Quote from: mdgiles on July 03, 2012, 04:02:02 PM
How about because those are the rules we have agreed upon - and incidentally written down.

By this logic, you must support all liberal laws that have been passed, and incidentally written down.

Quote
Okay show us some of these statistics. And the statistics should be of the societal poverty rate dropping due to social welfare, not to the society as a whole becoming more prosperous.

Sweden's poverty rate dropped from 23.7 to 5.8 percent.

Norway's, from 9.2 to 1.7 percent.

Canada's, from 22.5 to 6.5 percent.

Etc etc.

Quote
No it's not. If the Programs don't work why are we bothering with them. You seem to believe that a socially active government is a positive good even when it never accomplishes anything. But that's simply a waste of resources.

And you would be right if these programs didn't accomplish anything.  Given that they demonstrably do, you're the one more concerned with ideology than real results.

Quote
No. Why should I have a claim on someone else. Would you be in favor of a robbery, if those doing the robbery promised to only rob the rich, and not to keep any of it but to distribute it to the poor? If you wouldn't want to have that happen at one level why do you think it's alright when government does the same thing.

Here we go with the conservative rhetoric of characterizing taxes as "robbery" rather than an expected service to society.  Given that you (presumably) support a flat tax, does this imply that you support robbery so long as everyone is robbed?

Mind you, given your worship of the constitution, this concept should not be an issue at all, given that income tax is explicitly allowed.

Quote
And why do you assume that social welfare implies someone else's responsibility?

I do not.

QuoteYOU LIE THROUGH YOUR LEFT WING TEETH. Like most left wingers you can't seem to get it through your head that objections to government programs, isn't the same as the demand to do nothing. If SciFiFan wants to give his very last dollar to charity, that's fine and dandy. It's when SciFiFan demands that the government also empty my wallet that i - and others - get more than a little perturbed.

As the numbers indicate, voluntary charity alone simply isn't effective enough to be entrusted in combating poverty.

Furthermore, your rhetoric effectively describes what taxes of all types are, and if you support taxes in the slightest, you're being an amazingly oblivious hypocrite.

Quote
And none of you Libtards have?

To a smaller degree.  It's not my concern that you see everything in black and white.

QuoteCome on, the right supports the WOD because they believe drugs are bad.

If this were for a rational concern of public safety, they would support mandatory welfare and restrictions of firearm possession.  Given that they oppose both, the "belief" in drugs being bad is based more on moral traditionalism and the irrational characterization of certain activities as being "vices" than anything understandable - or secular.

Quote
The left supports the WOD because it gives them power -

Which explains why the left opposes the patriot act.

Quote
At first. I had high hopes when I saw the Taliban heading for the hills in Afghanistan and those first elections in Iraq.

So now you admit that you support mandatory taxation ("robbery"), so long as it is for your own pet projects, against tangible enemies rather than intangible, yet significantly more dangerous, issues here at home.

Quote
But now? Now I just want us out of the Middle East. I'm sort of tired of seeing American kids being killed in order to save those people from the 8th century.

Interesting fact: the far left warned you that going to war would be disastrous, and you didn't listen.

Quote
We gave it a good try, but as events like "Arab Spring" have shown, these people are incapable of free democracy.

Sounds suspiciously familiar.

QuoteI want the US to tap into it's own huge oil and gas resources, and leave those barbarians to themselves. Indeed if I had my druthers, I'd deport every Muslim back to their country of origin on the truth that their beliefs are totally incompatible with free Western enlightenment values.

Fuck you.  You admitted earlier that you're a misogynist who opposes universal female suffrage; now, you've established yourself as a fanatical bigot as well.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 14, 2012, 08:37:21 AM
By this logic, you must support all liberal laws that have been passed, and incidentally written down.

By your logic you must support Hitler's Nuremberg Race Laws, since they mimicked the the eugenics laws of early 20th century PROGRESSIVES.

QuoteSweden's poverty rate dropped from 23.7 to 5.8 percent.

Norway's, from 9.2 to 1.7 percent.

Canada's, from 22.5 to 6.5 percent.

Etc etc.

And you know this because, oh right they said so. An that has absolutely nothing to do with Sweden staying out of World War 2 - and profiting from trading with the Nazis. And Norways discovering and exploiting the North Sea oil and Gas fields has nothing to do with their prosperity. Nor does Canada's have anything to do with those Tar sands that all you eco freaks hate - while being glad to spend the money they bring in/sarc.

QuoteAnd you would be right if these programs didn't accomplish anything.  Given that they demonstrably do, you're the one more concerned with ideology than real results.

And you know it was the programs, and not sudden prosperity brought in by a sudden fortuitous mineral discovery because? You're like those A-holes who swear up and down that the New Deal ended the Depression, when in reality it was the manufacturing boom created by WW2.

QuoteHere we go with the conservative rhetoric of characterizing taxes as "robbery" rather than an expected service to society.  Given that you (presumably) support a flat tax, does this imply that you support robbery so long as everyone is robbed?

No clown boy, a flat tax means that everybody is robbed equally. We understand that taxes are need to pay for public goods, it's just that we conservatives understand that every thing the government does isn't a public good. Roads, and Bridges, and Dams are public goods. The National endowment for the Arts is the Dems payoff to the arts community. I know you're not that smart, so let me give you an analogy for a progressive tax rate. You walk into a convenience store for a can of soda wait make that juice, you nanny staters hate soda. Let's say that it cost you 50 cents - if you have $10 in your pocket, but $7.50 if you have a $100 in your pocket. And if you have $100, you get a smaller can, because the rich use nowhere near the amount of government goods and services as the poor.

QuoteMind you, given your worship of the constitution, this concept should not be an issue at all, given that income tax is explicitly allowed.

Yes, clown boy so was slavery once. We finally figured out that holding other humans as chattel was a bad thing.

QuoteI do not.

Of course you do when you wanted them paid out of everyone's tax dollars or are you too dense to make that connection or are you just lying

QuoteAs the numbers indicate, voluntary charity alone simply isn't effective enough to be entrusted in combating poverty.

Because it's a limited resource voluntary charity has the advantage of targeting those who are actually in need through no fault of their own, government programs have the habit of taking our tax dollars to rescue every moron out their from the rewards of their own stupidity and/or bad decision. If she couldn't keep her legs closed why am I paying for her kids.

QuoteFurthermore, your rhetoric effectively describes what taxes of all types are, and if you support taxes in the slightest, you're being an amazingly oblivious hypocrite.

Supporting a service fee of some kind, paid by those who use the service. Is different from an Inheritance tax, which seeks to steal money from someone who had the misfortune to die, simply because some left wing turd things it's unfair that he's actually leaving the money he's worked for and paid taxes on his entire life to the people he loves.

QuoteTo a smaller degree.  It's not my concern that you see everything in black and white.

