American Prophesy

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:02 am

ppanther wrote:
a few posts up, when I asked if he thought brother-sister marriage should be legal"

okay, you asked me if I thought it should be LEGAL, I said no because we know from scientific evidence that interbreeding like that causes serious chromosomal defects, which would be particularly cruel to inflict on another human being.....but then you asked me if I approved and I told you I had no particular position on the subject...if you're not smart enough to discern the difference between asking me if I think it should be ILLEGAL and if I have a problem with it morally, then maybe we should stop the discussion right now.....seriously, trying to set traps like this is a little below your standards

OK, hang on one second. Do you find the practice revolting, or are you choosing not to judge it? Could you maybe try to come up with just one answer per question?

Personally I find it revolting, but it's not my place to judge that kind of behavior...again, trying to lay traps like this is beneath you

Your reason was the lack of ability to produce healthy offspring. But you've kind of strayed from that. Apparently you became aware of the corner into which you were painting yourself.

Whether the potentiality of it to bring defective humans into the world is the reason it's illegal or not I don't know...all I do know is that interbreeding like that results in offspring that often times have chromosomal damage....now I don't know when it was outlawed, but I've told you what I know about it....

Um... Felix... I'm sorry, but you're going to have to do a little more research on lions. They aren't quite as morally righteous as you would like to believe.

The dominant male lions kill living cubs from other males in order to facilitate the female going into heat.....but if you think they turn on each other and eat members of their packs, then your seriously uninformed about the pack behavior of lions....

That is unless you think it's totally cool for one male to kill another for encroaching on its territory. LOTS of animals engage in killing members of their own species.

that's an instinctual perpetuation of the species, but you never see it in a single group of lions....they certainly have the ability to turn on one of their own pride members when a member gets old or gets an infection, yet you never see it.....well, you might see it in the instance of extreme starvation, but if there is food available, you'll never see a pride of lions eat one of their own

LOTS of animals inter-breed, which is not in the best interest of their species/family. This is what happens when you stray from the topic, Felix... in the process of failing to make a point, you invariably make yourself look incredibly ignorant.

but we were talking about morals, and I was simply pointing out the fact that in many instances, animals display what you would call "moral" behavior, yet in they also display "immoral" behavior....so the question was when they display these differing behaviors, would you label it "immoral" or "moral", or do you believe that "moralitity" is something that's the exclusivity of humans

As proven in the past, this is an absolute steaming pile of horse manure. But clearly your memory is not so great. Too bad for you, mine is sharp.

then I'm assuming you could link me up to where you "proved" this question is a steaming pile....

I asked if you thought brother-sister marriage should be legal. You said no, then you decided it wasn't your place to judge (immediately after judging, by the way). You can't answer a direct question to save your life.

[/quote]

go back and reread what you asked....first you asked me if I thought it should be legal and I said no, because it produces damaged offspring.....then you asked me if I approved of it, and I said I'm not the one to judge that....I hate to be the one to break this to you panther, but they're NOT the same question

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:12 am

Felix wrote:go back and reread what you asked....first you asked me if I thought it should be legal and I said no, because it produces damaged offspring.....then you asked me if I approved of it, and I said I'm not the one to judge that....I hate to be the one to break this to you panther, but they're NOT the same question

OK, you can have it your way.

So then, you think brothers and sisters should not be able to legally marry because they can't produce healthy offspring?

I am going to assume that's the answer you'd stick with, if it was at all possible.

Now explain why you think gays should be legally allowed to marry, given your answer above.

I'm really surprised you went back to painting yourself back into that corner, especially considering the number of chances I gave you.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:23 am

Felix wrote:don't you think it's just a little narcissistic and petty of the creator of the entire universe to demand that you worship and praise him otherwise he'll be forced to cast you into eternal torture?

second, does it make sense that the best solution the creator of the entire universe could come up with to eliminate "original sin" was to send his son/himself down to earth to be mercilessly tortured?

Ok ...

1. All that God "demands" is that we acknowledge and believe the Christ who has surely come and demonstrated Himself.

2. I have questions for God, too. I've told you that before. I do recognize, though, that He is the Creator and I am the creation.

Just a pont about "animal morality" ... or whatever ...

People are THE most depraved of all creation, capable of THE most horrendous things.

Because only man was created in God's image -- as a spiritual being -- and that spirit has been captured by satan.

People are not in their right mind, and they go into all sorts of perplexing ruinous behaviors that lead to ultimate failure.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:42 am

Felix wrote:...

Reads like you've gotten Richard Dawkins for christmas and are bouncing around wildly between chapters and points. You're throwing out half-arguments and moving on when challenged.

Do yourself a favour Felix, read up on peer reviews of his books before taking him so much to heart.

