. Submission is a free will choice. And just as a true libertarian submits to the authority of the law for the preservation of all liberty, his own included, so does a liberated Christian submit to the authority of God, not because he has to, but because he wants to. And if a person, like you, is adverse to the idea of submission to God, you are free not to. God made us that way intentionally.

fool, great post, I don't think gazettefan has found his spiritial fullfillment:)Maybe he's looking in the wrong place by caring so much what others believe.

correction to my previous post:
Yes, the subject included the pronoun "you" and the adjective "your" but it doesn't necessarily follow that it was our beliefs that were being talked about.

"DrTalk, my pronoun reference is proper, it's your beliefs."

It wasn't the pronouns that caused the vagueness in your statement. It was the adjective "those" as in "those beliefs."

Yes, the subject included the pronouns "you" and "your" but it doesn't necessarily follow that it was our beliefs that were being talked about.

I have no problem with that, onedayatatime. As for cults, that definition hinges on whether or not there is systematic or institutionalized isolationism. For example, any church that invited Gazettefan to guest sermon could never be labeled a "cult" no matter how extreme their official doctrine happened to be. :~)

"folderolian engines" :-D

"i fall into no ones 'trap'..."

I am talking about Billnewbie's red herring argument.

We do have freedom of religion in this country, but personnaly I belive that organized religion is comparable to any other "cult". Religion is the cause for most of the conflict in the world and has been used to control mankind since it's inception.You don't need religion to believe and have faith in a superior force. I was raised in the Catholic church and never found fulfillment or contentment in the 25 years I practiced. I began to study different religions and philsophies. The one question I had was, Why are there so many different religions and which one is right?" The only answer that I found that makes sense is, everyone is at a different spiritual level and each different religion satisfies the paticular needs for whatever spiritual level they are at. I don't care what someone else believes, just don't try to impose that belief on me. I have found contentment and I don't need to search anymore, so don't come to my house and tell me I am lost because I don't believe exactly as you do. I don't believe the bible is the word of God. It was written decades after Christ's life on earth through stories passed down from person to person and significantly revised by Pope Constantine VI, and there are different versions of the Christian bible. I don't believe God is a being, I believe God is a state of being, positive energy. I also don't believe Christ died for our sins. I believe he was one of the greatest prophets ever and was born enlightened. I believe he died, rose again to show there is life after death. In conclusion, everyone should be able to believe whatever they find personal fulfillment in and satisfies thier personal spiritial need.

in general terms foth i am on the offensive of my marijuana consumption way more than i am on the defensive. i fall into no ones 'trap'...

DrTalk, my pronoun reference is proper, it's your beliefs.

And the general claim by believers is that it's rude to question their beliefs. And while you claim that that's not a problem for you, you are nonetheless not much for actually discussing things here.

christforlife, we eagerly await your return.

And if the pattern is in place, billnewbie won't be back here. This is about the point where he gets exhausted from making stuff up. He then needs a lot of time off to get his folderolian engines tuned up again.

I think you guys should create a debate team and make a name for Janesville! Meet for coffee, wear boxing gloves, not mittens and make sure you sit about 5 feet away from each other. Eagle Inn has lots of room, give them a call, maybe you can meet there.

"Furthermore, DrTalk, it is you and the people who share your beliefs who claim those beliefs cannot be questioned."

Which beliefs - mine or yours? Either way, I never claimed any such thing. For an analogy, let's consider Thomas. He is commonly referred to as Doubting Thomas. I see nothing wrong with doubting or questioning. You can question my beliefs all you want, gazettefan. And I reserve the right to question yours. But just remember that Thomas quit doubting when he found out the truth.

OK, Andre....., I'll change my stance that you're not a believer and from now on my stance is that you ARE a believer. You might want to examine your nonsense about not actually stating such yourself.

Re: proof. I did prove that god doesn't exist. Go back and read my posts till you find my statements re: that.

And you, like christforlife, claim that I bash believers. What happens is: I post some scripture and believers can't properly respond to that scripture. The frustration that comes from this has believers feeling that they've been bashed. If they've been bashed, it's not by me, the feeling of being bashed comes from the bad feeling associated with believing something that is nonsense.

By the way, you can get paragraph separation by using the space bar instead of the "+" key. A space is a character, and so are you.

;~)

Just for clarification: I do not see God IN you. God is USING you to get me closer to HIM.
Again I thank you and after some research I will be back to explain the rest. I will be off for a while as I am at work now and break is over.

christforlike, your statements about your pastor and your church almost got a "fair enough" from me but then you descended even further into the abyss of your alienation.