I find it fascinating that you break sentence out of context and then reply to them

QuoteIf this were for a rational concern of public safety, they would support mandatory welfare and restrictions of firearm possession.  Given that they oppose both, the "belief" in drugs being bad is based more on moral traditionalism and the irrational characterization of certain activities as being "vices" than anything understandable - or secular.

THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS A SPECIFIC RIGHT WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION.If you don't like it start working on a Constitutional Amendment, don't try and get around that right by purposing any number of UNCONSTITUTIONAL restrictions. Actually I think you Libtoids only want to disarm the public making them totally helpless in the face of government oppression. I'll believe differently when you start wanting to put restrictions on Freedom of the Press or Assembly, for ALL Americans, not just your political enemies.

QuoteWhich explains why the left opposes the patriot act.

The left opposes the Patriot act because the often act in a treasonous manner and are afraid it will be applied to them.

QuoteSo now you admit that you support mandatory taxation ("robbery"), so long as it is for your own pet projects, against tangible enemies rather than intangible, yet significantly more dangerous, issues here at home.

I support reasonable taxation in order to carry out the enumerated powers granted to the government. Not to provide funding for anyone's pet projects. For example, as much as I love my Giants, I didn't want to see the government use tax dollars to build them a stadium. You Libtard problem is you slap the public good label on anything and soon we're paying for everything.

QuoteInteresting fact: the far left warned you that going to war would be disastrous, and you didn't listen.

Is this the same far left that did everything they could - acting as a cheering section for our enemies - selling out secret programs - to see that we lost that war. Which we won in spite of their "advice". The far left were simply a bunch of traitorous children, who wanted to relive their "glory days" of Vietnam. Of course just like Vietnam the would have ignored all the bodies that piled up afterward.

QuoteSounds suspiciously familiar.

Understandable since you Libtoids always root against the United States, then STFU and pretend you were "in favor victory all along" after we win in spite of you.

QuoteFuck you.  You admitted earlier that you're a misogynist who opposes universal female suffrage; now, you've established yourself as a fanatical bigot as well.

And Fuck you right back, clown boy. Your problem is that you can't understand nuance (among other things). Since I oppose ANY kind of universal suffrage I guess I'm not a misogynist and you're just an ignorant asshole. If you were ever stated around here - except to leap in upon occasion and deposit your comments like a stinking pile of mental feces - you know that I've always been in favor of restricting the franchise to taxpayers and veterans. I also been of the opinion that NO ONE drawing a government paycheck should be allowed to vote. As for deporting Muslims back to their land or origin, yes I am a bigot, I really dislike people who want to cut my head off and/or who want to impose a theocratic regime. You see unlike you leftards, I don't believe all cultures are equal. I think Islam is a backward, murder cult. BTW, DON'T EVER FIX YOUR STUPID, IGNORANT, FOUL, LYING MOUTH TO CALL ME A MISOGYNIST, AND THEN IN THE NEXT BREATH TURN AROUND AND DEFEND ISLAM. Either you are ignorant of the way women are treated in Islam, which make s you blindingly ignorant. Or you know and are ignoring or making excuses for them, which pretty much makes you lower than whale shit at ebb tide.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 14, 2012, 11:12:04 AM
By your logic you must support Hitler's Nuremberg Race Laws, since they mimicked the the eugenics laws of early 20th century PROGRESSIVES.

No relevance, whatsoever, to the point.

Quote
And you know this because, oh right they said so. An that has absolutely nothing to do with Sweden staying out of World War 2 - and profiting from trading with the Nazis. And Norways discovering and exploiting the North Sea oil and Gas fields has nothing to do with their prosperity. Nor does Canada's have anything to do with those Tar sands that all you eco freaks hate - while being glad to spend the money they bring in/sarc.

Your rebuttal that the dramatic decreases in poverty upon enactment of social welfare are simply a coincidence and a result of completely unrelated factors would have been acceptable had I provided but one or two examples.  With several examples provided (and many dozens more available) of poverty rates decreasing significantly right after welfare, you just sound silly.

Quote
And you know it was the programs, and not sudden prosperity brought in by a sudden fortuitous mineral discovery because? You're like those A-holes who swear up and down that the New Deal ended the Depression, when in reality it was the manufacturing boom created by WW2.

Because this is not an isolated incident, and too consistent to be coincidental; duh.

Quote
No clown boy, a flat tax means that everybody is robbed equally.

Which, if we use your hilarious word choice of "robbed", is still an evil.  Explain why you support it.

QuoteWe understand that taxes are need to pay for public goods, it's just that we conservatives understand that every thing the government does isn't a public good. Roads, and Bridges, and Dams are public goods. The National endowment for the Arts is the Dems payoff to the arts community.

Because...?  Anyone can use roads, and some may use it more than others.  Anyone can view a public art museum, and some may do so more than others.

QuoteI know you're not that smart, so let me give you an analogy for a progressive tax rate. You walk into a convenience store for a can of soda wait make that juice, you nanny staters hate soda.

I know that you're trying to sound clever, and failing miserably at doing so, but I would like to attempt to explain to you that we "nanny staters" are right; while a soda every once in a while will not kill you, soft drinks are horrible for your health.  I'm sorry, where in this does a joke make?  Maybe you should have thought of something cleverer to mock.

Quote
Let's say that it cost you 50 cents - if you have $10 in your pocket, but $7.50 if you have a $100 in your pocket. And if you have $100, you get a smaller can, because the rich use nowhere near the amount of government goods and services as the poor.

A rather silly analogy, given that taxes are a communal, partially selfless contribution to benefit society as a whole, not just yourself, and cannot be compared to individually buying a private good.

Flat taxes are not fair.  A billionaire can afford to pay a significantly greater portion of his/her salary than a blue collar citizen who makes 30,000 a year.  It's the law of diminishing returns; you don't seriously think losing 15% of your wealth has the same impact on me and you as it would on Rupert Murdoch, do you?

Quote
Yes, clown boy so was slavery once. We finally figured out that holding other humans as chattel was a bad thing.

*clap clap clap*  You're getting to my point.

QuoteOf course you do when you wanted them paid out of everyone's tax dollars or are you too dense to make that connection or are you just lying

Perhaps I misunderstood your statement.  It did not occur to me that you would think that one's responsibility is only to him/her self, and that nobody has a responsibility to their society, or others as a whole.  You know, the reason why ethics exist?

Quote
Because it's a limited resource voluntary charity has the advantage of targeting those who are actually in need through no fault of their own, government programs have the habit of taking our tax dollars to rescue every moron out their from the rewards of their own stupidity and/or bad decision.

The obvious solution here would be to reform the welfare system to discourage laziness or abuse by morons and criminals; but that would require too much work on your part, wouldn't it?

QuoteIf she couldn't keep her legs closed why am I paying for her kids.

It isn't mainly to make her life more comfortable; it's to make her kids' lives more comfortable.  If you loath having to "suffer" for someone else's stupidity, why should a child?

QuoteSupporting a service fee of some kind, paid by those who use the service.

So you do not support compulsory taxes.  Or maybe your prose is just too damn ambiguous to understand.