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:44 am

Felix wrote:okay, you asked me if I thought it should be LEGAL, I said no because we know from scientific evidence that interbreeding like that causes serious chromosomal defects

Apparently Felix edited his post since I responded, but that's OK. My position remains unchanged, and is in fact somewhat solidified by this statement.

There is nothing "below my standards" about this argument, Felix. You clearly believe that brother-sister marriage should not be legal because they cannot produce healthy offspring. Never mind the fact that you seem to believe your opinion is superior to the opinions of others, which of course is subjective and very unlikely to be true; a gay couple cannot produce healthy offspring, either. So it's no reach at all to deduce that given your argument, you believe gays should not be allowed to legally marry.

I hope you enjoy your time in the corner, hypocrite. Next time someone asks you why you care, be prepared to back up your hyper-PC parrot babble with some actual substance. Thanks and good evening!

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:05 am

ppanther wrote:
So then, you think brothers and sisters should not be able to legally marry because they can't produce healthy offspring?0/quote]

well yeah that, and because there's that little thing that it's against the law and yeah, I understand that right now gay marriage is against the law, but of course we know that's based entirely on religious beliefs and nothing substantiated by something like producing damaged offspring

I am going to assume that's the answer you'd stick with, if it was at all possible.
its a nonsensical question, so why should I give you an answer to it....it's proven that it creates physically damaged offspring and it's against the law...would I lobby to have that law changed? Absolutely not, because of dangers I've pointed out about it.....

Now explain why you think gays should be legally allowed to marry, given your answer above.
because homosexuality is not against the law (well, it might be in a few states, but I'm not sure) but that's really beside the point....it's not hurting you, me, or anyone else-seriously, if your marriage is threatened by a couple of lesbians getting married in California, you've got much more serious problems in your marriage than you know...I'm not personally down with a gay lifestyle, but what harm does it do to me....and frankly, I find it a little boorish that you feel your standards are what gives you the right to say who someone can love and how they can express that love to the other person? Why would you deny them that right based on anything other than your religious held tenets?

I'm really surprised you went back to painting yourself back into that corner, especially considering the number of chances I gave you.

look sweets, I know you want to portray it that way, but that's not the way this has gone down.....you need to be careful with the way you phrase things if you want to try and trap me (for whatever reason-you seem obsessed with trying to get people to trip over themselves, maybe because it makes you feel like you won or something), but this is a philosophical discussion, and there are no winners or losers, just an exchange of ideas....the weak way you tried it didn't work, and I called you out on it....don't get your feelings hurt, but if you're going to try that shit, you need to be a little more clever about it.....capische

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:15 am

Felix wrote:if your marriage is threatened by a couple of lesbians getting married in California, you've got much more serious problems in your marriage than you know

Is your marriage threatened by a brother and sister getting married in any state? Yet you still believe it should be illegal. Interesting.

and frankly, I find it a little boorish that you feel your standards are what gives you the right to say who someone can love and how they can express that love to the other person?

I'm just devastated that you find me "boorish". I'll go ahead and try to survive.

you seem obsessed with trying to get people to trip over themselves, maybe because it makes you feel like you won or something

When I asked why you care what Christians believe, you said it was because they were creating laws based on their moral beliefs. I simply pointed out that you do the same thing. You just toe the PC line and for some ridiculous reason consider your opinion more valid than others.

but this is a philosophical discussion, and there are no winners or losers, just an exchange of ideas

Hey, you're the one who cares. I asked why, you gave a bogus typical hyper-PC reason, and in the "exchange of ideas" that ensued, you were revealed to be a hypocrite who imposes his morals on others. Fascinating stuff.

the weak way you tried it didn't work, and I called you out on it

Really? Where? When you said that lions were bastions of morality? Seriously, I missed this part.

....don't get your feelings hurt, but if you're going to try that shit, you need to be a little more clever about it.....capische

My feelings aren't hurt. I don't think brother-sister marriage should be legal, either. You still haven't substantiated why it should be illegal for them but not for gays, who also cannot produce healthy offspring*. Get to that any time. Thanks!!

* without medical intervention -- the same medical intervention available to brother-sister unions

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:24 pm

ppanther wrote:
There is nothing "below my standards" about this argument, Felix. You clearly believe that brother-sister marriage should not be legal because they cannot produce healthy offspring. Never mind the fact that you seem to believe your opinion is superior to the opinions of others, which of course is subjective and very unlikely to be true; a gay couple cannot produce healthy offspring, either.

I've said that it's against the law for brothers and sisters to be married, and there's a legitimate reason for this law....not because they can't produce offspring, but because the offspring they produce often results in severe genetic defects.....on the other hand, gay couples CANNOT produce offspring, thus there's absolutely positively no chance in hell that a genetic defective offspring can be produced from such a union....as such, there is no scientific reason for gay marriage to be outlawed....banning of such is based entirely on religious mores and nothing more.....the most common arguments I've heard are "god made adam and eve not adam and steve" and "it says in the bible that a marriage should be between a man and a woman"....but from a purely pragmatic position, there is absolutely no scientific reason whatsoever as to why gays should be prevented from marrying.....