But given the possibility that your are genuinely open to expanding your intellectual horizons, I'll restate my recent long post sans the comments of your pastor and your church. But be assured that nothing you say about him and it verifies anything in the bible.

By the way, your need to see god in me only reveals that the alienation you're attempting to sooth by believing things that aren't true isn't as effective as you'd like it to be. You need company but you won't really get that company till you set yourself free.

-----

christforlife, so your statement:

"I am not sure what you are trying to get me to say about that scripture. That was before Jesus came and paid the ultimate price for everyones sins. The world was a much different place at that time."

Does not contradict this?:

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

Then explain the above Commandment. Is this your god talking? The Old Testament is part of your and your church's bible.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not write the gospels. Those people were uneducated tradesmen who only spoke Aramaic. The gospels were written decades later by educated people who spoke and could write in Greek. All four people were from different places and their true names are unknown. The fact that the gospels were written at different times by different people explains why there are significant differences in them. Read the gospels separately. Don't impose what one says on the others. They are different stories. Though some of it is copied from one of the others.

As for proof, the burden is on you. You're the one making the fantastic claims. Andre..... is not a believer but for some reason he talked himself into trouble and he can't get over licking his wounds. Andre...., get over it!!!

And, again, there has never been any direct or indirect proof of a supernatural event.

christfor......, if your church doesn't teach the above Commandment and the verse from Matthew that I cited below, it is operating against scripture.

Jesus was a rabbinical Jew who taught the law of the Torah in the Old Testament. Paul and others turned against Jesus and the Torah and created a religion called christianity. Print this all out and take it to you pastor.

Your claim that I'm twisting things only reveals that you have a comprehension and concentration problem. Expand your intellect; read things other than the bible -you are hypnotizing yourself. Your inability to read well has a negative effect on how you are responding here and how you perceive the world in general.

;~)

gazettefan, WOW your last post about our church and our pastor shows how little you know about my church and pastor and our faith. My pastor (I hope you are sitting down) does not make his money from the church. He not only preaches every Sunday morning but there is also sunday night and wednesday night bible study and prayer. Not to mention all of the calls for counseling he gets during the week. Then get ready for this one!! He has been working a full time job to support his family until the doctor told him he couldn't work due to an injury from working. We also have a very small congregation that does not have a bunch of money so he does get some from the church but definately not enough to support a family. So please do not tell me that we will find out that he is an unbeliever just making EASY money. As to the rest of your post I have to do some reserch and studying on those points because I am still learning as I told you earlier but thank you for getting me into the word more. Boy this is cool bringing me to read the Bible more. Must be part of Gods plan to get me into the word more as I have asked for in prayer. Thank you gazettefan God is working through you, isn't that great!!
God bless all ; )

Gfan, that happens to anyone who blindly follows dogma and doctrine --whether it be religious, political or whatever. Eventually, dogma and doctrine will fail the test of logic. The only rational approach is to start with reality and build up from there.

I was speaking only in general terms, Thekid3477: victimless criminals are never obligated to be on the defensive. (Reconsider Billnewbie's argument after doing a search and replace of the words "alcohol" and "pot" with the words "Islam" and "Christianity", respectively. You'll see that he didn't earn that "touche'" you gave him.)

nice posts foth. yer no fool. but to question my posts about pot when this has nothing to do with pot...ummmm have you been paying attention??:)

Last line, third paragraph should be:

....Jews AS infidels.

Great post on libertarian and relativism, foolonthehill.

billnewbie and some of the other believers like to throw certain words around without truly understanding what those words mean.

billnewbie has no grasp of how relativistic he and his christianity are. Paul went relativistic on the Old Testament when he "reinterpreted" it into an anti-Jewish screed e.g. circumcision wasn't a way for Jews to honor god, instead it was a way for god to brand Jews and infidels.

And if it wasn't for billnewbie's personal relativism, he would find his everyday life very difficult if he truly attempted to live according to scripture.

Thekid3477, you consistently fall into the trap of defending your position. It is the oppressor who bears the burden to prove your actions justify the taking of your liberty and the orphaning of your children. This has absolutely nothing to do with "pot".

christforlife, so your statement:

"I am not sure what you are trying to get me to say about that scripture. That was before Jesus came and paid the ultimate price for everyones sins. The world was a much different place at that time."