QuoteIs different from an Inheritance tax, which seeks to steal money from someone who had the misfortune to die, simply because some left wing turd things it's unfair that he's actually leaving the money he's worked for and paid taxes on his entire life to the people he loves. /quote]

No, because large sums of money being sent to Paris Hilton through no work of her own is both horribly inefficient and in contradiction to the "self made man" meritocracy that conservatives purport to support.

Quote
I find it fascinating that you break sentence out of context and then reply to them

No.  It's your ridiculous rebuttal that some liberals support the WoD as well, so it is a wash, regardless of the magnitude of support, as though there cannot possibly be varying levels of consensus between two groups.

Quote
THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS A SPECIFIC RIGHT WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION.If you don't like it start working on a Constitutional Amendment, don't try and get around that right by purposing any number of UNCONSTITUTIONAL restrictions.

The government's power to levy an income tax is also a specific power delegated in the constitution.  If you don't like it, start working on a Constitutional Amendment.

QuoteActually I think you Libtoids only want to disarm the public making them totally helpless in the face of government oppression.

So you support violent resistance of law enforcement.

Or do you simply believe that an armed populace is a sufficient and relevant deterrent against a large and powerful government, while simultaneously wanting to give said government an enormously large military, filled with thousands of tanks and aircraft that civilian firearms will do jack and shit to prevent?

Libertarians can oppose gun control without being enormous hypocrites.  People like you are at a loss.

QuoteI'll believe differently when you start wanting to put restrictions on Freedom of the Press or Assembly, for ALL Americans, not just your political enemies. The left opposes the Patriot act because the often act in a treasonous manner and are afraid it will be applied to them.

The levels of irony here are simply too enormous to dissect in a single response –

The left acts in a "treasonous manner": by 'treasonous' you mean 'opposes the war on terror' and 'supports negotiation with our enemies (Reagan!)', which you brand as "treasonous" because you don't agree with it.

You do this despite the constitution explicitly defining treason solely as levying war against the United States or directly aiding its enemies.

Then, you turn around and accuse the left of censorship.  We do not accuse our enemies of being traitors and "anti-american" whenever they purport a position that contradicts our viewpoint.




Furthermore, polls indicate that 51% of conservatives want Obama's economic policies to fail.  They would rather have the nation suffer and they be right.  Treasonous my ass.

Quote

I support reasonable taxation in order to carry out the enumerated powers granted to the government.

But it's still "robbery"!

QuoteNot to provide funding for anyone's pet projects.

Because obviously, nothing on the conservative agenda smells of a "pet project" to you.

Quote
For example, as much as I love my Giants, I didn't want to see the government use tax dollars to build them a stadium. You Libtard problem is you slap the public good label on anything and soon we're paying for everything.

Why do you think welfare, healthcare and safety regulations compare in importance to a sport?

QuoteIs this the same far left that did everything they could - acting as a cheering section for our enemies - selling out secret programs

*cough cough* Iran *cough cough* Contra

Quote- to see that we lost that war. Which we won in spite of their "advice". The far left were simply a bunch of traitorous children, who wanted to relive their "glory days" of Vietnam.
Of course just like Vietnam the would have ignored all the bodies that piled up afterward.

Nothing you're saying has any relation to the point that the left was right about Iraq.  Now, you're just whining and flinging incoherent insults at us.

QuoteUnderstandable since you Libtoids always root against the United States, then STFU and pretend you were "in favor victory all along" after we win in spite of you.

By your own admission, the war was a mistake.  By your own (implicit) admission, the left was right.  Ergo, had we listened to the anti-war crowd, the US would have been better off; explain to me where here you get the impression that the left's policy were anti-american.

Quote
And Fuck you right back, clown boy. Your problem is that you can't understand nuance (among other things). Since I oppose ANY kind of universal suffrage I guess I'm not a misogynist and you're just an ignorant asshole.

Nope.  You specifically opposed women being given the right to vote, unless if they owned property or served in the military.

QuoteIf you were ever stated around here - except to leap in upon occasion and deposit your comments like a stinking pile of mental feces - you know that I've always been in favor of restricting the franchise to taxpayers and veterans. I also been of the opinion that NO ONE drawing a government paycheck should be allowed to vote.

Firstly, perhaps you should have clarified your point, instead of idiotically narrowing your focus to women alone, in a discussion specifically over women's suffrage.

Now, I know that you aren't a misogynist; you simply threw a red herring to mask a hole in your argument, and then became self righteous when someone assumes that your statement had the slightest relevance to the discussion.

Quote
As for deporting Muslims back to their land or origin, yes I am a bigot, I really dislike people who want to cut my head off and/or who want to impose a theocratic regime. You see unlike you leftards, I don't believe all cultures are equal. I think Islam is a backward, murder cult. BTW, DON'T EVER FIX YOUR STUPID, IGNORANT, FOUL, LYING MOUTH TO CALL ME A MISOGYNIST, AND THEN IN THE NEXT BREATH TURN AROUND AND DEFEND ISLAM. Either you are ignorant of the way women are treated in Islam, which make s you blindingly ignorant. Or you know and are ignoring or making excuses for them, which pretty much makes you lower than whale shit at ebb tide.

1.   You are aware that the only difference between the States and the Islamic middle east is that the latter actually takes their holy text seriously, right?  If the US were christianized, as the religious right wishes, we would be slaughtering our neighbors for working on Sundays and stoning disobedient teenagers to death.  You would be enslaved, as well, given that the bible specifically condones slavery; your notion that the shithole that is the middle east is a result of Islam's own pitfalls is a silly oversimplification.
2.   Plenty of muslims here are law abiding, generous and respectful citizens.  My own friend, who is a muslim, consistently holds the door open for others (including women!) and shares his food with strangers; should he be deported as well?
3.   First amendment, you two faced hypocrite.

Quote1.   You are aware that the only difference between the States and the Islamic middle east is that the latter actually takes their holy text seriously, right?  If the US were christianized, as the religious right wishes, we would be slaughtering our neighbors for working on Sundays and stoning disobedient teenagers to death.  You would be enslaved, as well, given that the bible specifically condones slavery; your notion that the shithole that is the middle east is a result of Islam's own pitfalls is a silly oversimplification.
2.   Plenty of muslims here are law abiding, generous and respectful citizens.  My own friend, who is a muslim, consistently holds the door open for others (including women!) and shares his food with strangers; should he be deported as well?
3.   First amendment, you two faced hypocrite.