So it's no reach at all to deduce that given your argument, you believe gays should not be allowed to legally marry.

you're inability to follow reasoning is jawdropping

ppanther wrote: Is your marriage threatened by a brother and sister getting married in any state? Yet you still believe it should be illegal. Interesting.

look it's against the law for very specific reasons.....illegality of gay marriage is based on nothing more than religious mores

When I asked why you care what Christians believe, you said it was because they were creating laws based on their moral beliefs. I simply pointed out that you do the same thing. You just toe the PC line and for some ridiculous reason consider your opinion more valid than others.

no, I said they enacted laws based on religious beliefs and tenents (such as a ban on gay marriage)....I'd love to hear your discussion/arguments as to why a gay relationship is "immoral" and gay marriage should be banned, without using biblical references

Hey, you're the one who cares. I asked why, you gave a bogus typical hyper-PC reason, and in the "exchange of ideas" that ensued, you were revealed to be a hypocrite who imposes his morals on others. Fascinating stuff.

go ahead and show me where I've been hypocritical and show me where I've imposed my morality on anybody

Really? Where? When you said that lions were bastions of morality? Seriously, I missed this part.

I didn't say lions were bastions of morality....I asked you if you considered animals that behaved in ways that are looked at as "moral" and "immoral" in humans should be considered "moral" or "immoral" ....a simple yes or no will do, you don't need to try and couch your answer....

the question is-are animals capable of "moral" or "immoral" behavior?
is homosexual behavior in animals an "immoral" act....if no, why not-if yes, where do they get their morals from

really, it's a pretty simple question

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:19 pm

Quick little question, Felix. The hill you've chosen to wage war on here appears to be your notion that "The Bible" outlawed homosexuality. That since the Bible outlawed homosexuality, laws relevant to homosexuality made MUST be religiously based.

That notion is not a Christian or Jewish notion alone. Many other religions look upon homosexuality with disfavor. In fact, The Code of Hammurabi prohibited it.

There is good, practical, scientific - if you will - reason to ban homosexuality. Especially in an era with small tribes and tribes that REQUIRED procreation in order to survive and make more warriors. This, I believe, is the inspiration and practicality behind most of the sexual mores you will find in ancient cultures. The same holds true for jerking off, believe it or not. Not wasting "seed" was primarily - like to a farmer - you wouldn't go throwing your seeds on a rock. No, if you need to bust a nut, do it in a woman - maybe your wife - such that another warrior or homemakers can be made.

I know it is difficult in this day in age to realize that there was a time when children and the ability to procreate were not inconveniences and actually desired. But there was such a time in history.

That my friend, is scientia.

Oh almost forgot, The Assyrian Laws of c. 1450-1250 BC:

20. If a man has lain with his male friend and a charge is brought and proved against him, the same thing shall be done to him and he shall be made a eunuch. (Ouch)

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:19 pm

Tom In VA wrote:Quick little question, Felix. The hill you've chosen to wage war on here appears to be your notion that "The Bible" outlawed homosexuality. That since the Bible outlawed homosexuality, laws relevant to homosexuality made MUST be religiously based

no tom, that's not what I said....what I said that homosexual unions in the United States are outlawed based on the religious mores, based primarily on the bible because Christianity is the largest religious contingency in the United States...

That notion is not a Christian or Jewish notion alone. Many other religions look upon homosexuality with disfavor. In fact, The Code of Hammurabi prohibited it.

we don't have to many followers of the Code of Hammurabi residing in the US, but I'm not sure how I see this makes any kind of argument that prejudice against homosexuality in the US is religiously based....you yourself said "many other RELIGIONS look upon homosexuality with disfavor"

There is good, practical, scientific - if you will - reason to ban homosexuality.

really? What is that scientific evidence?

Especially in an era with small tribes and tribes that REQUIRED procreation in order to survive and make more warriors. This, I believe, is the inspiration and practicality behind most of the sexual mores you will find in ancient cultures.

you seem to be implying here that IF homosexuality were accepted, you think that everyone within a particular tribe would suddenly turn homosexual and the said particular tribe would die out because of it....is that what you're trying to sell me here....sorry dude, but that's laugh out loud funny....

The same holds true for jerking off, believe it or not. Not wasting "seed" was primarily - like to a farmer - you wouldn't go throwing your seeds on a rock. No, if you need to bust a nut, do it in a woman - maybe your wife - such that another warrior or homemakers can be made.

and I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the discussion at hand....

I know it is difficult in this day in age to realize that there was a time when children and the ability to procreate were not inconveniences and actually desired. But there was such a time in history.