Does not contradict this?:

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

Then explain the above Commandment. Is this your god talking? The Old Testament is part of your and your church's bible.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not write the gospels. Those people were uneducated tradesmen who only spoke Aramaic. The gospels were written decades later by educated people who spoke and could write in Greek. All four people were from different places and their true names are unknown. The fact that the gospels were written at different times by different people explains why there are significant differences in them. Read the gospels separately. Don't impose what one says on the others. They are different stories. Though some of it is copied from one of the others.

As for proof, the burden is on you. You're the one making the fantastic claims. Andre..... is not a believer but for some reason he talked himself into trouble and he can't get over licking his wounds. Andre...., get over it!!!

And, again, there has never been any direct or indirect proof of a supernatural event.

christfor......, if your church doesn't teach the above Commandment and the verse from Matthew that I cited below, it is operating against scripture.

Jesus was a rabbinical Jew who taught the law of the Torah in the Old Testament. Paul and others turned against Jesus and the Torah and created a religion called christianity. Print this all out and take it to you pastor. And don't be surprised to someday learn he is not a believer and pastoring is the only way he can figure out to earn a living. Easy money for him.

Your claim that I'm twisting things only reveals that you have a comprehension and concentration problem. Expand your intellect; read things other than the bible -you are hypnotizing yourself. Your inability to read well has a negative effect on how you are responding here and how you perceive the world in general.

;~)

The principle of self-ownership is the fundamental axiom of libertarian philosophy. Any sense of self that advocates blind submission to the whim of others is unequivocally antithetical to libertarianism in any form. Therefore, Jesus could either advocate for the submission of oneself OR be libertarian but not both. Which is it, Billnewbie?

So I am clear on your position regarding law versus moral conscience... you (Billnewbie, personally) would have outed the witches in Salem, escaped slaves in the South and the revolutionaries soldiers in the British colonies, believing that your God would reward your lawfulness while said lawbreakers rotted in Hell along with thekid3477, correct?

From a purely philosophical standpoint, how does blind obedience to the law differ from "moral relativism"? What about a town mayor who defies local ordinance and builds a nativity scene on the town square? Would such criminal act earn him a pitchfork with his name on it, too?

Holy cow gazettefan you really like to twist things for your own benefit dont you. I never said the new testament makes some things in the old testament untrue. However Jesus dying for our sins makes them a learning tool for believers. I do not have trouble with that scripture but you sure seem to because you sure seem to bring it up enough. Jesus' life IS the new testament at least most of it. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John are all stories of Jesus' life by people that were there. By the way thank you Andre, I was thinking just that when I was reading the last couple of posts. I don't have much more time as I have to get to work so I am going to skip ahead a little and defend what I said about our church. Our church is a Bible believing church that lets people worship God and have a relationship with him also. I don't see anywhere in my earlier post where I said anything that our church is against what the Bible says. One more thing, I read the Bible everyday and I am learning a lot in Sunday school, I have been a follower of Jesus for many years but I am now studying and reading about him to learn more so I can keep up with people like you who try to twist the Bibles words around to your own benefit. My Pastor always tells us to check up on him, "look it up in the Bible don't just take my word for it." So I plan to not be "ignorant" all my life, I am working on it. Until then I will be sharing Christ's love to all.
God bless all and have a great day. :-)

I've always wondered about that also, andre.

christforlife, what I'm getting at is: obviously everything in the bible isn't true. You are admitting it. You're claiming that the New Testament renders at least some things in the Old Testament as untrue. Where does it specifically say that one of the Commandments is no longer true? -a Commandment from god. And if some of the stuff in the bible in untrue, then it's very possible that none of it is true. Did god or Jesus say you can pick and choose?

As for Matthew, that "gospel" claims that Jesus abided by and taught the Old Testament -there was no New Testament during Jesus' life- and the Old Testament contains the Commandment that is so troublesome to you -Jesus taught it!!! The New Testament was made up later by people who never knew Jesus. And according to Matthew in the New Testament, Jesus said this:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (MATTHEW 10:34-39) Again, MATTHEW!!!

This also answers justme46. People who believe this stuff are dangerous in one way or another. It is democracy that has diluted the danger of christinity. But all that weird, crazy stuff is there just waiting for the right crackpot to come along and act it out.

By the way, Jesus never said he was dying for other people's salvation. That was made up later by people who denied Jesus' Jewishness.

And if the fleshly pleasures you sacrificed are none of my business, then you shouldn't have brought them up.

