Why I left Christianity

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 99
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen

Dimtim wrote: 
I am a non-theist and I think the death penalty is appropriate in our day and age.  If we were to put to death all of those who are mass murderers.
TheUnderdog wrote: The issue isn't killing people for being mass murderers.  The issue is killing people for things they aren't responsible for, like when God killed the first born sons of Egypt as a penalty for their fathers enslaving Jews.  If someone commits a mass murder, you don't punish their sons for it legally; you only punish the murderer.

Dimtim wrote: Why not? 

UN-FKN - believable! THIS ^^^^^^^ from the man that doesn't believe in god, that believes the bible should be burned#8 and destroyed #14 and the Christian religion to be the most dangerous in the world#153 and that it  should be stamped out and wiped from the face of the earth.#153 . What a complete and utter fraud, you are Dimtim!

This coming from the biggest fraud on this site.  I don't think I have seen you actually contribute to a topic recently.  Mostly it is just attack other people. 

My question here is legitimate.  I am not agreeing or disagreeing with him. I am asking a question. And that somehow makes me a fraud. I am sure you will elaborate on how my question makes me a fraud.  
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,323
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
My question here is legitimate.  I am not agreeing or disagreeing with him. I am asking a question.

  What you are doing is going against everything that YOU CLAIM to disagree with. You are just far too dense to see YOUR contradiction. 


And that somehow makes me a fraud.


I will spell it out for you shall I? 

(1) Why in the world would YOU of all people even care what anyone believes or thinks about the god of bible, when you don't believe the bible, and wish to see it burned#8 and destroyed #14 ?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<This makes you a fraud.. 


(2)  What difference does it make to someone like YOU that believes the christian religion to be the most dangerous in the world#153 , that someone is looking at the problem through human ("American") eyes and not the gods eyes of the bible? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<This makes you a fraud.. 


(3) What difference does it make to YOU that someone is highlighting the unjustness of a god that YOU do not even believe in and believes that the Christian religion should be "cancelled"?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<This makes you a fraud.. 


 (4)  What difference does it even make to someone so anti religion as YOU claim to be that someone has highlighted the flaw in the Christian belief that we should "love our enemies and our" neighbour, while the god of the bible, that YOU do not believe in and want to see his word burned to a crisp, is murdering millions of innocent children that are not "mass murderers".  ?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<This makes you a fraud.. 



You are protecting this god far too much. You slipped up a long time ago sunshine,  when you " wished that I was more agreeable with the bible"#25  , the bible that  that you don't even believe in and wished to see destroyed by fire. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<This makes you a fraud.. 

I have asked you many times now to explain to me why it is that YOU would "wish"  ME to be more agreeable with the bible that you don't even believe yourself and want to see put to the flames?

Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
My question here is legitimate.  I am not agreeing or disagreeing with him. I am asking a question.

  What you are doing is going against everything that YOU CLAIM to disagree with. You are just far too dense to see YOUR contradiction. 
Asking a question does not make a contradiction? You are the dense one. You are the ones into conspiracies. You are the one who wants to see more in this than is there. 

And that somehow makes me a fraud.


I will spell it out for you shall I? 
Well this will be a delight to read. 


(1) Why in the world would YOU of all people even care what anyone believes or thinks about the god of bible, when you don't believe the bible, and wish to see it burned#8 and destroyed #14 ?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<This makes you a fraud.. 
I explained this already.  Can't you read? My question by the way is not asking what the underdog thinks about god. It is asking about the death penalty. 

(2)  What difference does it make to someone like YOU that believes the christian religion to be the most dangerous in the world#153 , that someone is looking at the problem through human ("American") eyes and not the gods eyes of the bible? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<This makes you a fraud.. 
Boring.  I asked the underdog a question - I asked him nothing about religion or how dangerous it is or is not. 


(3) What difference does it make to YOU that someone is highlighting the unjustness of a god that YOU do not even believe in and believes that the Christian religion should be "cancelled"?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<This makes you a fraud.. 

The underdog made a statement and I asked him a question. You are just unbelievable. 


 (4)  What difference does it even make to someone so anti religion as YOU claim to be that someone has highlighted the flaw in the Christian belief that we should "love our enemies and our" neighbour, while the god of the bible, that YOU do not believe in and want to see his word burned to a crisp, is murdering millions of innocent children that are not "mass murderers".  ?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<This makes you a fraud.. 
Read my words. I asked the underdog a question in relation to his comments. A fair and legitimate question and now I am the one who is a fraud. You are crazy. A person who sees things in the ether. 


You are protecting this god far too much. You slipped up a long time ago sunshine,  when you " wished that I was more agreeable with the bible"#25  , the bible that  that you don't even believe in and wished to see destroyed by fire. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<This makes you a fraud.. 

I have asked you many times now to explain to me why it is that YOU would "wish"  ME to be more agreeable with the bible that you don't even believe yourself and want to see put to the flames?