Children are still desired, as evidenced by the birth rates in the United States....sure there are some that are born by "accident", but I'm pretty safe in saying that by and large the majority of births within the US are desired and the parents don't consider them to be an inconvenience

Oh almost forgot, The Assyrian Laws of c. 1450-1250 BC:
20. If a man has lain with his male friend and a charge is brought and proved against him, the same thing shall be done to him and he shall be made a eunuch. (Ouch)

do you have anything that would support that this law was not based on religious tenents?

look, the argument I'm making is that the outlawing of homosexual unions in the US is based primarily on religious bigotry, and given that the Bible is the most commonly used religious book in the US, it's logical to assume that most of that religious bigotry comes from that particular book.....but again, you've given me nothing that would support a scientific argument against homosexual unions....

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:54 pm

Felix wrote:I've said that it's against the law for brothers and sisters to be married, and there's a legitimate reason for this law....not because they can't produce offspring, but because the offspring they produce often results in severe genetic defects

This is not different than what I've repeated, Felix. You think it should be illegal for brothers and sisters to marry because they have a problem producing healthy offspring. This is not complicated, Felix. If that is your sole reason for deciding it should not be legal for two people to marry, you should feel the same way about any couple with the potential for producing defective (or no) offspring. If you don't, you're simply operating under a double-standard that is acceptable to you, based on the fact that you personally find incest revolting.

on the other hand, gay couples CANNOT produce offspring, thus there's absolutely positively no chance in hell that a genetic defective offspring can be produced from such a union....as such, there is no scientific reason for gay marriage to be outlawed

So then if one or both of a brother-sister or father-daughter union is sterilized... should they be granted a pass on incest laws?

you're inability to follow reasoning is jawdropping

Nice try, Felix. Maybe someone's buying it.

no, I said they enacted laws based on religious beliefs and tenents (such as a ban on gay marriage)....I'd love to hear your discussion/arguments as to why a gay relationship is "immoral" and gay marriage should be banned, without using biblical references

Get a grip on yourself, Felix. I owe you no such explanation; this is precisely why I asked you from the beginning to stay on-topic. Remember, you are the one who got all wound up and said you cared because big meanies with Bibles were imposing their morals on the legal system. You are certifiably delusional if you think you don't approve of morally-based legislation. It's simply the source of the morals that causes your extreme chafing. I'm sure that's clear to just about everyone reading this, except maybe you.

go ahead and show me where I've been hypocritical and show me where I've imposed my morality on anybody

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that I already did that. Feel free to scroll up if you remain confused.

I asked you if you considered animals that behaved in ways that are looked at as "moral" and "immoral" in humans should be considered "moral" or "immoral" ....a simple yes or no will do, you don't need to try and couch your answer....

the question is-are animals capable of "moral" or "immoral" behavior?
is homosexual behavior in animals an "immoral" act....if no, why not-if yes, where do they get their morals from

really, it's a pretty simple question

It's actually an incredibly inane question. Animals* do all sorts of things that would be considered immoral if humans were to do them. If you disagree with this, you're quite simply an idiot. Whether or not the animals* themselves are behaving morally or immorally is 100% irrelevant, because you see, we're discussing the legal system. As far as I know, boy cheetahs aren't put in jail for attempting to impregnate their daughters. You can correct me of I'm wrong.

* this includes all animals except humans. I don't want you getting confused.

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:05 pm

mvscal wrote:
ppanther wrote:Remember, you are the one who got all wound up and said you cared because big meanies with Bibles were imposing their morals on the legal system. You are certifiably delusional if you think you don't approve of morally-based legislation.
All law is based on the prevailing morality of society. Poo-pushers like feeldix don't seem to be very clear on the concept.

Well, we clearly need to change that system. People might get their feelings hurt otherwise!

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:39 pm

Felix -- I'm cool with you rabble-rousing the thumpers. I like to do that myself, on an occasion.

But... last I checked, the voters of my state (the level of government at which such decisions should be made, as the Fed has no authority to do so), defined marriage as a man/woman thing.

Whether I agree or not*, I'm kind of a fan of democracy, so man/woman it is.

* -- Frankly, I really don't give a shit. Heck, there's been many a drunken episode in my life where I had a hard time keeping track of my own weewee, so it'd be pretty darn hypocritical to spend even a second worrying about what anyone else does with theirs.

As a conservative, it's none of my business what you do with your junk.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:42 pm

Dr_Phibes wrote: Reads like you've gotten Richard Dawkins

nah, I'm much more of a Christopher Hitchens fan than I am of Dawkins....

ppanther wrote: Animals* do all sorts of things that would be considered immoral if humans were to do them.

such as?

mvscal wrote:
The reason brother/sister marriage is outlawed has absolutely nothing to do with science, you stupid, fucked up dipshit.

that wasn't the primary point, but thanks for your contribution

mvscal wrote: All law is based on the prevailing morality of society.

that wasn't what the discussion was about....what panther was trying to trap me into was some sort of admission that humans get their morality from some higher authority (e.g. god gave us our morals) which is pure, unadulterated bullshit.....