What are you doing to attain the book smarts that would allow you to keep up with people who have reasonable comments and questions about the bible? Are you doing anything about that or are you content with staying ignorant?

Explain why it takes more faith to not be a believer. As it is, that statement makes no sense. It's double-talk used to hide the fact that you can't truly articulate your position.

Scientific proof of Jesus' existence? Even if there is, that doesn't prove that he was a god or that there is a god or that anything supernatural has ever taken place.

If your church truly fits your description of it, then it is acting against scripture. Christianity is a book-based religion and you would therefor not be a true "christian." That's your only hope for maintaining any kind of intellectual or psychological integrity. But still, get out your fog. Start reading!!!

ive never said i dont believe. but ive never said i do either. im open to learning...its just a hard sell. i tend to side with logic and with what limited grasp i have of the bible it doesnt seem like something id be interested in. i live my life by doing what i deem to be the right thing. how do i determine what is the right thing. well obviously each decision requires its own thought process and mostly i guess i rely on experience, wisdom, and foresight. i would hope that god would forgive me for not acknowledging him earlier, even if the acknowledgement is at the pearly gates. if he is willing to forgive even those who kill i would be hard pressed to believe he wont forgive me for smoking some pot along the way, since after all proof of him also prooves its his plant.

i understand no money is required to have a relationship with god, i didnt mean to insinuate he is a prostitute. it just seems like thats a big part of it...again from my limited experience.

what is your opinion christforlife?? i assume because you believe in god you also believe that he put the plant here?? what was his intent of the marijuana plant?? why would he put an intoxicating plant here...if not to intoxicate??

WOW! Yes Bill I do see your point. Gazettefan I am not sure what you are trying to get me to say about that scripture. That was before Jesus came and paid the ultimate price for everyones sins. The world was a much different place at that time. I noticed you never answered justme46 how can you explain that one?
thekid: Why must you all also bring up money and paying for religion. I will have you know that at my church my pastor has only preached about tithing once in three years. You know what he said? It is between you and God. Our church does not require you to give a certain amount to come to church or to have a relationship with Christ which for anybody that thinks differently is NOT religion. Having a relationship with Christ is without religion. Religion gets in the way of your relationship in my opinion. That being said you do need a good church that believes that to keep the relationship strong and other believers to help each other. Yes gazettefan that would include a mens meeting once a month to fellowship with other men that believe and are willing to help each other with anything they may need help with. As for an eye for an eye read Matthew 5:38-42. That is completly opposite of what you are trying to say. As for gazettefans question about what fleshly pleasures i've given up: first of all you took it to the wrong place which I thought you might. It doesnt just mean THE flesh and/or sexual plesures. There are many things that our flesh enjoys (marijuana, gossip, swearing, etc. etc.) that we should not partake in. As for which ones I gave up that is none of your buiseness that is between me and God. I do not have the book smarts that most of you seem to have on here so I would not be able to keep up with you but I do know that God exists from answers to prayer among other things gfan and the kid and others that don't believe should realize that it takes more faith NOT to believe than to believe in God. There are many scientific proofs of Jesus' existence. I do not need the scientific proof to believe in Jesus.
God bless all

I wonder if we could "let go" of Annie Laurie Gaylor and her organization?

touche mr newbie. i wish i could see the world as black and white as you see it...;)

for what its worth we have been lobbying the govt to change the law since it was enacted. ignorance is the leading cause of preventing the law change. not stupid ignorance just not knowing ignorance. the more i watch on the history of marijuana the more it agitates me.

billnewbie, you outrageously misstate what Jesus was all about. He never said any of that salvation through him stuff. He warned that the new kingdom was coming in the generation of the people he spoke to. He said they should prepare by observing the Torah. Your Saint Paulie Walnuts trashed the Torah and invented christianity in opposition to Jesusanity. Then the Holocaust happened.

DrTalk, it IS your syllogism. You formed a syllogism to misstate what Diego said. He didn't say that your "conclusion" (his statement: "No one can question why I do them.") logically follows from his two previous assertions. His two previous assertions are not separate premises. They are more in the order of equivalents. What he said is not reducible to:

Major Premise:
Minor Premise:
Therefore:

Nice try though. But on the other hand, what are we to expect from someone whose world view defies logic.

