Religion. The Last Debate

[Berthenk]

He changed. When Jesus died on the cross, he forgave our sins and showed God that he had to be all-forgiving and compassionate. He was hateful before, but Jesus died for US.

Yeah yeah, he died for us. Who the fuck would give up his own son because others are sinning?
Also, did he learn from his dying son? No! No single fuck was given by the one whose fucking son sacrificed himself because his father made
people sin. If he really cares about us, he didn't let his own son die.

 

[TrolleyDave]

@TD- No.

So then the God portrayed in the Torah/Bible/Qu'ran couldn't exist. He couldn't be both all-forgiving and compassionate as well as hateful.

He changed. When Jesus died on the cross, he forgave our sins and showed God that he had to be all-forgiving and compassionate. He was hateful before, but Jesus died for US.

but you just said there's no such thing as "innocents", and that we are all tarnished with original sin. Plus, it brings me back to the point. In the Old Testament he is described as being both all-forgiving, compassionate and hateful. Therefore he couldn't have existed in that form. Therefore the "rewrite" in the Old Testament (which is still full of hate) is based off something that didn't exist in the first place.

And are you saying that Jesus was smarter than God? God who is supposed to be all-knowing? If Jesus had to show God he had to be all-forgiving then God obviously wasn't all-knowing.

 

[Deleted User]

artin]

He was hateful before, but Jesus died for US.

Ok, I'm personally Christian and everything, I don't keep up with the Bible word for word or anything like that, but that line is just wrong.

Aii, that's not what I meant to say. He wasn't hateful. He just was...stricter.

Anyway- @Chaz
Rather than use physical evidence to show that the Bible is most probably true, we again go back to intellectual evidence, and logical proof, to show that the Bible is necessarily true. We can know that the Bible is true because it claims to be true and proves it by the impossibility of the contrary! It is only because the Bible is true that we have justification for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws. It is only by God's revealing Himself to us through His word that we have grounds for rational thought. We use rational thought, therefore we can know that the Bible is true. Attempting to use logic to try to disprove the only possible source for logic would be self-refuting.

 

[Deleted User]

@TD- No.

So then the God portrayed in the Torah/Bible/Qu'ran couldn't exist. He couldn't be both all-forgiving and compassionate as well as hateful.

He changed. When Jesus died on the cross, he forgave our sins and showed God that he had to be all-forgiving and compassionate. He was hateful before, but Jesus died for US.

but you just said there's no such thing as "innocents", and that we are all tarnished with original sin. Plus, it brings me back to the point. In the Old Testament he is described as being both all-forgiving, compassionate and hateful. Therefore he couldn't have existed in that form. Therefore the "rewrite" in the Old Testament (which is still full of hate) is based off something that didn't exist in the first place.

And are you saying that Jesus was smarter than God? God who is supposed to be all-knowing? If Jesus had to show God he had to be all-forgiving then God obviously wasn't all-knowing.

Jesus IS God.

 

[TrolleyDave]

Aii, that's not what I meant to say. He wasn't hateful. He just was...stricter.

But blaming someone for something someone else did is hateful. Would it be OK for me to say that all Muslims are terrorists because 0,0001% of them are?

QUOTE(jet™ @ Sep 11 2010, 09:33 PM) Jesus IS God.

You do know that that's considered blasphemy don't you? And also. does that mean God committed suicide?

 

[Law]

artin]

He was hateful before, but Jesus died for US.

Ok, I'm personally Christian and everything, I don't keep up with the Bible word for word or anything like that, but that line is just wrong.

Aii, that's not what I meant to say. He wasn't hateful. He just was...stricter.

Anyway- @Chaz
Rather than use physical evidence to show that the Bible is most probably true, we again go back to intellectual evidence, and logical proof, to show that the Bible is necessarily true. We can know that the Bible is true because it claims to be true and proves it by the impossibility of the contrary! It is only because the Bible is true that we have justification for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws. It is only by God's revealing Himself to us through His word that we have grounds for rational thought. We use rational thought, therefore we can know that the Bible is true. Attempting to use logic to try to disprove the only possible source for logic would be self-refuting.

I'm claiming that clouds are made of candyfloss.

the contrary is impossible because HAVE YOU EVER JUMPED HIGH ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO GRAB A PIECE OF CLOUD? I DON'T THINK SO


edit: speaking of rational thought: I bet all of those christians were thinking rationally when they decided to outright slaughter thousands of scientists during the dark ages.

Thanks for setting scientific discovery back 1000 years.

 

[Deleted User]

Aii, that's not what I meant to say. He wasn't hateful. He just was...stricter.

But blaming someone for something someone else did is hateful. Would it be OK for me to say that all Muslims are terrorists because 0,0001% of them are?

He never blamed anyone for anything else. And no, muslims are not terrorists.

 

[Berthenk]

Rather than use physical evidence to show that the Bible is most probably true, we again go back to intellectual evidence, and logical proof, to show that the Bible is necessarily true. We can know that the Bible is true because it claims to be true and proves it by the impossibility of the contrary! It is only because the Bible is true that we have justification for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws. It is only by God's revealing Himself to us through His word that we have grounds for rational thought. We use rational thought, therefore we can know that the Bible is true. Attempting to use logic to try to disprove the only possible source for logic would be self-refuting.

Oh wait. So, he gave us the possibility to use rational thoughts to disprove his existence?