1. Shows you don't know shit about Christianity. Like most people who are hostile to Christianity, you attack it for not being modern in its outlook. Are you unaware of Christ's  reply when they wanted to stone the woman for adultery? Actually if you actually read the Old Testament bible, you know that it doesn't condone chattel slavery as it was practiced here and in much of the ancient world. Here is an interesting essay on the subject:http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html   
2. Yes because he is not a pious Muslim. An if he becomes a pious Muslim he becomes a danger. Nidal Hasan was an western educated psychiatrist, until he "got that old time religion", next thing you know he shooting soldiers at Fort Hood. To many Muslims having a religious epiphany means Jihad, and start killing infidels. We have seen it to often in the west. All Muslim hold that the Koran is the actual word of God, given from God directly to Mohammed through the archangel Gabriel. It is not subject to revision or error. and much of it is in direct conflict with our Constitution. In the Koran, all are not equal before the Law for example. Islam is the only religion without some form of the Golden Rule. I respect him enough not to ask him to leave his religion or to ignore it's dictates, therefore I want him out of this country.
3. As for the 1st Amendment, don't sit there and suggest we put restrictions on the 2nd Amendment if your not willing to have restrictions on the others. That is hypocrisy. Incidentally as I noted, don't ever accuse anyone else of being misogynistic, and then defend Islam, because that labels you as either incredibly stupid, ignorant or lying. Go out and find something out about Islam before you make tha charge.

I won't bother replying to the rest of your post because it's the usual mindless Libtard crap. 
Actually SciFiFan I probably shouldn't be so hostile to you; but it isn't the first time I've heard what you think of as great points. Given enough time most Leftist will eventually parrot them. And it simply gets old hearing the same ignorant talking points being endlessly repeated.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 14, 2012, 01:03:55 PM
1. Shows you don't know shit about Christianity.

Interesting fact: studies indicate that atheists are more knowledgeable of bible verses than theists.

QuoteLike most people who are hostile to Christianity, you attack it for not being modern in its outlook.

If it were written or inspired by your omnipotent buddy, it should be the most brilliant document ever written, and completely timeless.

QuoteAre you unaware of Christ's  reply when they wanted to stone the woman for adultery?

Yes.  Yet Jesus quite clearly dodges and evades the fact that the old testament explicitly states that all adulterers should be put to death. 

Please, give me your best justification of why the old testament endorses the killing of any person who works on sundays, and the stoning of disobedient teens. 

Quote
Actually if you actually read the Old Testament bible, you know that it doesn't condone chattel slavery as it was practiced here and in much of the ancient world. Here is an interesting essay on the subject:http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html   

I am well aware of that.  I am under the belief that slavery of any kind, even indentured servitude, is wrong.

I would question why the bible never actively condemns slavery, or endorses human rights.  The ten commandments are hailed as a divine source of moral guidance, but they're really a pile of crap.  The first two are just god being an egoist, and in direct contradiction with our Constitution; the rest are a combination of obvious shit (thou shalt not kill) and persecution of thought crimes (as well as implicit objectification of women). 

Why would a divine moral code not feature condemnation of slavery, endorsement of freedom of conscience and of equality of all races and genders?  We consider ourselves an enlightened society, not because we criminalize murder as the bible does (something many animal herds do), but because we have abolished slavery and granted equal rights to all races and women.  The bible never told us this; we had to go through thousands of years and millions of lives to find it ourselves.

Quote
2. Yes because he is not a pious Muslim. An if he becomes a pious Muslim he becomes a danger.

Now you're getting to my point.  You are not a pious Christian.  The bible tells us to stone our children to death and kill our neighbors for working on a sunday; it also encouraged the Jews to commit mass genocide on women and children simply because they happened to occupy an area that god had chosen for his "chosen people". 

Additionally, god doubtlessly aborted hundreds of thousands of unborn children when he flooded the earth. 

------------

Getting to the new testament, it is about as liberal of a document you will ever encounter; extreme pacifism, the rich giving all their money to the poor, healing the sick for free, endorsing the abandonment of all family values, etc.

Quote
Nidal Hasan was an western educated psychiatrist, until he "got that old time religion", next thing you know he shooting soldiers at Fort Hood. To many Muslims having a religious epiphany means Jihad, and start killing infidels.

Have you forgotten the crusades?  During much of the middle ages, the Islamic empires were significantly more enlightened, liberalized and advanced than their christian neighbors.  It isn't very difficult to conclude from this that a country's development and its religion aren't as closely correlated as you have implied.  If the middle east were inhabited by fanatical Christians, they would be just as fucked up as they are now.

Quote
We have seen it to often in the west. All Muslim hold that the Koran is the actual word of God, given from God directly to Mohammed through the archangel Gabriel. It is not subject to revision or error.

This is the belief of all Christians.  The only difference is that the testaments are written by God's prophets rather than God himself; but the difference is entirely negligible, since no idiot would choose an incompetent scribe to write down his most important work.

Quoteand much of it is in direct conflict with our Constitution.

ROFLAMO.  And so is the bible.  The ten commandments are in direct violation of the 1st amendment (and all human decency).  Slavery (of any kind) is in violation of the 13th.

Quote

3. As for the 1st Amendment, don't sit there and suggest we put restrictions on the 2nd Amendment if your not willing to have restrictions on the others...

Stop changing the subject.  You are the strict constitutionalist here; and yet you are the one endorsing the explicit violation of the first amendment of the Constitution.  Justify this.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 14, 2012, 01:22:25 PM
Interesting fact: studies indicate that atheists are more knowledgeable of bible verses than theists.

And which study is that. Oh right another study by atheists that show they know so much more that believers. Tell me is that anything the studys that Liberals are always putting out showing how much smarter they are than conservatives?

QuoteIf it were written or inspired by your omnipotent buddy, it should be the most brilliant document ever written, and completely timeless.

The bible was inspired by God, but not written by him, with the exception of the Decalogue. That's were the bible differs from the Koran. It's a major difference, it allows for interpretation and correction.

QuoteYes.  Yet Jesus quite clearly dodges and evades the fact that the old testament explicitly states that all adulterers should be put to death.

As I said so many of you wise Atheists know so little. Christ was bringing a New word that's why it's called the New Testament. The New Testament supersedes  the Old Testament. Christians - that's followers of the Christ who appears only in the New Testament should respect the Old Testament, but in any situation where the two conflict  Christians are to follow the New word. You have no  idea how often I've had to explain that. 

QuotePlease, give me your best justification of why the old testament endorses the killing of any person who works on sundays, and the stoning of disobedient teens. 

Got me, I'm a Christian. For explanations of the Old Testament, you should probably find a Jew.

QuoteI am well aware of that.  I am under the belief that slavery of any kind, even indentured servitude, is wrong.

Okay. in the case of indentured servitude, how was someone who had no money supposed to pay for his passage to somewhere else? And in an era before the industrialized era what would you suggest they do with war captives and such? Kill them, after all they were a drain on communities that were barely above subsistence level.

QuoteI would question why the bible never actively condemns slavery, or endorses human rights.  The ten commandments are hailed as a divine source of moral guidance, but they're really a pile of crap.  The first two are just god being an egoist, and in direct contradiction with our Constitution; the rest are a combination of obvious shit (thou shalt not kill) and persecution of thought crimes (as well as implicit objectification of women).