But you have the right to drink all the alcohol you want, Kid. Just like every other American. And you have no right to possess marijuana, just like every other American has no right to. And you have a right to lobby your government to change the law, just like the alcohol drinkers did some 80 years ago. And you buy your product from drug gangs who murder to keep your business, just like the alcohol drinkers did 80 years ago. it seems you have all your rights in place there, Kid.

because you dont smoke you say it has done no evil. ask the millions of adults who have been arrested for simple possession of His plant if the civil laws are evil. everyone in this country who reaches the age of 21 has the legal option to intoxicate with alcohol. thats a right afforded them by simply being born in this country. in my opinion it is evil to deny me the same rights other americans have...for no apparent reason...

Alinskyfan, your authority to assign what I would have done is as legitimate as most of your self-serving claims.

Yes, foolonthehill, the disturbing theme for billnewbie is submission. And we know that people who are into submission easily flip over to a need to dominate. Not good. Not good.

;~(

"DrTalk, have another look at your syllogism. Your conclusion does not logically follow from your premises."

Gazettefan, it's not my syllogism. It's Don_Diego's. And I agree with you, the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Fool_on_the_Hill, Jesus the libertarian insists that we have free will to accept or reject God and the salvation offered to us through Him. Jesus the libertarian allows us the right to choose that for ourselves. God the sovereign provides us with a conscience to help us make the right choices. And God the sovereign provides us with civil government to keep the evil that some do from keeping us in chaos. For instance, the civil government prohibits murder. We all accept this intrusion on our liberty because we don't want to be murdered and we don’t want other victims murdered either. Neither does God. Does it prevent all murder? No, because we still have free will given to us by our libertarian minded God even though He condemns murder and has tried to stop it with our consciences and our civil authority as a deterrent. But he does not use His power to stop. If God were just a dictator who prohibits murder, there would be no murder. But God has given us free will and the liberty to use it, a very libertarian thing to do.


In short, we can disobey God’s law if we want to, just as we can disobey the civil laws. We have the free will to choose what we will do which is why I say that Jesus is a libertarian. But just as there are consequences for disobedience of civil law, there are consequences for disobedience of God’s law. Yet even so, God provides an escape from those consequences through the salvation of Jesus Christ. God has given us the free will to choose to be good or evil, an act of a libertarian. As such he also gives us the free will to choose to be forgiven for making the wrong choices, yet another act of a libertarian. And if we chose to reject Him regardless of the consequences, He allows that too, yet another act of a libertarian.

As for Gazettefan’s silly equivocation, civil government has and will again come under the control of evil people, such as the Nazis. In cases like those, when the civil authority commands that evil be done, (evil such as murdering helpless prisoners in concentration camps) that is a conflict with God’s law and must be disobeyed as was confirmed by the Nuremburg trials. However, marijuana prohibition doesn’t quite equal the execution of Jews, now does it? The civil authority has every right to prohibit marijuana possession and does no evil by doing so. Therefore we are rightfully compelled by it to obey. And it is within its right to assign consequences for those who will not obey.

thekid, has it been a year? I didn't know.

By the way, cynical donations are the best kind, they leave me with my self-respect.

Congrats on the total. And what you accomplished was without god and while billnewbie was at home abusing his keyboard!

;~)

Yes, billnewbie, you would have supported genocide had you lived in Nazi Germany -by your own unwitting admission. And let's not get into that "Hitler was an atheist" baloney. The Nazis had "Gott Mit Uns" ("God With Us") on their belt buckles. Don't tell me thousands of Nazis pulled a fast one on Dur Fuhrur.

And it seems your use of the word "equivocation" is a malaprop.

And the rest of your post is non responsive to the point.

what if we are wrong billnewbie?? what if He put the plant here for us to medicate with?? are the people who BLINDLY enacted marijuana prohibition immoral??

btw gfan even without a cynical donation from you again this year my immoral keester was able to raise about $400 and my team raised about $7,000 doin the polar plunge last weekend!!

mr newbie...if i was high(and i was:) when i jumped into the lake to raise money for the wisconsin special olympics...do you think god would look at that situation as a)immoral 2) moral or d)neutral??

Well Kid, your not alone. The world is full of people who refuse to submit to God unless it's on their own terms. And it can never be on their own terms.

I'm 100% with Gazettefan on this one, Bill. Do you blindly obey the law or are you guided by your own moral conscience? Please don't force us to provide a million concrete examples of such dilemmas.

Since you seem to enjoy painting yourself into logical corners, how does "Jesus the libertarian" reconcile this whole submission thing?