Slipped up???? What in the world are you talking about? I have no clue.  Most people interpret the bible in a particular way - a way that makes sense.  You come at it with a completely and novel interpretation. Your way actually makes it sound more plausible that god is a good bloke. The way I have been reading it - it is easy to see how awful god is. But you twist it. This is what I have been saying is "more agreeable". With the way that most people read it. You are disagreeable - - in your interpretation. What you say - does not make sense. 


Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
- Denying the Old Testament is an old heresy denounced by early Church Fathers called Marcionism. So you would be deemed an apostate by the Church if you said “The New Testament erases the Old Testament” anyways. 


Because of this, I say good riddance to Christianity.  Unfortunately God still exists, but I need to find a different religion other than Christianity.
- Have you tried Islam? It's exactly what you are looking for. 


The issue isn't killing people for being mass murderers.  The issue is killing people for things they aren't responsible for, like when God killed the first born sons of Egypt as a penalty for their fathers enslaving Jews.  If someone commits a mass murder, you don't punish their sons for it legally; you only punish the murderer.

- Indeed, I agree. "No soul shall bear the burden of another" (Quran 35:18).
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,323
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
You are protecting this god far too much. You slipped up a long time ago sunshine,  when you " wished that I was more agreeable with the bible"#25  , the bible that  that you don't even believe in and wished to see destroyed by fire. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<This makes you a fraud.. 

I have asked you many times now to explain to me why it is that YOU would "wish"  ME to be more agreeable with the bible that you don't even believe yourself and want to see put to the flames?

What in the world are you talking about? I have no clue. 


 That is because you are far too dense.


Most people interpret the bible in a particular way - a way that makes sense

 But not to you by your own account. You see, this ^^^^^  is even  more contradiction from you. You are just far too stupid to realise it. So let me remind you AGAIN of what you feel about the bible:

As for the bible - yes I have read it. Not suggesting i know it well and I don't pretend to understand it. It is quite confusing and to me contradictory.   #186

Do you see that ^^^ dimtim?


You come at it with a completely and novel interpretation.

So? What difference does that make to you  as  someone that doesn't believe in god or the bible, and wishes to see the "Jesus myth cancelled"? #18
What I think, or believe or say about the scriptures should have no effect on YOU at all, but here you are, bitching and "wishing that I were in more agreement with" a book that you don't believe anyway and want to see put to the flames. Or have you also forgotten this;

you present an intriguing thesis. I just wish it would be clearer. . More easily agreeable with the bible." #25 ? 

WHY!!!!???

Your way actually makes it sound more plausible that god is a good bloke.


 Nope. I have said AND SHOWN often that god is a megalomaniac jealous god of war, that will kill men women and children at the drop of a hat, and that regards humans as being disposable at ten a penny.  The story of Job's ten murdered children is a prime example.



The way I have been reading it - it is easy to see how awful god is.

Correct. That is yet another thing that we have an agreement on



But you twist it.

What have I twisted? 


This is what I have been saying is "more agreeable".

STOP TELLING LIES. You have clearly said that YOU "WISH ME" to be more agreeable with the bible.  That was your great big giant balls up that exposed you for the fraud that you are LOOOOOOOK>>

you present an intriguing thesis.    I just wish it would be clearer. More defined. More easily agreeable with the bible." #25 ? 



With the way that most people read it. You are disagreeable

 I am.  So what!? What difference does that make to you, the most anti religious person on the forum IF YOU ARE TO BE BELIEVED!!!?




- - in your interpretation. What you say - does not make sense. 


What doesn't make sense?  You have told us many times that you find the bible "confusing and contradictory" after just one reading. So what fkn difference does any of this make to you? IT SHOULDN'T MAKE ANY, SHOULD IT,  you clown!! But here you are bitching and whining that I am not "more agreeable" with a book that you don't even fkn believe in.  It is this that makes you a big giant fraud and a contradictory hypocrite that started digging your own hole the second that you landed here as a supposed ` new ` member with your new name.




Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
It really surprises me how dense you are. 

Everything you quote of me is correct. I don't resist my words. They all make sense to me. 

Agreeble???????


let me repeat it slowly and let us see if you can figure it out? I don't hold much hope for you. But I can try. 

Most people interpret the bible the same way.  This way people can understand each other and when contradictions arise which they do - then they all sit down together and agree that this is what it is saying - even when it is contradicting itself.  But not you. You take the normal agreeable way a passage reads and you say it says something completely different to what it says.  So when others come along, not only do they disagree with the way you have interpreted it - but your apparent contradictions get thrown out as well.  

If you were more agreeable -  with the way people understand it, then perhaps - your so called contradictions would make better sense. But no, rather than realising you actually interpret it in a way that distorts the language, ordinary and otherwise, you just keep digging your hole - hoping that no one else will see you as the fraud you are. 

For instance - the NT gospels clearly say Jesus died and rose again. This is clearly a nonsense since people don't rise from the dead.  So rather than focusing on the scientific understanding to contradict such a situation, you propose an entirely new narrative. No, he did not rise from the dead, therefore he must not have died. This is not what the passages say.  This is why you are disagreeable with the passage. You want to say he never died. He never rose. And that somehow within the pages of the gospels are a secret hidden meaning which you alone can find. 