Because it's a 12th century BC document, and it reflects the morality of it's era? because the Hebrews were advised if they wanted the favor of God, they should not attempt worship other Gods, as surrounding tribes did.  I why is it direct contradiction to our Constitution. These rules only apply to Hebrews, and our Constitution protects freedom of religion. As for thou shall not murder - which is the correct translation - tell that to the Romans. To them Death was entertainment. And how about the Early Anglo-Saxons or the Norse. Where the rule was thou shall not murder - unless you paid blood money. And the point is these rules have become so engrained in our socio-political matrix we take them as a given

QuoteWhy would a divine moral code not feature condemnation of slavery, endorsement of freedom of conscience and of equality of all races and genders?  We consider ourselves an enlightened society, not because we criminalize murder as the bible does (something many animal herds do), but because we have abolished slavery and granted equal rights to all races and women.  The bible never told us this; we had to go through thousands of years and millions of lives to find it ourselves.

As I noted above, where do you think these concepts arose from. The abolitionists were Christians who decided that Christianity didn't allow for chattel slavery. Do you have any idea what the Hymn "Amazing Grace" is about. Equality is a fixation of the left, why should it be in any religious tome. Indeed it's a fixation that has far more to do with the sin of envy than anything else.

QuoteNow you're getting to my point.  You are not a pious Christian.  The bible tells us to stone our children to death and kill our neighbors for working on a sunday; it also encouraged the Jews to commit mass genocide on women and children simply because they happened to occupy an area that god had chosen for his "chosen people".

Why do atheist keep going back to the Old Testament, and then asking Christians - people of the New Testament - why this and why that. You're in effect asking them to defend another religion. Incidentally the Canaanites always had the option of simply leaving.  Besides as I noted before, God was the protector of the Hebrews, He was not a universal God, all these other tribes worshiped their own Gods. Their worship of idols was a sin in the eyes of God, explain again why you believe he should protect these sinners?

QuoteAdditionally, god doubtlessly aborted hundreds of thousands of unborn children when he flooded the earth.

His object was to wipe the world clean except for Noah and his family. If you know the story of Noah, he told his neighbors what was coming and what they needed to do, but they were too steeped in evil to listen.

QuoteGetting to the new testament, it is about as liberal of a document you will ever encounter; extreme pacifism, the rich giving all their money to the poor, healing the sick for free, endorsing the abandonment of all family values, etc.

Interesting that you describe Charity as a liberal value. But you note that they gave all THEY owned. They didn't go over to their neighbors house and demand his goods simply because it was in a good cause. And where in the New Testament does it endorse the abandonment of family values? And Christianity only asks that you turn the other cheek, not that you do it until your head was spinning. Because Christian martyrs excepted their fates with grace, doesn't make them Pacifists.

QuoteHave you forgotten the crusades?  During much of the middle ages, the Islamic empires were significantly more enlightened, liberalized and advanced than their christian neighbors.  It isn't very difficult to conclude from this that a country's development and its religion aren't as closely correlated as you have implied.  If the middle east were inhabited by fanatical Christians, they would be just as fucked up as they are now.

Oh BULLSHIT, the Arabs were a bunch of desert barbarians. Most of what is now credited to the Arabs by fools like you was produced by their subject peoples. Christians, Jews, Persians (at first), Indians and Chinese. The Arabs themselves produced little or nothing, just because it was written in Arabic doesn't mean that Arabs did it. Does the fact that medieval treatises were written in Latin, mean they were done by Romans. Muslims believed that all the knowledge they needed was contained within the Koran. And what happened was that when the majority of their subject peoples converted to Islam, any advancement stopped.

QuoteThis is the belief of all Christians.  The only difference is that the testaments are written by God's prophets rather than God himself; but the difference is entirely negligible, since no idiot would choose an incompetent scribe to write down his most important work.

It's a MAJOR difference Judaism and Christianity has always allowed for human error. Since these religious text were inspired by God but not actually written by God, it allows for interpretation and examination, and change. That's important that difference is why Islam is still frozen in the 7th century.

QuoteROFLAMO.  And so is the bible.  The ten commandments are in direct violation of the 1st amendment (and all human decency).  Slavery (of any kind) is in violation of the 13th.

Where are the Ten commandments in violation of the 1st Amendment. The Judeo-Christian rules only apply if you are a Judeo-Christian. It's that simple. Take your chances and ignore them all if you want to. That point about the Bible being written by men and thus being liable to interpretation, just doesn't sink in does it.

QuoteStop changing the subject.  You are the strict constitutionalist here; and yet you are the one endorsing the explicit violation of the first amendment of the Constitution.  Justify this.

WHERE IS THE BIBLE IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT. You say that as if it's self evident. If you're talking about the first two of the 10 commandments, those apply to Jews and Christians. why would a professing Jew or Christian worship any other God than the Almighty.  Does their belief prevent you from going out in the woods and worshiping trees?

I find it interesting that you admit that the bible should be interpreted figuratively, yet insist on a literalistic reading of the constitution, despite the former being (allegedly) divinely inspired, and the latter being written by a collection of three hundred year old slaveowners.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 14, 2012, 03:06:47 PM
The bible was inspired by God, but not written by him, with the exception of the Decalogue. That's were the bible differs from the Koran. It's a major difference, it allows for interpretation and correction.

Said "interpretation and correction" not only spans the entirety of the political spectrum, but has been the source of millions of deaths and three quarters of all wars in human history.  You do realize that any criminal or tyrant, in the history of mankind, could interpret the bible to justify his own actions, and most of them have?  What good is a divine text if any genocidal maniac could "interpret" it to mean whatever he wants, and get people to actually follow him because the text is just too damn ambiguous for anyone to concretely disprove what he says?

Quote
As I said so many of you wise Atheists know so little. Christ was bringing a New word that's why it's called the New Testament. The New Testament supersedes  the Old Testament. Christians - that's followers of the Christ who appears only in the New Testament should respect the Old Testament, but in any situation where the two conflict  Christians are to follow the New word. You have no  idea how often I've had to explain that.  Got me, I'm a Christian. For explanations of the Old Testament, you should probably find a Jew.

Newsflash: the old testament is still a part of the bible.  It is still (supposedly) the word/inspiration of god.  As a Christian, you (presumably) believe this.

Now I know that you will argue that the old testament was inspired by god, not written directly by him, and that it can therefore be subject to human fallibility, blah blah blah.  Your desperate rationalization runs into two major obstacles:

1.   Why would god choose as his scribe someone who would write as divine commandment genocide, infanticide and rape?  Why not write it himself, or at the very least, choose someone who is not a maniac?
2.   Why the intense polarity between the old and new testaments?  God is (supposedly) unchanging and perfect; why would he perform a 180 degree flip on all of his ideology?

Quote
Okay. in the case of indentured servitude, how was someone who had no money supposed to pay for his passage to somewhere else?

Loans.  Perhaps, I would accept indentured servitude if it were heavily regulated, and not the source of such amounts of human suffering.