Oh. OK Gazettefan, since I advocate obeying the law then I am guilty of supporting genocide. Uh huh. Your cynicism makes you draw some strange equivocations the make you come to some weird conclusions. But every now and then you do write some silly things. Did you actually study under Saul Alinsky, Gazettefan? Or are you just another of his avid readers?

billnewbie. for what its worth, i was baptized. not confirmed. i have not gone to church once in my adult life to 'worship'. i go to celebrate the lives of those who have passed and i go to mourn the lives of those about to wed;). if God wants to judge me, or forbid me from heaven, simply because i smoke a little pot(hurting not one other soul), then quite frankly thats an elitist society that i dont want to be part of and would be ok sitting in purgatory or worse w gfan and the likes. at least the big guy that way not only preaches 'do not judge' he actually doesnt;)

billnewbie, re: your 403, and that's why your fellow christians in wartime Germany obeyed laws of aggression on the world and the slaughter of millions of people, especially Jews -Jesus' people.

Bill, this whole idea of submission is integral to your sense of self and sense of reality, not mine.

Christforlife, do you see what I mean about Gazettefan and his cynicism. He uses it like a shield so that he need not bother to consider what he doesn't want to accept.

So humor me, Fool_on_the_Hill. Just for the sake of argument, could you submit to a proven God's authority whether He is biblical or otherwise?

billnewbie, answer thekid's question. It's a good one.

So god is like the proverbial dog who does you know what because he can?!

In other words, the guy in the loin cloth forgives the person who did horrible things to you and your family because the guy in the loin cloth also claims those horrible things were also done to him. Is this supposed to be an improvement on the ridiculousness that I pointed out before?!!!!

Kid. according to the bible, God established, or dispensed, civil government for the good of humanity and to help deter the evil that men do, an extension of His sovereignty. So if the civil government you live under prohibits the possession of marijuana, you are obliged by God to obey that law until it is changed. Since our civil government allows us to petition it for such changes, you can freely lobby for those changes. But once you get them you'll have to reconcile all those passages of scripture that condemn intoxication.

Billnewbie, in my wildest dreams I could not imagine an entity capable of single-handedly creating the universe behaving as depicted in the Bible. Since I too have no doubts in this regard, your hypothetical is a non sequitur.

No Gazettefan, my post was not directed at you. That would be yet another useless waste of time trying to reason with the unreasonable.

However, since I have time and lots of reason to spare, even if you're not receptive to it, I'll foray into yet another round of casting my pearls before uh, I was going to say, uh, never mind.

Gazettefan wrote "As for God's "existence", you left out that there's never been any direct or indirect evidence of any supernatural event." That's your stubborn contention Gazettefan, not fact. There have been lots of supernatural events, just none that you will recognize.

Gazettefan wrote “Someone does something horrible to you and your family then some guy in a loin cloth comes along and without consulting you or any of your family members forgives the wrongdoer. That's okay with you? What's wrong with you?! Where is forgiveness in "an eye for an eye"? Read your bible.” Again, the issue is sovereignty and your rejection of it. Here’s a passage from Matt.25 verse 40 that you’ll find hard to accept. It says ”And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” The King in this case is Christ the Lord. Here he applies His sovereignty to crediting both good and evil actions toward others as if they were directed towards Him personally and with it, the right to forgive or repay in kind. That’s what sovereignty is, and one of the reasons you detest it so.

So what do you say Gazettefan? Theoretically, if you are face to face with the fact of the existence of God, can you “bend the knee”? I have no doubt of the answer to that, at least at this time.

i knew you wouldnt step out of yourself enough to try a new perspective. let me ask you a few questions and i seriously would like your opinion. if God is as you say, then we can mutually agree that He put the plant here yes?? why would he put it here, if not for animals to consume?? and do you think god would judge me by the laws as they are currently, laws man created, or as the laws were when He created the plant??

billnewbie, are you admitting that you never heard or saw god? We're making progress here:

You can't reference the bible to discuss your beliefs and you apparently haven't seen or heard god.

Fool_on_the_Hill, yes. But I have no doubt that the God of the bible is God so I have no need to seriously consider any other alternatives. So, would you "bend a knee", regardless of God's real identity, even though you believe there will never be a need to seriously consider any other alternatives?

Hey Kid, my question was strictly rhetorical. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God because science is basically the accumulation of the observances of humanity in nature. God, being supernatural, is beyond direct observation unless he reveals himself, such as those times that the bible records.

By the way, Kid, if you live a perfectly righteous life you have nothing to account for with God. But since we know that you are morally relativistic, particularly when it comes to obeying the laws you don't like, that will never apply to you, since God rejects excuses.

billnewbie, was that post directed at me, I guess it was. Well, when it comes to failing to address issues, what could you possibly be hiding that would cause you to dress yourself up in such folderol?! (justme46, you can read this too.)