Dinsdale wrote: Whether I agree or not*, I'm kind of a fan of democracy, so man/woman it is.

that's fine by me as well

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:46 pm

Felix wrote:
ppanther wrote: Animals* do all sorts of things that would be considered immoral if humans were to do them.
such as?

I seriously hope you're kidding.

Felix (previously) wrote:morality is inate in all animals

Would you consider it moral for a man to kill another man for getting too close to his collection of women?

If you say "yes"... well, you have issues that are so extreme, I don't even want to know about them. Seriously. Stop being so ignorant.

Felix wrote:
mvscal wrote: All law is based on the prevailing morality of society.
that wasn't what the discussion was about....

Yes it was.

what panther was trying to trap me into was some sort of admission that humans get their morality from some higher authority (e.g. god gave us our morals) which is pure, unadulterated bullshit.....

I am not the one who brought up where morals originate.

Felix (previously) wrote:morality is inate in all animals

You were crying about laws that exist based on Christian morals, and trying to prove that you don't agree with laws that have some kind of moral basis. You were trying really hard to convince me that incest laws exist because of science. Even though you personally find the practice revolting. And oh yeah, it's not your place to judge those revolting people.

You're a mess.

Felix wrote:
Dinsdale wrote: Whether I agree or not*, I'm kind of a fan of democracy, so man/woman it is.
that's fine by me as well

So it's cool for people to say they agree that marriage should be between a man and woman only? Even though the basis of the law might have something to do with Christian morals? You might lose some points with the PC police if you bend over that easily too often, Felix.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:52 pm

Felix,

The only thing I've ever claimed on these boards is:

1. An understanding of Catholic faith - I was raised that way.
2. An understanding of other Christian denominations - I was educated about them.
3. An understanding of other religions - I was educated about them.

I claim no denomination. I've simply maintained that there is a God, I am not Him. I also believe Jesus did what He was supposed to do. I'm an Agnostic Theist and believe the undeserved favor (grace) humans have is a result of Christ's death.

The morality of any man is between that man and God. The behavior of any man is between that man and the community in which he lives.

I wholeheartedly agree with Dinsdale.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:24 am

ppanther wrote:
I seriously hope you're kidding.

absolutely not....explain animal behaviors that would be considered immoral by men

Would you consider it moral for a man to kill another man for getting too close to his collection of women? If you say "yes"... well, you have issues that are so extreme, I don't even want to know about them. Seriously. Stop being so ignorant.

I said morality is innate in all men, I didn't say all men practiced morally ethic behavior.....serial killers for example....they have morality, they were born with it, but something tripwired in their brain and that morality has been overridden by whatever made there brain go haywire

Yes it was.

no it wasn't....my question directed at tart was "how can a rational human being believe in fairy tales of the bible...you've dragged this conversation toward another direction, as is you're want to do....save yourself the trouble and next time I ask tart a question, just stay the fuck out of the conversations please

You were crying about laws that exist based on Christian morals, and trying to prove that you don't agree with laws that have some kind of moral basis. You were trying really hard to convince me that incest laws exist because of science. Even though you personally find the practice revolting. And oh yeah, it's not your place to judge those revolting people. You're a mess.

far from it, I'm more at peace with my existence than you will ever be

So it's cool for people to say they agree that marriage should be between a man and woman only? Even though the basis of the law might have something to do with Christian morals? You might lose some points with the PC police if you bend over that easily too often, Felix.

yeah, that's cool with me....now seriously, quit responding because I really grow tired of these same monotonous rounds with you

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:37 am

Tom In VA wrote: The only thing I've ever claimed on these boards is:

1. An understanding of Catholic faith - I was raised that way.
2. An understanding of other Christian denominations - I was educated about them.
3. An understanding of other religions - I was educated about them.

I claim no denomination. I've simply maintained that there is a God, I am not Him.

and the only thing I've ever asked is "why to you believe in some supreme being who sole requirement is that you believe in him to get to some mystical land...and it doesn't matter how good of a person you are in your life, you can't get into your wonderland via deeds...it's pretty much spelled out in the bible that way....I could be a fucking axe murder and on my death bed decide that I believe in god and guess what, I get a pass to the hereafter....but then you've got people like me, who treat people with passion and kindness, help in any number of voluntary groups, give blood on a regular basis, help to feed the poor, have a percentage of my money deducted to a non-denominational charity to help those who've not had the opportunities I've been afforded, and do so many other things to help my fellow man, but I'm condemend to your hell because I didn't believe in some fairy tale....does that seem right on any level?