QuoteAnd in an era before the industrialized era what would you suggest they do with war captives and such? Kill them, after all they were a drain on communities that were barely above subsistence level.

Or, perhaps, follow Jesus's own advice?

Quote
Because it's a 12th century BC document, and it reflects the morality of it's era?

Bravo!  So explain why it is relevant in the slightest.  Explain why we attribute the text to divine inspiration, when by your own admission it is as useless as flat earth cosmology.

Quotebecause the Hebrews were advised if they wanted the favor of God, they should not attempt worship other Gods, as surrounding tribes did.  I why is it direct contradiction to our Constitution. These rules only apply to Hebrews, and our Constitution protects freedom of religion.

"Hebrew" is a race.  Ergo, God is racist, and clearly believes that freedom of conscience is an entitlement to a select few.  God is also more concerned with having everyone worship him and himself alone, rather than endorsing human rights and emancipation.

QuoteAs for thou shall not murder - which is the correct translation - tell that to the Romans. To them Death was entertainment. And how about the Early Anglo-Saxons or the Norse. Where the rule was thou shall not murder - unless you paid blood money. And the point is these rules have become so engrained in our socio-political matrix we take them as a given

The Romans would not see the arena fights as murder, but righteous punishment.  Just like the Christian crusaders, who slaughtered women and children during the crusades, even fellow catholics.

My point was that any functioning society, even many primates, understand that murder is wrong; it is something engrained in our consciousness, and hardly a divine inspiration.  What would have been helpful would be human rights and emancipation, yet God was apparently behind Abraham Lincoln.

Quote
As I noted above, where do you think these concepts arose from. The abolitionists were Christians who decided that Christianity didn't allow for chattel slavery. Do you have any idea what the Hymn "Amazing Grace" is about.

And slaveowners were religious as well; see what I mean when I point out that the bible is such an ambiguous pile of crap, anyone, from the noblest of saints to the most vile murderers, can interpret it to fit their own viewpoint without being mentally deluded? 

Quote
Equality is a fixation of the left, why should it be in any religious tome. Indeed it's a fixation that has far more to do with the sin of envy than anything else.

I mean equality as in everyone being created equal; God, however, has a "chosen people" that are commanded to slaughter the women and children of tribes for no reason other than inhabiting their "chosen land".

Quote
Why do atheist keep going back to the Old Testament, and then asking Christians - people of the New Testament - why this and why that.

Don't dance around the issue; the bible includes both the old and the new testament.

And this isn't to say that there is not some crazy shit in the new testament.

QuoteYou're in effect asking them to defend another religion. Incidentally the Canaanites always had the option of simply leaving.  Besides as I noted before, God was the protector of the Hebrews, He was not a universal God,

Why not?  Why did he only reveal himself to the Hebrews?  I thought God loved all of us.

Quoteall these other tribes worshiped their own Gods. Their worship of idols was a sin in the eyes of God,

Yet God said nothing on slavery, or rape, or genocide.  He clearly has serious self esteem issues.

Quoteexplain again why you believe he should protect these sinners?

Shit logic.  God could not possibly hide from the rest of mankind and expect them to somehow know that worshipping idols was a sin.  Furthermore, doing so really is a victimless crime (unless if you use it to justify evil), that God appears to hate simply because he's a dick.

Quote
His object was to wipe the world clean except for Noah and his family. If you know the story of Noah, he told his neighbors what was coming and what they needed to do, but they were too steeped in evil to listen.

We can get into the bullshit surrounding that story later, but I will point out that God still aborted babies, hundreds of thousands at that, simply because their parents were evil.  This must mean that it is OK for evil liberals to abort, because they're evil, right?  I love religious logic.

Quote
Interesting that you describe Charity as a liberal value. But you note that they gave all THEY owned. They didn't go over to their neighbors house and demand his goods simply because it was in a good cause.

Jesus never said it was voluntary; he makes it quite clear that you can enter the kingdom of heaven only if you give your wealth to the poor, and otherwise, you will burn forever in hell.  That sounds like an extreme example of the tax collectors putting you in prison for evasion.

Quote
And where in the New Testament does it endorse the abandonment of family values?

Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.
(Luke 14:25-27 ESV)

QuoteAnd Christianity only asks that you turn the other cheek, not that you do it until your head was spinning.

Do you turn the other cheek?  If I came to your house and slapped you across your cheek, would you turn the other one?

QuoteOh BULLSHIT, the Arabs were a bunch of desert barbarians. Most of what is now credited to the Arabs by fools like you was produced by their subject peoples.  Christians, Jews, Persians (at first), Indians and Chinese. The Arabs themselves produced little or nothing, just because it was written in Arabic doesn't mean that Arabs did it. Does the fact that medieval treatises were written in Latin, mean they were done by Romans. Muslims believed that all the knowledge they needed was contained within the Koran. And what happened was that when the majority of their subject peoples converted to Islam, any advancement stopped.

Uh huh.  And explain to me why these Christians who allegedly did all the mental work were allowed to exist within the Islamic empires, whereas in western Europe, even suspected muslims were brutally tortured and burned.  The fact is that the arab "barbarians" were significantly more religiously tolerant than their neighbors, and wealthier as well.  Today, the tables are turned; yet the inconsistency clearly indicates a lack of correlation.  Too bad for you, it would be so convenient to polarize the world in "Christians = good" and "everyone else = evil", wouldn't it?  Divide and conquer.

Quote
It's a MAJOR difference Judaism and Christianity has always allowed for human error.

ROFLAMO!  You crack me up.  Biblical flexibility is a recent concept, spurred by the growing force of liberal modernists and new scientific discoveries.  Prior to very recently, you would be tortured and burned alive for even whispering half of what you believe.  Christianity is no better than Islam, and its track record is just as terrible.

Quote
Since these religious text were inspired by God but not actually written by God, it allows for interpretation and examination, and change.

If by "interpretation" you mean "anything the fuck you find convenient, from world peace to the holocaust", then sure.  If by "change" you mean "a 180 degree flip in which every verse in the bible has precisely the opposite meaning of what we interpreted 2 centuries prior", then sure.

Quote
That's important that difference is why Islam is still frozen in the 7th century.

Ahem.  So are plenty of the religious right.  They're called "fundamentalists", and they form a significant backbone of your republitard, lying, sneering ass scum politicians.

And I find it interesting that you show no suspicion towards Romney being a mormon.

Quote
Where are the Ten commandments in violation of the 1st Amendment. The Judeo-Christian rules only apply if you are a Judeo-Christian. It's that simple. Take your chances and ignore them all if you want to. That point about the Bible being written by men and thus being liable to interpretation, just doesn't sink in does it. WHERE IS THE BIBLE IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT. You say that as if it's self evident. If you're talking about the first two of the 10 commandments, those apply to Jews and Christians. why would a professing Jew or Christian worship any other God than the Almighty.  Does their belief prevent you from going out in the woods and worshiping trees?