The passages clearly say he died and he rose. That is why it is bonkers. That is why the book is nonsense. This is why the book is unreliable. This is why it ought to be burnt because people are being misled by it. But no not the great Stephen who has magical powers of intuition and understanding - who alone in all of the world is able to identify the secret meanings within the text.  You say no - the text is not really saying he died. It just needs to be understood what the entire message is about so that you don't misunderstand.  You are disagreeing with the text. You are disagreeing with the narrative of the text. This is why you are so hopeless. You have no clue. You can't even read. 

I read the narrative as it is written. It is totally full of contradictions and does not make a lot of sense.  Yet what you purport it says makes even less sense. You write your own narrative.  You make it out like it a secret message just waiting to be exposed. Yet the only exposing is your stupidity. 

Agreeable. I have explained before and I have explained again - I still doubt that you will understand - but at least I tried. AGAIN!


Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,323
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
Most people interpret the bible the same way. 

 Nope. One Christian faction will interpret the bible in many different ways. You are just far too stupid to realise this and will say anything that you believe will stop you looking stupid.  So here once again is an example of how wrong you are.

Jehovah's' Witness do not believe that Jesus is god.
Preterist believe the second coming has already happened in the first century.
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was resurrected spiritually from the dead, but not physically.
Catholics and Protestants believe Jesus' resurrection was  physical.
Mormons believe other Christians are apostates and that their churches have little or no authority.

 While the BIBLE ITSELF appears to be saying that Jesus' resurrection was physical AND spiritual!!!!?? NEED I GO ON!!!? 



This way people can understand each other and when contradictions arise which they do - then they all sit down together and agree that this is what it is saying -

 So. What has that go to do with you constantly contradicting YOURSELF!!!?.


even when it is contradicting itself.  But not you.

 Ok. Here you go again. SO let us see some examples of ME contradicting myself!


You take the normal agreeable way a passage reads and you say it says something completely different to what it says. 

Examples please!  And lets not forget that YOU have said yourself that YOU find the bible to be "contradictory and confusing".. 


So when others come along, not only do they disagree with the way you have interpreted it - but your apparent contradictions get thrown out as well.  

Stop being a silly little boy/girl.  I  have said many times that don't care that anyone disagrees with me.  I am not here to beg anyone to believe my theories or opinions or convince anyone of anything. I don't fkn care. And again, what contradiction?

If you were more agreeable -


 Agreeable about what, with what?  I don't agree with the bible as it has come down to us. SO FKN WHAT!!. Why should this bother any one that purports to be as  anti religious as YOU  are pretending to be ? It shouldn't bother the likes of YOU in the slightest. But is all I get from you is more bitching and whining about me not being agreeable.  




For instance - the NT gospels clearly say Jesus died and rose again. This is clearly a nonsense since people don't rise from the dead.  So rather than focusing on the scientific understanding to contradict such a situation, you propose an entirely new narrative.

 So. What's your problem? 



No, he did not rise from the dead, therefore he must not have died.



 I don't know WTF you are talking about. I have always maintained that Jesus survived the cross, you clown. 


This is not what the passages say.  This is why you are disagreeable with the passage.


That's right. I don't believe Jesus died on the cross. So  what!!?. I don't agree and never have done. And you do not believe in the myth of Christ anyway regardless of what the bible says, do you/ >>>> ""Jesus myth cancelled"? #18



You want to say he never died. He never rose. And that somehow within the pages of the gospels are a secret hidden meaning which you alone can find. 


Nope.   I simply do not believe a dead and rotting stinking days old corpse rose from being dead. I believe Jesus survived the cross. And if you have taken the time to read my threads you will see my explanations as to why I believe as such..

And you AGAIN appear to be complaining and bitching about what I believe about a book that you don't believe yourself and  find confusing and contradictory, and wish to see burned on a book fire<<< YOU KEEP FORGETTING THAT DON'T YOU dimtim.


The passages clearly say he died and he rose.


 So.  Do you believe he did?  Well no you don't do you, REGARLESS OF WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS?  and neither do I.


That is why it is bonkers. That is why the book is nonsense.

 And I agree with you. The way the bible is written and has come down to us IS " confusing and contradictory" . I just happen to believe that there is another story below the surface and I don't give two fks what you think or believe. 
And I am baffled as to why you are still whining and bitching and  complaining about what I believe about a book that you wish to see burned on a fire  but yet  want me to "more agreeable " with it. 



This is why the book is unreliable.


 I agree again. I have said so from day one.


This is why it ought to be burnt because people are being misled by it.

 Stupid people are misled by it. 


But no not the great Stephen who has magical powers of intuition and understanding

 I have never been know to say I am correct in my thoughts, theories or opinions about the scripture. 



- who alone in all of the world is able to identify the secret meanings within the text.


 Not really. They are just my thoughts , opinions and theories. I have nothing provable and have never claimed to have.  



