jakee

Ah...so the trick is being sorry just before you die, I'll try to remember that. So your logic is that you can trick God? Your logic is that God is so conceited that at the moment of death he goes "Gotcha! You're going to hell!" As if there's any reason that your version of the afterlife is more convincing than the the various beliefs that the other 67% of the world population follow? Exactly. 'Cos if I died and came face to face with god then I'd instantly believe. In which case me and god would be cool and nothing that happened when I was alive would matter either way, right? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Lets be honest - you haven't shown any inclination to clarify your positions so far. But ok then, so the stuff that you've posted means exactly what it says, yeah? So this: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Means that no one who has ever done any of that stuff will get into heaven? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

And so is 'Thou shalt not kill.' In English, without context, its meaning is unarguably clear and definite. But you have explained that in reality it absolutely does not mean that, it says something else entirely because Hebrew words aren't the same as English words. So how am I supposed to know what the snippets of English scripture you posted really mean in Hebrew? How is it possible that they are all I need to explain your position to me? This whole conversation started because you claimed that a clear and unambiguous English scriptural passage didn't say what I thought it said Off the top of my head I don't know. The way you replied to Kallend sounded like you could already think of some. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

That like science we can modify our religious beliefs as we gain a better understanding of the cultural, historical and circumstantial context of biblical times, especially as we gain a better understanding of the original languages used in the text. So how is it possible that I could understand what you were trying to say by looking no further than the snippets of english scripture that you posted? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

The body of the article doesn't support the headline. It says they used Maxwell's equations, not that they defied them. They built on existing work to expand and alter our understanding of the results. Not that it's unheard of for something to be found out to be wrong. When it is found to be so it is replaced with something better. Again, knowledge isn't dogma, there is nothing that cannot be scrutinised. What exactly was your point anyway? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I have lost count of the number of times I have asked you whether there is such a thing as a good deed. I haven't ignored any answer to that question, you have never answered it. When the question is whether god cares what you do, the point of whether it's even possible to do a good thing is key, don't you think? At the moment, it appears that you think that everything we do is bad because we live in a bad world. In which case, again, what does it matter what we do? It's impossible to tell if you have the ability to explain or not when you're actively avoiding even trying to explain. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Cool, so again you guys are saying our actions don't matter since we can never be good anyway. Exactly my point. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

And there are many theories that contradict science as we know it, Examples? We try our best to find out how the universe works. As we develop better sensors, better tests and gather more information then our understanding can be tweaked, developed and added to. It's a living thing, not a static dogma. What do you do with contradictory scripture? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I don't speak Hebrew and I don't know the context of the verses you quoted. According to you, I have no idea what those verses really mean. You didn't misrepresent, you've been quite clear. There is no such thing as a good action that any person can do for another person, the way that human beings treat each other is irrelevant and inter-personal morality is not part of your beliefs. I don't blame you, avoiding the questions must get tiring after a while. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

So show me where you've given any definition of a good deed? I've asked you, directly, several times to give an example of some action that human beings can take that is good and you have refused to answer. The only conclusion available is that you do not believe there is any such thing as a good action, and there is nothing good that one human can do for another. In other words, your religion is completely lacking in morality. You made the blanket statement that any good deed is purely selfish. Hence the posited situation where the person doing good dies in the process, therefore removing any selfish gain from the situation. Were you honest enough to give a direct answer? No, you weren't. Were you honest enough to respond to a posited situation where the person risks dying to do good but survives? No, you weren't. You say I'm ignoring the bad in the situation - I'm not. I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive. A good person can save another from a bad person. The involvement of the bad from one does not negate the good in the actions of the other. On the contrary you are ignoring the good in any situation so you can call it a bad thing. You're saying that any bad thing in any situation means nothing about it can be good. You're also saying the entire world is bad, therefore there can be no such thing as good. It's an amoral and nihilistic view of this reality. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

....we don't know that yet - it was only a few days ago. He may well have infected them with something. Right, and many may die. Maybe next time they will have learned not to kill the white man on impulse, but rather hear him out. Evolution and all that. . . Why do you think they're so stupid they would learn the opposite of the right lesson? (By the way, the fact that you don't seem to care at all about endangering the lives of 150 people for the sake of reading a book at them in a language they don't understand is another example of the amorality of your belief system.) Do you want to have an ideagasm?