I also believe Jesus did what He was supposed to do. I'm an Agnostic Theist and believe the undeserved favor (grace) humans have is a result of Christ's death.

The morality of any man is between that man and God. The behavior of any man is between that man and the community in which he lives.

the morality of people is between people, not some invisible being that apparently never lifts his hand to stop the suffering, pain, hunger, war, etc. etc. what kind of creator of the universe is such a fucking prick that he wouldn't lift a finger to stop any of this? seriously, if he's real, he's pretty much of a fucking douchebag and frankly, I wouldn't want to live under the auspices of somebody that is so fucking cold-hearted, that he can stand idly by watching mans inhumanity to man, and never do anything to stop it....fuck that non-existent asshole

I really wish there was a god so that when my time to be judged came I could ask him why he chose to be such a douche

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:57 am

Felix wrote:absolutely not....explain animal behaviors that would be considered immoral by men

Did you misread my statement? I'm thinking you must have. Here it is again:

Animals do all sorts of things that would be considered immoral if humans were to do them. If a man killed another man for getting too close to his wife, I'd consider that pretty seriously immoral. If you wouldn't, well... I'm sorry, but you need help.

I said morality is innate in all men, I didn't say all men practiced morally ethic behavior

Very scientific. I'm sure you have some sort of proof that people behaving immorally is an "override" and not a lack of morals. If it's just a theory of yours, which of course it is, then I'm really sorry... but it makes a lot more "rational" and "coherent" sense to assume that some people just have a lack of morals.

no it wasn't....my question directed at tart was...

And my question, "Why do you care?" was directed at you. That's when you answered with your hypocritical nonsense about people imposing their morals on others. You've tried your best to deny that you do the same thing, but you've failed. I'm sorry if you're capable of engaging in only one discussion at a time, particularly when the person with whom you (thought you were) having a discussion was... um... not posting anyway.

You could have just said you don't care, or ignored me altogether if you weren't interested in pursuing this point.

save yourself the trouble and next time I ask tart a question, just stay the fuck out of the conversations please

Seriously Felix, this has been no trouble. When posting on a message board is "trouble", I simply don't do it. It's not that important to me. If you can't stand the thought of someone else piping in when you ask the same questions you've asked so many times before, maybe you should ask your questions in a PM or email. Also, you should keep in mind that you did not start this thread, therefore have really no say in who posts in it (not that you would anyway), or what they post about (not that you would anyway). Get over yourself.

far from it, I'm more at peace with my existence than you will ever be

I'm glad you're at peace, but you have no basis by which to compare your level of peace with mine. None at all. You cannot even begin to guess anything about my level of peace. But thanks for proving that you have no problem assuming without bothering with facts... not that it's a real shock.

yeah, that's cool with me....now seriously, quit responding because I really grow tired of these same monotonous rounds with you

Oh my goodness, that is the most crybaby thing I think I've ever read on a message board, EVER. If you don't want me to respond, then you have the power to let it go. But no, you can't type up that kind of lame-ass post and finish with that line and expect your request to be honored. If you want the last word, well who knows? You may get it. But it will never happen if you actually ask for it. Like I said... this is no trouble. If discussing your own hangups with selectively-chosen morally-based laws is a problem for you, then I propose that in the future, you don't bring it up.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:53 am

Felix,

First Paragraph:

1. I never said it was a mystical land, for all I know it is dying with a clear conscience and "eternity" just means peace - death - no longer dealing with the human condition which you too disdain apparently (seeing as religion is a fundamental part of the human condition and always will be). I've matured past the whole "I get to be poppa and grandma and it will be just like the best years of my life". Truth is, I don't know what it is. Today, it's just the right thing for me to do, it is what is in my heart and head.

2. I guess you could be all the things you mentioned and still find peace with God. That is and always will be between you and Him.

3. Again, that is entirely up to God. The Christ I read about spoke of doing those very same things as being the tickets to Him. I am quite sure an Omniscient, OmniPotent, and ever merciful God will understand that the belief in His creation to such an extent to show them mercy and compassion is better than lip service paid to Him. I don't know, but just because one doesn't say he "believes" doesn't mean he can't act as if he "believes". That's between you and God.

Second Paragraph

1. Ok. Once again, then, it is between you and God. Human beings will never be able to answer your questions to your satisfaction. This paragraph is riddled with text that compels me to draw the inference you are a loving, compassionate man in a whole of pain and lacking a whole lot of understanding. You seek through science, but science has yet to fill the void inside you. You have now turned your sights onto "Religion" as a great source of your pain. You're a crusader. You have declared war on religion and spirituality and won't stop fighting it until you're mentally and emotionally tired of it. I assure you, you will tire of it eventually. The folks that tried to proselytize to me when I was in such a state went away "renewed in the spirit" - I was frankly exhausted and pissed. I held onto that resentment for a long time and the only thing it did was cause me more angst and more - resentment.