This hasn't the slightest relation to what I was saying, and you know it.  You claim to follow the Constitution.  The first amendment to the Constitution explicitly forbids the infringement on the right to religion; yet you endorse the forced conversion or deportation of all muslims on the basis of their religious faith.  Your hypocrisy is impossible to defend, so please, don't bother.

Additionally, I would challenge you to explain why, if half of what is said in the old testament can be dismissed on the basis of being written by fallible humans, you take the resurrection as literal and the word of god. 

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 14, 2012, 06:53:08 PM
I find it interesting that you admit that the bible should be interpreted figuratively, yet insist on a literalistic reading of the constitution, despite the former being (allegedly) divinely inspired, and the latter being written by a collection of three hundred year old slaveowners.

And I said the bible should be interpreted figuratively where exactly? Oh, and which Bible? As I said you atheist are simply uninformed. Anyone could tell that their are a NUMBER of DIFFERENT bibles depending upon which Christian belief system you adhere to. For example the Church uses the Vulgate version which is a 4th century Latin translation. The King James Version, is an 17th century English translation using original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic sources, translated by scholars of that period. The old joke is that the King James Version and the US Constitution are the only great literature ever written by a committee,

QuoteSaid "interpretation and correction" not only spans the entirety of the political spectrum, but has been the source of millions of deaths and three quarters of all wars in human history.  You do realize that any criminal or tyrant, in the history of mankind, could interpret the bible to justify his own actions, and most of them have?  What good is a divine text if any genocidal maniac could "interpret" it to mean whatever he wants, and get people to actually follow him because the text is just too damn ambiguous for anyone to concretely disprove what he says?

Are you claiming that the Peloponnensian War was due to the Bible? How about the Wars of imperial China? India. The dynastic wars of Inca Peru. Wars between the Mayan city states? Dtnastic wars between the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphate? You know so little about history that it's embarassing. If yo want tyrants I suggest you check out your statist, officially atheistic states like the Soviet Union or Red China.
Go here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism   
The Black Book of Communism - an officially atheistic society - is a good start.

QuoteNewsflash: the old testament is still a part of the bible.  It is still (supposedly) the word/inspiration of god.  As a Christian, you (presumably) believe this.

Son, I'm a Christian. I'll admit not a very good Christian - As such I'm a follower of Christ - you know (or perhaps you don't) the New Testament guy. A christian respects the Old Testament because among other things it foretold the coming of Christ. But Christ's word supersedes that of the Old Testament. Without fail, atheists always attack Christians on the basis of the Old Testament.

QuoteNow I know that you will argue that the old testament was inspired by god, not written directly by him, and that it can therefore be subject to human fallibility, blah blah blah.  Your desperate rationalization runs into two major obstacles:

It isn't a "desperate rationalization" but a simple point of theology. Which you seem to know little or nothing about. Why are you atheist always attacking Christianity; but seem to have so little knowledge of what you're criticizing?

Quote1.   Why would god choose as his scribe someone who would write as divine commandment genocide, infanticide and rape?  Why not write it himself, or at the very least, choose someone who is not a maniac?

Because GOD every since we took that bite out of the Fruit, allows us free will and the ability to choose. Humans make mistakes. Humans - except "Scientific Socialists" make no claim to perfection. As for Why the Almighty does these things. I don't know. To refer back to that Old Testament you aethists are so interested i, try Job- 38:4-7

Quote

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

I'll admit to be limited in understanding the mind of an omnipotent, omniscient, immortal being. I'm not as arrogant as your average atheist.

Quote2.   Why the intense polarity between the old and new testaments?  God is (supposedly) unchanging and perfect; why would he perform a 180 degree flip on all of his ideology?

See above. As I said I'm not a atheist. I don't insist that if I can't read the mind of GOD, then he must not exist.  If that doesn't satisfy you take up theology. But there's a reason it's referred to as faith.

QuoteLoans.  Perhaps, I would accept indentured servitude if it were heavily regulated, and not the source of such amounts of human suffering.

Obviously you know nothing about the conditions of 17th century England or 19th century India. Who was supposed to lend money to a common peasant or workman. What peasant or workman would borrow money in a society where you could be imprisoned for Debt or vagrancy?

QuoteOr, perhaps, follow Jesus's own advice?

Sigh there you go again, in one sentence asking about the Old Testament and in the next breath conflating it with the New Testament. Look it's obvious that you know little or nothing about the religions you're attacking. So I think I'll just stop. You just continue to believe what you want to. I can help you with your ignorance, but I can't fix stupid. Especially stupid that takes as a given, every left wing distortion that has come down the pike.

Mdgiles, perhaps the most hilarious blooper in your debating history has to be your continuing inability to explain why you just supported the forced conversion or deportation of all muslims, a direct and incontrovertible violation of the 1st amendment.

Convenient of you to cut this out of your reply. 

Quote from: mdgiles on July 15, 2012, 11:35:47 AM
And I said the bible should be interpreted figuratively where exactly?

When you admit that the Old Testament is a 7th century BC text, written by fallible man, that reflects the morals (and presumably scientific knowledge) of its time?

QuoteOh, and which Bible? As I said you atheist are simply uninformed. Anyone could tell that their are a NUMBER of DIFFERENT bibles depending upon which Christian belief system you adhere to. For example the Church uses the Vulgate version which is a 4th century Latin translation. The King James Version, is an 17th century English translation using original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic sources, translated by scholars of that period. The old joke is that the King James Version and the US Constitution are the only great literature ever written by a committee,

Newsflash: according to the old testament, god is the one who made us humans all speak different languages, because he feared us building a tower to reach the heavens (try rationalizing this).

Quote
Are you claiming that the Peloponnensian War was due to the Bible? How about the Wars of imperial China? India. The dynastic wars of Inca Peru. Wars between the Mayan city states? Dtnastic wars between the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphate? You know so little about history that it's embarassing. If yo want tyrants I suggest you check out your statist, officially atheistic states like the Soviet Union or Red China.
Go here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism   
The Black Book of Communism - an officially atheistic society - is a good start.

Shameless deflection: all wars being a result of religion has neither been claimed by myself, nor has any relevance to my point.

QuoteA christian respects the Old Testament because

...of condoned genocide, rape and infanticide?

QuoteBut Christ's word supersedes that of the Old Testament.

First, why would god allow someone to write false commandments in his name?  Second, there is a difference between "supersede" and "state a moral code that is precisely the opposite of everything" in the old testament.

If god's morals are absolute, explain why he performs a 180 degree flip on them.

Also, I find your assertion that Hebrews have no freedom of religion interesting and stupid.

QuoteWithout fail, atheists always attack Christians on the basis of the Old Testament.It isn't a "desperate rationalization" but a simple point of theology. Which you seem to know little or nothing about. Why are you atheist always attacking Christianity; but seem to have so little knowledge of what you're criticizing?

Ask the fundies who would disagree with everything you've just said.  They believe the old and new testaments to be the literal word of god; go suck on that.

Quote
Because GOD every since we took that bite out of the Fruit, allows us free will and the ability to choose. Humans make mistakes.