 

[RoMee]

no one has yet to prove god is real...so as of now he's as real as Zeus

 

[TrolleyDave]

Aii, that's not what I meant to say. He wasn't hateful. He just was...stricter.

But blaming someone for something someone else did is hateful. Would it be OK for me to say that all Muslims are terrorists because 0,0001% of them are?

He never blamed anyone for anything else. And no, muslims are not terrorists.

But he did. He painted us all with "original sin". We were blamed for something that Adam and Eve did.

 

[Depravo]

Aii, that's not what I meant to say. He wasn't hateful. He just was...stricter.

But blaming someone for something someone else did is hateful. Would it be OK for me to say that all Muslims are terrorists because 0,0001% of them are?

He never blamed anyone for anything else. And no, muslims are not terrorists.

But he did. He painted us all with "original sin". We were blamed for something that Adam and Eve did.

The moral of the story - never trust a woman.

 

[_Chaz_]

Anyway- @Chaz
Rather than use physical evidence to show that the Bible is most probably true, we again go back to intellectual evidence, and logical proof, to show that the Bible is necessarily true. We can know that the Bible is true because it claims to be true and proves it by the impossibility of the contrary! It is only because the Bible is true that we have justification for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws. It is only by God's revealing Himself to us through His word that we have grounds for rational thought. We use rational thought, therefore we can know that the Bible is true. Attempting to use logic to try to disprove the only possible source for logic would be self-refuting.

Intellectual and logical evidence should be the LAST thing you go to when trying to support the Bible.

Your argument thus far has consisted of nothing more than the 1500 year old quotes from a story book that written by extremely biased people with no sense of logic. The fact that you turned to logic to explain the Bible just proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Seeing as how you've now shot down your own argument, I think that you lose the debate.


EDIT:

I just read past the first line of this and all that I care to say is:

Shut the fuck up.
None of what you just said made any sense and it just made you look like an oblivious jack-ass.

 

[BlueStar]

The God of the Old Testament was a genuine dick, an absolute petty, childish, spiteful monster of a deity. Believing he's 'changed' to become the happy fuzzy hippy loving God of the New Testament is like the woman who goes back to an abusive husband believing he's changed and really loves her.

 

[tinymonkeyt]

No offense, but I don't really see the point of this because no one is going to change his or her opinion because of this debate. And there's not going to be a "winner." And right now, it just seems like the 'temp vs. jet.

 

[DarkLG]

Can we get a mod to close this. This was a really bad idea for a poll.

 

[[M]artin]

Aii, that's not what I meant to say. He wasn't hateful. He just was...stricter.

But blaming someone for something someone else did is hateful. Would it be OK for me to say that all Muslims are terrorists because 0,0001% of them are?

He never blamed anyone for anything else. And no, muslims are not terrorists.

But he did. He painted us all with "original sin". We were blamed for something that Adam and Eve did.

From what the Bible says, it's not so much a "blaming" as much as it is an "inheritance".

Every single human being after Adam and Eve were born into the world with sin. This is due to the sin that our very first ancestors committed. God said, "Hey, don't touch that or you're out". They touched it, so God said GTFObanned. Also every human born from here on will be registered with a 90% warn level from their first post.

So now all of us are 90% warned by God. Don't slip up.

 

[Law]

artin]

Aii, that's not what I meant to say. He wasn't hateful. He just was...stricter.

But blaming someone for something someone else did is hateful. Would it be OK for me to say that all Muslims are terrorists because 0,0001% of them are?

He never blamed anyone for anything else. And no, muslims are not terrorists.

But he did. He painted us all with "original sin". We were blamed for something that Adam and Eve did.

From what the Bible says, it's not so much a "blaming" as much as it is an "inheritance".

Every single human being after Adam and Eve were born into the world with sin. This is due to the sin that our very first ancestors committed. God said, "Hey, don't touch that or you're out". They touched it, so God said GTFObanned. Also every human born from here on will be registered with a 90% warn level from their first post.

So now all of us are 90% warned by God. Don't slip up.

Welp

I probably shouldn't have burnt down that elementary school.

 

[Daizu]

Lol, am I really the only person who picked the "There may or may not be a God. I'm not sure." one? Anyway, once someone gives me significant, solid proof that there is or isn't a God, then I'll make my decision. Really, all I see religion as is interesting mythology stories. And good plot devices.

 

[TrolleyDave]

artin]
From what the Bible says, it's not so much a "blaming" as much as it is an "inheritance".

Every single human being after Adam and Eve were born into the world with sin. This is due to the sin that our very first ancestors committed. God said, "Hey, don't touch that or you're out". They touched it, so God said GTFObanned. Also every human born from here on will be registered with a 90% warn level from their first post.

So now all of us are 90% warned by God. Don't slip up.

But it still goes back to being punished for something someone else did. If we weren't blamed for it, we wouldn't be punished for it. God is prejudicial, therefore can not be all-forgiving or compassionate.

 

[_Chaz_]

artin]
From what the Bible says, it's not so much a "blaming" as much as it is an "inheritance".

Every single human being after Adam and Eve were born into the world with sin. This is due to the sin that our very first ancestors committed. God said, "Hey, don't touch that or you're out". They touched it, so God said GTFObanned. Also every human born from here on will be registered with a 90% warn level from their first post.

So now all of us are 90% warned by God. Don't slip up.

Do you know how much bullshit you just shoveled with that statement?

Blaming a child for something their parents did is no longer blaming?
Please explain in a way that doesn't sound retarded.