I don't know how else to convey to you my best regards other than regards dude. I hope your struggle is a fruitful one for you, personally. The windmill you fight is so much larger than you, than science, than the entire human race that has or ever will exist. God's got more asphalt than you got ass is what I was told

Ultimately I made a decision. God is what God is. I will never fully know Him - at least while I walk the earth. He is not subject to my judgement. He does not owe me explanations, favors, or anything. He is infinite, I am finite. He is all knowing, I am not. He is all powerful, I am not.

In the end, he is HNIC. There isn't much I can do about it. Not much you can do about it either bro.

Good luck man.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:05 am

Felix wrote:I could be a fucking axe murder and on my death bed decide that I believe in god and guess what, I get a pass to the hereafter....but then you've got people like me, who treat people with passion and kindness, help in any number of voluntary groups, give blood on a regular basis, help to feed the poor, have a percentage of my money deducted to a non-denominational charity to help those who've not had the opportunities I've been afforded, and do so many other things to help my fellow man, but I'm condemend to your hell

Once upon a time there was a father who lived with his two sons, Brad -- who was a little bit bad, and Greg -- who was good.
Bad Brad was always mischievous in some way.
Trouble here, trouble there ... selfish ... and on and on.
Father loved him, though, and smiled warmly in his heart as he tucked him in to bed each night, blessing him that he would one day wake up and realize he shouldn't be an @ss his whole life long.

One summer day, Greg got tired of his father, who treated bad Brad the same as he, and decided to ... leave.
So he up and left.
He went about a mile-or-so away and made himself a make-shift tree house to live in the woods.
He stayed there for a while, and as was his character, sometimes went to homes nearby to do misc. chores for the folks in that neighborhood.
Because he was a good boy.

He swept driveways, raked leaves, watered flowers, etc. for the neighbors.
And they'd occassionally treat good Greg to some snacks -- crackers, cookies, and the like.
"I'm good," thought good Greg, "albeit just a little bit hungry."
He could make it without that father of his.

The father was heartbroken, of course.
And he sent out people to look for good Greg, and to hopefully point him back home.
Father waited for good Greg.

One night an evil man came upon good Greg as he slept in the woods.
And he fugged good Greg up something fierce.
Busted all four of his limbs, r@ped him, and hung him up like a pretzel from a tall tree.

The same evil man went on down the road.
He happened upon the house where the father and bad Brad lived.
He worked his way into the home -- to do evil, and as bad Brad slept like a baby in the bedroom in his father's house, was confronted by the father.
Father fugged the evil man up something fierce.
Bad Brad slept in safety.

Evil comes to us all and there is nothing we can do to stop it.
Man can not ... live ... apart from his Creator.
The Bible is clear on this.

Felix wrote:fuck that non-existent asshole (God)

I really wish there was a god so that when my time to be judged came I could ask him why he chose to be such a douche

Jesus' claim was that He is God.
And by many actions and circumstances, He proved it.
Not the least of which was His resurrection.

As Jesus (God) walked on earth, surely you can find no fault with his character.
That is God.

Matthew 28:18 (Jesus speaking)
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:00 pm

ppanther wrote: .....

next time I want an answer from you about anything, I'll direct the question to you...please, give my scroll wheel a break

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:25 pm

Felix wrote:
ppanther wrote: .....
*whine, cry, sniff sniff*

Scroll wheel smack only works if you aren't also using many quotes. Brainiac.

Edit to add: I don't really care if you "want" an answer from me, particularly since I am the one who directed a question at you. If you can't take it, maybe you should get another hobby.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:05 am

Way to go Felix. That's showin' 'em.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:56 am

I was going to make a funnay about Felix climbing up on the cross for toughlove a few days ago ... but declined to do so.

Blasphemous, in a way.

Just please forget you ever heard that.

I'll take Hobbies for $500, Alex.

Johnny Bold · Post by **Johnny Bold** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:16 am

Good one, Poppers
Kinda

...and I tried again, but it's still Johnny.

Anywho:
My pride could smackculate a take on hell being too good for some,
but it probably isn't.
And thought I may display non interest,
in brinkmanship when coupled to sinful human endeavor
or remain silently saddened by the hard heartened action,
which takes place during the sport of board oneupmanship,
I have absolutely no problem with the way threads unfold,
so please don't take it the wrong way when I say...
...prophesy has very little to do with religion.

Same goes for Miracles:

In the Ukraine - a mighty resurrection from the dead

http://bibleprobe.com/boris-pilichuk.htm

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:58 am

Well maybe if you didn't masturbate yourself at the thought of all the heathen pigs suffering in hellfire, you'd come across as something other than a bitter, twisted old psychopath.