There is "mistake", and there is "open endorsement of genocide" in god's name, and him going absolutely nothing about it.

At the very least, Jesus could have clarified that the old testament was written on crack; yet he stated explicitly the opposite!

QuoteAs for Why the Almighty does these things. I don't know.

Because he doesn't exist.  It's the only logical explanation.  You believe in your imaginary friend without the slightest shred of evidence.  You believe in him because you want to, and you were raised to do so, not because the facts support it.

QuoteTo refer back to that Old Testament you aethists are so interested i, try Job- 38:4-7 I'll admit to be limited in understanding the mind of an omnipotent, omniscient, immortal being. I'm not as arrogant as your average atheist.

The same logic can be used to defend my assertion that my milk carton is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 15, 2012, 04:34:39 PM
Mdgiles, perhaps the most hilarious blooper in your debating history has to be your continuing inability to explain why you just supported the forced conversion or deportation of all muslims, a direct and incontrovertible violation of the 1st amendment.

Convenient of you to cut this out of your reply.

Just as it's convenient for you to keep ignoring my point that the Koran is a POLITICAL DOCUMENT. It DEMANDS a socio-political system based up their religious beliefs. And we are not talking about the Amish withdrawing from a sinful society. We are talking about remaking society.The First Amendment protects Religious freedom. It does not protect the right of any group to plot against the government of the United States. Like every damn Lib I've every run across because they don't take their religion seriously, they assume that no one else does either. I have no problem believing that a Muslim can be just as pious in his beliefs as a Christian in his, and a Jew in his, as a Buddhist in his, as a Hindu in his, etc. You on the other hand are a bigot, you look down on those brown people with their funny beliefs, and pat yourself on the back for how "tolerant" you are - without ever bothering to learn what exactly those beliefs are. Islam is NOT a religion as we understand religion.  It is NOT just a set of varying moral strictures, sometimes combined with a belief in some transcendental being. The "religion" requires it's followers to install a certain form of government. One based on the lifestyle and beliefs of 7th century desert dwelling barbarians. 

QuoteWhen you admit that the Old Testament is a 7th century BC text, written by fallible man, that reflects the morals (and presumably scientific knowledge) of its time?

Of course, but we no longer AND NEVER HAVE followed that text unerringly. I'm a Christian and can ignore the entire thing. Even Judaism which does follow that text, is Rabbinical Judaism - not temple based Judaism - and has libraries of Talmudic texts interpreting exact what those texts mean. Interpretations that have changed over time.

QuoteNewsflash: according to the old testament, god is the one who made us humans all speak different languages, because he feared us building a tower to reach the heavens (try rationalizing this).

What the fuck is the matter with you? Are you actually so goddam stupid that you don't understand that NO christian has to explain the Old Testament. You ask me whether I believe the Bible was written by fallible human beings setting down the word of God as they understood it - BTW - because obviously you have no familiarity with the Bible - you do realize that much of it is a history text, simply recording historical events - and I say yes, In then two heartbeats later you come back and ask me to literally explain some passage - After I've already said that i believe it's a document written by fallible human beings?   

QuoteShameless deflection: all wars being a result of religion has neither been claimed by myself, nor has any relevance to my point.

Liar. the first words out of your mouth is how religion was responsible for 75% of all wars. Or are you simply so insane you don't remember what you said five seconds ago

Quote...of condoned genocide, rape and infanticide?

I must have missed that passage. Where does the bible condone rape. And I would be very surprised if the Hebrews actually did kill all the woman and children of Jericho. That simply wasn't done. Absorbing women and children was how you increased the size of your tribe. And I would posit that one of the reasons the Hebrews constantly had trouble with the influx of foreign gods, was this absorption process. But that's just my opinion. Hopefully I won't be questioned on it at a "later date".

QuoteFirst, why would god allow someone to write false commandments in his name?  Second, there is a difference between "supersede" and "state a moral code that is precisely the opposite of everything" in the old testament.

Sigh, and you assume that what GOD requires of a former slave people moving into a new land will be exactly what he requires of a settled people who have long lived in the same place? Your attitude is suspiciously like that of a Muslim toward religious text.

QuoteIf god's morals are absolute, explain why he performs a 180 degree flip on them.

So which of his morals did he do the 180. What all you left loons over look was that Gods commands were toward a specific people. they were directed at the Canaanites. Not at all other peoples who were not Hebrews.

QuoteAlso, I find your assertion that Hebrews have no freedom of religion interesting and stupid.

And I fine everything you say not very interesting and often completely stupid, but unlike you I don't try to sidle out of replying. I notice that you use the word Christian pretty loosely. In any case, TO A CHRISTIAN, Christ's words do supersede the Old Testament. I keep telling you this, but without fail you keep referring back to the Old Testament, why is that?

QuoteAsk the fundies who would disagree with everything you've just said.  They believe the old and new testaments to be the literal word of god; go suck on that.

SO THE FUCK WHAT. Why are you having such a difficult time understanding the simple fact that there are innumerable different sects of Christianity. You seem utterly incapable of seeing them as anything other than this monolithic group. Asking a member of one sect to defend the beliefs of another sect - A BELIEF HE DOESN'T NECESSARILY HOLD - is asinine. You don't ask Catholics to defend every belief of Baptists. You don't ask Episcopalians to defend every belief of Pentecostals. You do the same stupid shit over and over again, making it plain you don't have a clue. Simply stupid talking points that you picked up somewhere.

QuoteThere is "mistake", and there is "open endorsement of genocide" in god's name, and him going absolutely nothing about it.

And again you're back in the Old Testament. Is that because you actually don't know anything about Christianity? As for why did he tell them to wipe out Jericho, got me. GOD isn't in the habit of explaining his actions to me. Try praying, maybe you'll have better luck. You see I'm quite willing to admit I don't know the workings of the mind of the Lord. That's why it's called Faith.

QuoteAt the very least, Jesus could have clarified that the old testament was written on crack; yet he stated explicitly the opposite!

HE told us was bringing a new word. For those of us of Faith, that was sufficient.

QuoteBecause he doesn't exist.  It's the only logical explanation.  You believe in your imaginary friend without the slightest shred of evidence.  You believe in him because you want to, and you were raised to do so, not because the facts support it.

Ah, because he didn't explain everything to SciFiFan personally. In a manner in which he could understand, he must not exist. In other words, SciFiFan's world only consists of those things he can actually understand. Anything he can't understand has no reality. Just out of curiosity how would an omnipotent, omniscient, immortal transcendental being go about meeting SciFiFan's requirements? Should GOD email you or what?

QuoteThe same logic can be used to defend my assertion that my milk carton is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

No it can't because your milk carton - like your politics - exist in this world and can be shown to not be what you think it is. So you maintain belief in political system that has been shown to be a repeated failure in this world, whereas I believe in a transcendental being whose existence, I admit, can't be proven but must be accepted on Faith, and I'm the fool?