What if they find Jesus? What if they find Jesus? What about when they find Jesus? Except for when they find Jesus, right? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Scripture is quite clear that it's not. And you're quite clear that it is. Time and time again you have denied that there is any such thing as 'good' in terms of how people should treat other people. You have refused to recognise any action as a good thing, and you have refused to give any example of what would count as a good deed according to your religion. You've made it quite clear that there is no such thing as good behaviour, and nothing you actually do to other people matters in the slightest. The only thing that you have said is good is believing in god and Jesus. But since that only benefits the believer, not any other person in the world, your description of christianity is both amoral and self-serving. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

And what about his family? Is it good that they have to bury him? Is it good, or somehow even better that his children now have to grow up without a father? His parents are dead, he's not married, and he has no children. What now? Are his instincts to shield another person better than someone's instinct to run? What if he shields the other person and is wounded but they both survive? Or say, jumps in the sea and successfully saves someone's life? Does that make it a good deed, two living people instead of one dead one? Uhh, no I didn't. That's been my entire point this entire time. Everything you're saying just reinforces the point that this is the only thing that matters, and what you actually do and how you treat other people is irrelevant. It's an amoral religion. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

No worries. Factory jobs were already gone. Any that come back will be icing. Aren't you embarrassed? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

And what about his family? Is it good that they have to bury him? Is it good, or somehow even better that his children now have to grow up without a father? His parents are dead, he's not married, and he has no children. What now? Sure. But what is yours? If a doctor doing charitable work in disease stricken parts of the third world isn't good, what is? Does your definition of good exclude any action that tries to mitigate the effects of what you call a 'fallen world'? In that case, again, it sounds like you're saying there is no such thing as a good deed, because there is no such thing as an unfallen world. So, again, what are the good things you're supposed to do to prove that you believe if there's no such thing as doing good? You just said that loving your neighbour like yourself is not good but tragic. You've refused to recognise that any external manifestation of love for another human being is ever worthwhile. If nothing that anyone can do for other people is objectively good, what does god want you to do about loving your neighbour? Your scripture is saying one thing, but your interpretation is simply making it more and more clear that you think god doesn't care what you actually do. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

That's the more important question, IMO. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

And if he had successfully made contact with them, there's a non-negligable chance that he'd have wiped out the majority of the population. Unfortunately, that is quite literally weapons-grade ignorance Do you want to have an ideagasm?

That isn't using it as a slur. I see the move to the political right in parts of Europe as a bad path. But that doesn't mean political right is a slur. Yeah OK, that's fair enough. I don't think the exact word is the problem. Replace it with a different word and you could say "The US is becoming more female and I see that as a bad path" and I'd still have all the same questions for him. 1) What does that mean (in non-restroom related terms)? 2) Why is it bad? 3) How could he not think it would be offensive to anyone? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Dude. Seriously. You said you meant it as a slur. "1. I see the effeminization of the US as a bad path." If you said society was getting shorter and you saw that as a bad thing, short people would probably be pissed off with you. If you said you'd seen a lot of green eyes around and that was a bad thing, people would probably wonder what you had against green eyed people. So society is becoming more like a woman. Ok... now you're really going to have to explain why you don't like beng in a society that is more influenced by women. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

You chose to enter this discussion with an explanation of those stories of misfortune. So what, it's meaningful enough for you to need to rationalise it, but not meaningful enough for you to bother to examine that rationalisation? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

What's the difference between present day people and past people? Is Satan a new invention? So? What stops the same principle from applying? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I'll stand pat on my post. The exploration into hypothetical fantasy is for you to enjoy. I don't think you know what the word 'hypothetical' means... Pope Urban II did exist, and he did say that. The Crusades did happen, and the Inquisition did happen. These real people engaging in these real events either were emmissaries of satan, or were not. There is nothing hypothetical about it. (I'm not even going to touch on the fact that you're accusing someone else of engaging in fantasy after bringing satan and his demons into a serious discussion) Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Well, that's one way to avoid having to examine the fact that you're absolutely wrong on this one. I wouldn't have expected anything different. Have a good night. Ok look, I apologise for calling you an idiot, it wasn't needed. However, you did say something that at face value was quite racist, you did use what you must know were fallacious logical contortions in trying to support what you said, and you did something pretty offensive in describing society as effeminate and therefore bad, and then refused to even attempt to say what you think an effeminate society is, let alone why it's a bad thing. To put it mildly, you're not doing very well right now. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Well, that's one way to avoid having to examine the fact that you're absolutely wrong on this one. Do you want to have an ideagasm?