You say no - the text is not really saying he died.

 NO. I am saying he didn't die on the cross. "The text"  claims the opposite. 



It just needs to be understood what the entire message is about so that you don't misunderstand

And you are going to provide that understanding are you..Well of course you aren't, you don't believe in the "myth of Christ " do you? 



  You are disagreeing with the text. You are disagreeing with the narrative of the text.


 Correct, as are you. In fact you have dismissed the WHOLE FKN bible and want to see it burned.


This is why you are so hopeless. You have no clue. You can't even read. 

Well that is a silly thing to say isn't it. This is pure desperation from someone that admits to not "understanding" the bible and who  himself "finds it confusing and contradictory". Or have you also forgotten this>>


Timid8967 wrote: As for the bible - yes I have read it. Not suggesting i know it well and I don't pretend to understand it. It is quite confusing and to me contradictory.   #186




I read the narrative as it is written. It is totally full of contradictions and does not make a lot of sense.  Yet what you purport it says makes even less sense.

 Ok. I don't care. and you wouldn't know the fkn difference either way if it jumped up a slapped you stupid, if your anti everything religious opinions and comments are to be taken seriously and are to be believed.



You write your own narrative.


 Example please.


  You make it out like it a secret message just waiting to be exposed. Yet the only exposing is your stupidity. 


 NOPE. I don't think there is any secret messages " hidden " in the scriptures. The only secrecy in the scriptures comes from Jesus saying and doing things in secret and admitting to saying one thing to one group people while keeping things from another group of people. 



Agreeable. I have explained before and I have explained again - I still doubt that you will understand - but at least I tried. AGAIN!


 No!! You have NOT explained your contradictory comment as to why you would want me to be more agreeable with the bible, that is a book that you don't EVEN  believe yourself and wish to see it burned.  SO STOP LYING .

This is what YOU have said to me>..


you present an intriguing thesis.    I just wish it would be clearer. More defined. More easily agreeable with the bible." #25 ? 

WHY!!!? Why do you "wish me to be more agreeable" with something that you do not even believe YOURSELF!!!  you clown. 





Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Most people interpret the bible the same way. 

 Nope. One Christian faction will interpret the bible in many different ways. You are just far too stupid to realise this and will say anything that you believe will stop you looking stupid.  So here once again is an example of how wrong you are.

Jehovah's' Witness do not believe that Jesus is god.
Preterist believe the second coming has already happened in the first century.
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was resurrected spiritually from the dead, but not physically.
Catholics and Protestants believe Jesus' resurrection was  physical.
Mormons believe other Christians are apostates and that their churches have little or no authority.

 While the BIBLE ITSELF appears to be saying that Jesus' resurrection was physical AND spiritual!!!!?? NEED I GO ON!!!? 
But they all understand what the narrative is. They don't change that. Interpretation is completely different to narrative. You actually change the narrative.  

The rest of your email condescends into nothingness.  For example, I say the book clearly says Jesus died and rose.  You then accuse me or not of believing.  I don't have to believe it. That is a totally irrelevant ding dong of a silly thing to say.  I read the Great Gatsby. I understand the narrative and can read a story. I don't have to believe it.  

The gospels of Jesus are clearly presenting a story of Jesus living and dying on a cross and coming back to dead. That is the story. Only a ding dong would think it is not saying that.  Do we have to believe it? Of course not.  But that is the story. Not that he did not die on the cross or that he survived the cross. The story says he died.  You change the narrative.  That is what I mean you are not agreeable. Not that you have to agree with the bible - That is entirely a different conversation. Yet, the story - is he died on a cross and rose from the dead.  Not that he pretended to die on the cross or that there was a conspiracy between him and the Romans - but that he died. And rose again.   

What we do with story is a different thing altogether. but only someone with a different kind of agenda is going to rewrite the narrative. And that Stephen is you. You are not in agreement with the bible - for your own agenda. And that is fine - just admit it and do that. Don't pretend you have the secret magical understanding of what it is saying.  The joke is on you. 


Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,323
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967

[A] Most people interpret the bible the same way. 

 Nope. One Christian faction will interpret the bible in many different ways. You are just far too stupid to realise this and will say anything that you believe will stop you looking stupid.  So here once again is an example of how wrong you are.

Jehovah's' Witness do not believe that Jesus is god.
Preterist believe the second coming has already happened in the first century.
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was resurrected spiritually from the dead, but not physically.
Catholics and Protestants believe Jesus' resurrection was  physical.
Mormons believe other Christians are apostates and that their churches have little or no authority.

 While the BIBLE ITSELF appears to be saying that Jesus' resurrection was physical AND spiritual!!!!?? NEED I GO ON!!!? 
But they all understand what the narrative is. They don't change that.


 Well this is you showing how absolutely dumb you actually are. YOUR OWN quote above at [A] speaks  only of "interpretation" and not narrative ? I believe most people understand the "narrative" it is simply basic school boy basics. 



. You actually change the narrative. 

 NOPE!   I could hardly change what is written in black on white.  