As for god's "existence", you left out that there's never been any direct or indirect evidence of any supernatural event.

Re: forgiveness. I am a forgiving person but it's not up to me to forgive someone who does something horrible to someone else. Your screwy christian belief about forgiveness amounts to this:

Someone does something horrible to you and your family then some guy in a loin cloth comes along and without consulting you or any of your family members forgives the wrongdoer. That's okay with you? What's wrong with you?! Where is forgiveness in "an eye for an eye"? Read your bible.

And when it comes to what I'd do if god appeared, recall, billnewbie, it is you and your ilk who can't factor new evidence into your weird belief system. Proof of the non existence of god abounds, yet you can't make the adjustment. Very sad.

Well, christforlife, looks like billnewbie wants you to do his dirty work. Good luck. And don't forget to bring up that Commandment to your "mens club." "mens club"?!!!

In closing, christianity is a book-based religion. How embarrassing it must be to not be able to defend your beliefs by discussing the book that those beliefs are based on.

or better yet, and probably scarier for you mr newbie, if science proved beyond a doubt that indeed no god existed...where would you find your moral compass??

Hey Bill, if the existence of one of the myriad other unsubstantiated supernatural entities were scientifically proven beyond doubt, would YOU submit to HIS or HER authority?

christforlife, please explain this Commandment from your "side of the cross":

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

And then tell us all what "fleshly" pleasures have you given up?

christforlife: if i live a good, righteous life and never acknowledge the existence of god, do you think he will forgive me for not acknowlidging him and allow me into heaven, or must i acknowledge, pray, and pay to him in THIS life for that to happen??

mr newbie: correct me if this assumption is wrong, but when you say that gfan 'objects to is the sovereignty of God, that He has the authority to set the rules (law) and enforce them' you are saying that you believe he does indeed 'set the rules and enforce them'...correct?? and if that is correct could you explain to me His purpose behind a plant that will intoxicate...if not to intoxicate?? if my assumption is wrong please strike the last question from the records...

Don/Other Bashers do you not have a God?
What is it that means more than anything to you?
I would venture it is yourself...
Even evil is seen as good by some.

Why are believers irrational and dangerous? Just wanted to have you explain this to me, gazettefan. I believe in God, I don't preach or bible thump, but I do believe. Does that make me dangerous and irrational? I hope not. JMO

Good grief. Hey, you two lovebirds the honeymoon suite at the Lannon Stone is available.

I'll be back, but in the meantime kindly address this Commandment:

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

Given god's "sovereignty", are you denying the literal meaning of it?

WOW Bill that was great. Thank you so much. I have seen much of Gazettefan's things on here and there is always something in the back of my head telling me that he will not listen anyway, but mabee this one time I can get through to SOMEBODY if not him it is all worth it. Keep up the good fight and God bless.

Christforlife, it isn't just that Gazettefan and those like him don’t want to address their own issues as their reason to reject God (though I agree this is part of it). Ultimately what Gazettefan, particularly, objects to is the sovereignty of God, that He has the authority to set the rules (law) and enforce them. That's why he wrote "Be sure to explain why you would worship a creature like that" on a different discussion where he referenced the same scripture quote, demanding an answer from another Christian. Gazettefan cannot "bend the knee" to God, or even acknowledge Him, because Gazettefan will not recognize His sovereignty.

In Gazettefan's estimation, God would only be a grandfatherly figure, loving and permissive. Since no being that could claim to be God could be such a simplistic being, Gazettefan claims that proves that God does not exist. Since Gazettefan rejects God’s sovereignty, Gazettefan thinks that the scriptures that record God’s wrath are proof that the scriptures are false and so is God. It’s a superficial argument, even simplistic, yet very appealing to Gazettefan. So appealing, that spending time explaining his error to Gazettefan is a total waste of time. But Gazettefan’s motives go beyond just hostility to the Almighty God of the bible due to Gazettefan’s unwillingness to humble himself to God.

Gazettefan has an aversion to forgiveness. If you’ve read much of Gazettefan’s rants in the past, you would see that the few times he’s mentioned or discussed forgiveness, it was with distain, and not just on these types of religious discussions either. I saw a terse comment made by Gazettefan in response to someone who urged the family of a crime victim to forgive the criminal. Forgiveness is something Gazettefan may be incapable of as well as incapable of asking for, the very root of his rebellion towards God.