  
  I say the book clearly says Jesus died and rose.  You then accuse me or not of believing. 

 I know what the book/bible clearly states. I just don't believe it and neither do you, do you Princess ? But here you are still, whining and whinging and bitching  and crying that I have somehow "changed the narrative" of  a 2000 + year old story.  The narrative can only change when the words of the ACTUAL  BIBLE change. And I am no position to do that. So stop your bitching and crying . 



I don't have to believe it.

 I know.  No one is forcing you to. Stop talking stupid again.I believe that you are entitled to believe wtf you like. As am I.



That is a totally irrelevant ding dong of a silly thing to say. 


 But I never said that. I have said quite the opposite. I have said that YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THE BIBLE and I know this because you tell us often, don't you? here 

Dimtim wrote:

Timid8967Stephen,  I don't believe the bible. 


I read the Great Gatsby. I understand the narrative and can read a story. I don't have to believe it.  


 And no one says you have to. But the Great Gatsby is not intended as factual;  where as the bullshite in the bible is.  Do you not see the difference between the two  you clown.
 

The gospels of Jesus are clearly presenting a story of Jesus living and dying on a cross and coming back to dead.


 Yes that is the narrative. I know what the narrative is and I do not believe the narrative. So fkn what!


That is the story. Only a ding dong would think it is not saying that.

 I agree. I know what the bible says, I just do not believe it. And neither do you.


  Do we have to believe it? Of course not.


 No one has ever said to me that I have to AND MUST believe the bible. Has some nasty, NASTY person said that you you princess? HAVE THEY?   send them to me , i'll put them right for you , princess. 


But that is the story.

Yes, that is the story that is accepted only by those that CHOOSE TO accept it. I DON'T  and neither do you.



Not that he did not die on the cross or that he survived the cross.

 I have already covered this above. But here you once more.  I know what the bible says. It says that Jesus died on a cross and came back to life after rotting and stinking for three days.   I JUST DON'T BELIVE THAT AND NEITHER DO YOU.


The story says he died.

I DON'T CARE.  I just don't believe it. And neither do you, regardless of what the story in the bible says.



  You change the narrative. 

 I suggest another side to the story,  I can't change the narrative. I am not asking you or anyone to believe it. I don't fkn care what you believe.




That is what I mean you are not agreeable.

 But that doesn't explain WHY YOU "WISH ME TO BE MORE AGREEABLE", with the bible, DOES IT?  You just don't understand what you said when you shot that shite at me. You left yourself wide open to my claim of you being the fraud I believe that you are.


Here you go, try again>>

you present an intriguing thesis.    I just wish it would be clearer. More defined. More easily agreeable with the bible." #25 ? 

WHY!?




What we do with story is a different thing altogether. but only someone with a different kind of agenda is going to rewrite the narrative.


 I keep telling you, I  cannot re-write the fkn narrative.  The words in the bible haven't changed have they? They still remain exactly the same, don't they?



You are not in agreement with the bible -

 That is correct. And neither are you. And for THE LIFE OF ME, I CANNOT SEE WHY YOU WOULD "WISH"  ME TO BE MORE AGREEABLE WITH A BOOK THAT YOU DON'T BELIVE YOURSELF AND SAY THAT SHOULD BE PUT TO THE FLAMES.  #25 ?







Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
You are the one saying the bible is supposed to be factual. And you keep rewriting the narrative because you think it is.  

This is why I think you are a fraud.  You do believe the bible. And you have said as much.  Jesus is the jewish messiah - he is the true king - son of god. 

You take every little bit - like you do with John the Baptist - change the narrative - and the wedding feast and turn it into something you think is true - you fraud. 

So many times you keep tripping over your little messes.

So Mr gnostic. Believer of Thomas - and Mary and the holy grail.  Fraud. 


Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,323
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
You are the one saying the bible is supposed to be factual. And you keep rewriting the narrative because you think it is.


 That's correct. "SUPPOSED TO BE"  but it isn't is it?  It is purported to be  and believed by Christians to be the "gospel truth"  and the "word of god".  But I don't believe that, and neither do you . What is your dumb point.  


This is why I think you are a fraud. 

 Think what you want. It is not me that believes the bible and you do not either, do you, Princess.. You tell us often enough



You do believe the bible.


 Nope. I have said many times I do not.. And you seem to be complaining an awful lot  that I don't  although you do not believe it either. 


And you have said as much. 

Nope. I have said I do not believe the bible in the way it has come down to us and been fed to us over the millennia.  I have also said many many times the I believe that many of the biblical characters may well have existed. I do believe that Jesus believed himself to be  king of the Jews as did a few others in his entourage.

  I believe the bible is all  about a power struggle between the many factions that lived at the time. 

Jesus is the jewish messiah - he is the true king - son of god. 


Jesus may well have believed  himself to be "the true" messiah as did a few others. But if he was, he failed miserably in his mission, and he didn't inherit the throne of David that was promised him, did he?. And all kings of Israel were called "sons of god".. in fact all of the nation of Israel were called the sons of god. THE BIBLE say that Jesus said  “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” and he failed.  And he doesn't mention Christians once, does he. Poor misguided Christians. 



You take every little bit - like you do with John the Baptist - change the narrative -


 How have I changed the biblical narrative, you clown? Millions still believe the bible word for word. The words are still the same. I couldn't change the written bible even if I wanted to. And again,  you are complaining and whining about something that you don't even believe yourself and wished to see put to the flames.. You are a fkn hypocrite too.



and the wedding feast and turn it into something you think is true - you fraud. 


 No. The bible say Jesus turned water into wine. I don't believe that and neither do you. So again, what's your fkn problem?



So many times you keep tripping over your little messes.

 NOPE!  You just wish I did. Just like you "wish" that I "was more agreeable with a bible"  that you don't even believe in yourself.   << what a complete and utter retarded thing of you to say.

You just keep forgetting this don't you princess:


Dimtim wrote:
you present an intriguing thesis.    I just wish it would be clearer. More defined. More easily agreeable with the bible." #25 
WHY EVER would you "wish" that I was more agreeable with a bible that you don't agree with or believe yourself? 



TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,296
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Yassine
Have you tried Islam? It's exactly what you are looking for. 
I have heard some bad things about Islam like if you leave Islam, you get put to death.  Other than that I don't know too much about Islam.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
 like if you leave Islam, you get put to death.
That's one of the gentler parts of Sharia Law, no sarcasm intended at all.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,296
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
What's tougher than that?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
They tend to just kill you by straight up hanging for that and it's quite clear how to avoid getting caught (just tell everyone you're a Muslim). There's other things they stone you for slowly as well as other things they make people (especially women) live through.

Rape victims are commonly stoned to death for being 'whores' in Sharia nations if they come out with the crime, even though the law itself states they'd punish the rapist. The rapist simply accuses her of seducing him and a rape requires 3 male witnesses in order to be declared as valid in most Sharia nations.

TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,296
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Yassine is Muslim.  I don't know too much about Islam.  Maybe Yassine can clear some details up since he knows more about the faith than I do.

a rape requires 3 male witnesses in order to be declared as valid in most Sharia nations
Are these witnesses easy to come by?  If a woman gets raped in the streets, there will be so many witnesses available that can testify against the rapist.
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
I have heard some bad things about Islam like if you leave Islam, you get put to death.
- What else do you expect to hear from antagonists to Islam other than bad things... 

Other than that I don't know too much about Islam.
- Maybe you should start learning. Islam is a beautiful religion, for eternal peace.

TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,296
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
@Yassine
What else do you expect to hear from antagonists to Islam other than bad things... 
Your the relative Muslim expert on DART.  Are the "antagonists" wrong about what Islam advocates for and why?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
Depends what you think they're wrong about.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
Are these witnesses easy to come by?  If a woman gets raped in the streets, there will be so many witnesses available that can testify against the rapist.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or if you are stupid.

Rape is done secretly 99% of the time. In a gang rape scenario, who is going to snitch?

This is the fucking problem, there's no justice in those nations, it's beyond repair if they remain Sharia usually.
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Your the relative Muslim expert on DART.  Are the "antagonists" wrong about what Islam advocates for and why?
- Generally, yes. Most people here are Americans, largely Christian or non-religious. Islam is naturally an alien religion to them. 

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Yassine
Talk to him about apostacy and blasphemy laws and realise the level of dishonesty you had when denying what he said earlier.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Yassine
@TheUnderdog
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
Talk to him about apostacy and blasphemy laws and realise the level of dishonesty you had when denying what he said earlier.
- You mean apostasy laws & blasphemy laws In Europe?

- Why block me if you so keen on replying to me... LOL!

Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Yassine is Muslim.  I don't know too much about Islam.  Maybe Yassine can clear some details up since he knows more about the faith than I do.
- By all means, I'll be happy to answer any of your questions. If you don't quote me in your reply I don't get notified.


a rape requires 3 male witnesses in order to be declared as valid in most Sharia nations
- I'm not sure what that sentence exactly?! But I will answer as concisely as I can. 

1. According to the Islamic Tradition, Sharia abides by the Four Pillars: Mercy, Justice, Wisdom & Benefit for the purpose of preserving the Six Universals: Religion, Self, Reason, Family, Property & Honor. That is why Sharia penalizes major transgressions against any these universals. For instance, apostasy is a transgression against religion, murder is a transgression against Self, intoxication is a transgression against Reason, adultery is a transgression against Family, theft is a transgression against Property, defamation is a transgression against honor... etc.

2. Rape in Islamic Law (aka Fiqh) is a complex crime, for it is defined as a *coercive and dispossessive act of fornication (/adultery)*, thus a transgression against Self, Family & Property; hence penalized accordingly:
i. For coercion, such as under the threat of an offensive weapon, the penalty can go up to severing one arm and one leg. 
ii. For fornication, the penalty is a hundred lashes (or stoning if the rapist is an adulterer, i.e. already married).
iii. For dispossession, such as taking the virginity of the victim, the penalty is a compensation of at least 50 dinars ($12k) or a settlement. 