I saw an article some time ago (can’t reference it, so I’ll just paraphrase) that referred to an atheist group that had been surveyed for answers to some questions. One of the questions was something to the effect that if the existence of God were scientifically proven beyond doubt, would you submit to His authority? Unsurprisingly, the majority of the atheists still said that they would refuse to submit to His authority, feeling that God would need to be restrained by their oversight. Gazettefan is one such as these. If God were to appear here before us in person, Gazettefan would want to try Him in court for crimes against humanity.

In short, Christforlife, I have wasted much time discussing God and scripture with Gazettefan. He has no sincere interest in my opinions and I think you will find he has no sincere interest in yours either. But who knows, maybe yours will be the voice of reason that breaks through the cynicism that Gazettefan uses to shield his soul from God.

O.K. Sorry for the delay, I just know you are all waiting on the edge of your seats for a response. I also realize that any response I have Gazettefan will have something else to throw out there. In his mind nobody else can win. I brought this subject up at our mens meeting on Sat. The thing to remember is that Gazettefan is looking at this scripture from the wrong side of the cross. Jesus died for all of our sins. I also think that Gazettefan and others like him don't like to believe because that means they have to deal with things they may not want to deal with in their life. To them it is easier to just say that God doesn't exist than to give up certain fleshly pleasures.
To: thekid
If you knew much about scripture you would know that it is not that easy to just ask for forgivness for certain things and all is well. You have to fully REPENT which means to give up that sin and turn away from it. However God made us and knows that we are human and mess up sometimes so that is where GRACE comes in. This is really a lot deeper than can be explained on here so I recomend a good Bible believing church to learn a little more.

God bless all

christforlike, we non believers challenge believers here because we know that belief is an irrational and dangerous mentality.

I've posted other versus here. But that Commandment is a real doozy. Your belief in christ is based in the bible. That Commandment is from the bible. Please explain and defend it here. Notice that billnewbie and DrTalk can't defend it or explain it. That's why they hightailed it on outta here.

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

Good point, thekid.

i almost wish i was religous...then i would only have to do the right thing part of the time and would be forgiven by simply asking for it. not a bad system...

Sorry I spoke before I looked it up. Exodus 20:5. I can't explain it right now but I will soon. I just wonder why this is the only verse you always bring up to bash christians.

Gazettefan do you by chance have the book and verse that is from?

billnewbie, your pretension toward sesquipedalianism is duly noted. So is your proclivity for talking off the point with low-brow insults.

Now kindly explain the Commandment below:

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

"I don't think Don_Diego was doing something positive by trolling." Have to agree with you there Janesvillean, but Gazettefan's comments make Don_Diego's trolling look like the efforts of a neophyte.

Furthermore, DrTalk, it is you and the people who share your beliefs who claim those beliefs cannot be questioned.

billnewbie, respect for YOUR particular beliefs would have prevented all the things that improved the quality of human life in the past 4000 years.

DrTalk, have another look at your syllogism. Your conclusion does not logically follow from your premises.

I don't think Don_Diego was doing something positive by trolling.

"i am so thankful that I do not need a god or ridiculous dogma to do positive things for my fellow man." Yes, like show positive respect for your fellow man's beliefs and feelings, I suppose.

I personaly do not participate in Lent. I am a christian (non-denominational). If you feel that you need to participate in lent, that is between you and God. That being said, people need to look at it and do it for the right reasons instead of just doing it because they were taught that their whole life and don't really know why they do it. As it is stated in the article praying is involved among other things to get yourself back on track in your relationship with God. I personally do not think that there should be set dates for fasting something in your life (this does not mean just food) to do that either (the dates between Ash Wednesday and Easter). I think that if you feel that something in your life is not in line with your relationship with God you should pray and if you feel it is necessary fast also. Anytime not just on the dates set by the calender. As far as fasting goes, I think that if something is getting in your way to have a real relationship with God (computer,television, etc. etc.) you need to stop that behavior (fast from it) for a while and get right with your relationship with God.

Just my Opinion.

To each his own....God Bless.

Just to clarify, Don_Diego's syllogism looks like this:

Premise: I don't need a god to do positive things for my fellow man.
Premise: I don't need ridiculous dogma to do positive things for my fellow man.
Conclusion: No one can question why I do positive things for my fellow man.

Let the debate begin.

i am so thankful that I do not need a god or ridiculous dogma to do positive things for my fellow man. Now no one can question why I do them.