3. Of course, in practice it is hard to implement the maximum penalty (Hadd) for lack of conclusive evidence. For instance, establishing conclusively the act of fornication requires 4 reliable witnesses, quite the implausible thing to achieve. Thus the judge must ascertain the evidence as to whether the accused is guilty in order to issue the appropriate sentence (Taazir).

4. This applies equally to man or woman. It is important to note that once the act of fornication is established, proving coercion automatically absolves the victim from any punishment. 

5. The above rules relate to Islamic Law. However, since 1909 no Muslim nation has actually implemented them. Penal codes across Muslim nations today have a mix bag of Islamic, customary & civil (sometimes common) laws. For instance, traditionally, in Islamic Law prison sentences can not exceed one year. This rule is not applied in any nation today.

Are these witnesses easy to come by?  If a woman gets raped in the streets, there will be so many witnesses available that can testify against the rapist.
- A scream while in act is sufficient to establish the woman's (or man's) innocence, if not then the apparent aftermath (if she run out for instance), if not then the physical or psychological effects thereafter, if not then the circumstances (it's easier to establish rape if he is in her bed than if she is in his bed), if not then character judgement. 
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,296
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Yassine
You mean apostasy laws & blasphemy laws In Europe?
I think RM and I both are referring to censorship in the Quran.  In America, there is not a single person in jail for political speech.  In western countries other than the US, free speech is more restricted, but generally freer than the Islamic world I think.  The west is the most pro free speech civilization in the world.  In Islam, I heard the penalty for disbelieving in God was death.  In the EU on the other hand, there is not a single crime that is punishable by death.  I understand putting someone for death for murder or rape (this isn't my belief, but it is a belief I understand).  The Quran doesn't stop with the death penalty there.

The Quran advocates for killing atheists.  Bukhari[52:260] "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' ".  This is why you see many Muslim countries killing people for being atheists.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
I was blatantly referring to actual Sharia Law in Islamic nations, to which Yassine dodges entirely asking if I meant European nations, which I clearly did not.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Yassine
@TheUnderdog
In case you're confused, in this post I gave two links to irrefutable and well written explanations of how Islamic nations treat those that leave Islam

TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,296
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
I clarified it for Yassine.  Hopefully he addresses death penalty for apostacy in Islam.  I hope he opposes it, but I'm not a future predictor.
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
You mean apostasy laws & blasphemy laws In Europe?
I think RM and I both are referring to censorship in the Quran.
- Any particulars?

In America, there is not a single person in jail for political speech.
- That's of course a fictitious delusion. The US has never stopped persecuting people for political views, wether be it the Irish, or the Chinese, or the catholics after them, or the Japanese in WWII, or the communists in the Red Scare, or the muslims in the War on Terror... or now for so many things I can't even count: white-nationalism, nazism, racism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia...etc.

- Americans often forget that the way they are perceived in the world is quite different from the way they perceive themselves. For instance, the talk about rape & violence earlier. If you think Afghanistan has a bad reputation of violence in the US, I assure you the US has a worse reputation of violence & rape in much of the world; because as much as your news media are keen on reporting the occasional weird incidents from the Muslim (or non-Muslim) world, local news medias in these countries are even keener on reporting an endless stream of vile incidents from the US... & there are PLENTY. This, of course, let alone the atrocities committed by Americans elsewhere...

In western countries other than the US, free speech is more restricted, but generally freer than the Islamic world I think.
- Propaganda. The State, by design, must terminate what or who undermines it, otherwise endangering itself. Free Speech is a hoax. The US has great intellectuals, the likes of Naom Chomsky, yet Americans rather be indoctrinated by faux feel-good preachers. The State, by design, can not allow speech which undermines its authority or the public order. It is true that overall the US has less restriction on speech today than in most European countries, but not because it's "Freer" (whatever that means), rather because the country is more stable & less prone to disorder. During the communist crisis in the US, thousands of people were jailed & speech was significantly restricted, because the country was much less stable. You are only allowed to say things so far as they do not undermine the authority of the state. I can say things in Saudi Arabia & nobody would care, but if I say them in the US they would likely throw me in jail. The opposite is true as well. Every country has its own sensitivities & boundaries.

The west is the most pro free speech civilization in the world.
- On the complete contrary. The modern western state is the most dominant & pervasive state in human history. The state is ubiquitous in everyone's lives & in society.  You are indoctrinated since early age to sanctify democracy & liberty & freedom of speech, yet you are delighted about it. At least Europeans back then knew they were indoctrinated by the Church even when they couldn't do anything about it, & had much more economic freedom too. Indonesia's tax/GDP's is ~10%, it's over 50% in France & close to 30% in the US. That means the state is much more involved in the French's & the Americans' business than it is in the Indonesian's. Free Speech in the West is only allowed when it's inconsequential, that is, non-institutional & non-systematic. If I try to open a new college in Arizona to teach Sharia, it will shut down the next day & I'll be thrown in jail. Try opening a new course in an American university to teach Sharia, you will be fired & penalized. This was not true in much of Islamic History, where peoples of different beliefs could establish their own schools or join the major universities to spread their ideas without issue. The most compelling ideas should prevail.

In Islam, I heard the penalty for disbelieving in God was death.
- I don't know what that means, but that's of course not true.

In the EU on the other hand, there is not a single crime that is punishable by death. 
- That's not a good thing. At least the US is keeping the death penalty for capital crimes. Abolishing the death penalty is a mercy to the criminal at the expense of the victim. A society which shows mercy to the oppressor and takes justice from the oppressed is a pretentious failing society.

I understand putting someone for death for murder or rape (this isn't my belief, but it is a belief I understand). The Quran doesn't stop with the death penalty there.
- The only death penalty sanctioned in the Quran is for Haraba (terrorism, piracy...).

The Quran advocates for killing atheists.
- Clearly that is not the case, rather this is what the Quran advocates for:
"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error" (2:256)
"And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." (18:29)
"Whoever disbelieves - upon him is [the consequence of] his disbelief. And whoever does righteousness - they are for themselves preparing" (19:44)
"So remind, [O Muḥammad]; you are only a reminder. You are not ˹there˺ to compel them ˹to believe˺." (88:21)

  Bukhari[52:260] "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' ". 
- That's a hadith. A hadith is saying attributed to the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh). You find them in the many collections of hadith, the most notable of which being Bukhari. 

1. As to the text, that's a bad translation, the proper translation "he who changes his Deen (religion), kill him". As you can see, the universal nature of the text confused Muslim jurists, thus resulting in drastically different opinions on the matter across different schools of jurisprudence. Is a Christian who changed his religion to Islam also subject to this? Or a Jew who changed his faith to Christianity? Especially since the Prophet (pbuh) himself & his companions did not punish apostates in their rule.

2. Although most schools do think this hadith refers to apostasy, the Awzai school does not, as they understood the word 'Deen' to mean allegiance. The Hanafi school interpret the word as allegiance in religion, for the Prophet (pbuh) specifies in a different hadith "those who abandon their faith & desert the community" (providing a more restrictive definition): thus they sanction death for militant apostasy. The Maliki school, on the other hand, take the view that this applies to any apostate who knowingly & willingly came into religion then left it.

3. It must be noted that the above assumes a Muslim society under an Islamic state, where allegiance to the state & inviolability of person extends from the individual's faith in Islam itself. Renouncing your faith means renouncing your allegiance & your community. In the West where communitarianism is virtually nonexistent, leaving your faith is inconsequential. In a community based society where different communities adopt different faiths, leaving your faith or even your sect is a pretty big move. In that context, for instance, leaving the Armenian orthodox church to join the Greek orthodox church means leaving your country & your family to join another.

3. Historically, apostasy was always perceived as a political offense rather than a criminal one. Thus, the opinions of jurists weren't that much relevant, where the opinions of political theorists dominated instead. Political theorists only view apostasy in light of Outlawry (man'a), that is when a group of apostates have the will or the capacity to defect from the state or undermine its integrity. They don't care about individual apostasy. That's why countless public apostates across Islamic History critical of Islam have had no penalty brought against the, such as al-Maari, Abu Bakr Razi, al-Mutanabi...etc. In fact, I know of no incident of individual apostasy recording in Islamic history.

4. Today, apostasy laws in the Muslim world are much more identifiable with the general treason laws. The traitor to one country is not necessarily the same to another. The man who slapped the French president was tried for assault, yet the man who fired blanks at the queen alarming her was tried for treason. What Saudi Arabia, or any other country, considers treason should not necessarily coincide with American expectations. A Snowden from another country might have been celebrated there as a hero, while in the US he is deemed a traitor. Then again, they have been talking about abolishing apostasy laws in Saudi lately, but I can assure you even if that happens, nothing will change, Saudi will not stop pursuing her opponents -nor will the US let go of hers.

This is why you see many Muslim countries killing people for being atheists.
- No such thing. Apostates =/= atheists. There is probably a 0.1% to 1% atheists in the Muslim world, that's millions of people... That does not mean apostates are killed either. In practice, apostasy punishment in the Muslim world is very rare. There are two ways an apostate might get in serious trouble with the state: 1. publicly criticize the state, or 2. really push the envelope, like insult the Prophet (pbuh) or burn the Quran or something like that. Those cases are quite rare indeed. In contrast, law abiding & nice apostates are just like everyone else, left alone. In fact, a popular format in the Arab world TV is "conversation with an apostate" where they bring a sheikh & an apostate to argue or discuss, such as the Egyptian program "dialogue with an atheist" featuring the Yemeni scholar Habib Jefri.

- In Islamic Law, atheists/agnostics/non-religious, or as they are called: dahriah (naturalists, i.e. believers in nature) are one of the 11 categories of peoples (christians, jews...) who are granted protection (dhimmah), thus inviolable.