In the interest of self-criticism, I offer you the following hypothetical situation demonstrating how I would conduct myself in your situation.

Example I:

commissar: Comrade Phibes! We have captured all the capitalists! The killing fields are prepared! Shall we begin with all the intellectuals and people with eyeglasses?

Phibes: Yes Comrade, but long have I dreaded this moment. Why oh why have I been put in this awful position of historical inevitability sob

Example II:

commissar: Comrade Phibes! We have captured all the capitalists! The killing fields are prepared! Shall we begin with all the intellectuals and people with eyeglasses?

Phibes: Ahahaha die, die etc.

Do you see the difference?

Johnny Bold · Post by **Johnny Bold** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:09 am

G-d is love
Prophesy is wait and see
Why some get so bent out of shape
Has nothing to do with me

Matts Miracle:

(Brooklyn Park, Minnesota)—Wednesday, August 1st, seemed to be a day like any other in the St. Paul, Minneapolis area. But at 6:05 pm—in the midst of rush hour traffic—the busy Interstate Bridge that joined I-35 with the city of Minneapolis suddenly broke apart and fell into the Mississippi River.

"I was coming home to take a shower, and then pick up my friend across the I 35 W. bridge," Matthew recalled. "I was headed into the city [of Minneapolis], it was bumper-to-bumper."

"I was praying and talking to the Lord, and the next minute the Lord gave me this vision. In the vision [the bridge was] shaking—it started to snap and broke through. I saw two cars go off the edge into the Mississippi. Then, [after the vision] I said, 'What is that all about Lord? You need to talk to me.'"

"God told me to 'STOP!'" (I was 100 feet away from the bridge)

"He said, 'You need to stop right there.' I said, 'Lord, there are cars behind me,' (There were about 100 people in the line of traffic behind him, and many had begun honking their horns at him). But God said, 'That's okay, you need to stop.' So I stopped. And then the Lord said, 'Look.'"

"People were going around me—about 20 feet away from the bridge. That's when it snapped—[the bridge] broke down and crashed. I saw 2 cars go off the bridge, and I was like...'wow!'" (Photo: MyFOX9.com–KMSP)

"At first I was sitting in the car waiting, thanking the Lord, because it could've been me on that bridge. Then people came up to me and said, 'Thank you.'"

"I got out and looked from the side [at the collapse]...it was traumatic seeing what happened. And then the police told me to go back in my car and turn around."

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:43 am

If you give Benny Hinn your entire life savings today, when you go check your account the next day, God will have doubled that amount .

Johnny Bold · Post by **Johnny Bold** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 10:26 am

"In G-d, man lives, moves, and has his being."

Prediction:
When mankind finally evolves spiritually - The G-d science behind miracles will be understood, as will His science behind the power of prayer.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:43 pm

I hope the actual, written Bible doesn't get in the way of you "feeling" the "spirit".

Johnny Bold · Post by **Johnny Bold** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:40 pm

^
Do you mean - like it didn't get in the way of Jesus?

The Spirit Evolves

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:00 pm

Martyred wrote:Why do people waste their times enriching their lives and the lives of those they love and those around them when there are so many witches out there roaming free?

Burn the witches. Burn them with cleansing FIRE!!!!

Harsh, dude.

I despise Nancy Pelosi as much as the next guy but...

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:10 pm

Felix wrote:
ppanther wrote:
Felix wrote:a better question would be WHY THE FUCK DO YOU CARE
Why do you?
because the poison of atheism spurs so many of the biases and the bigotries we carry as a people....because we enact laws based on delusional beliefs

FTFY

I don't think anyone should take anything any human says concerning our Heavenly Father as though it were gospel - which is pretty much what Christ suggested in so many words, if I recall correctly.

By me - the beauty of prophesy is two fold.

I: It gives the true believer a heads up, something to look out for, if you will - if/when it hits, the believers faith is then strengthened.

2: It also gives the non-believer something to percolate on in the event that the G-d attributed prediction does indeed turn out to become a reality - therefore affording the heathen a heads up on contriving their excuses for why the predicted event was nothing more then coincidence, or some easily explained away scientific act of nature.

1) your later statements go entirely contrary to your initial one.
B)How about the "beauty" of false prophesy? It has the exact opposite effect.

And what does Scripture say about false prophets?

BTW, it's 2018, not 2010.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:22 pm

Dr_Phibes wrote:Well maybe if you didn't masturbate yourself at the thought of all the heathen pigs suffering in hellfire, you'd come across as something other than a bitter, twisted old psychopath.

In the interest of self-criticism, I offer you the following hypothetical situation demonstrating how I would conduct myself in your situation.

Example I:

commissar: Comrade Phibes! We have captured all the capitalists! The killing fields are prepared! Shall we begin with all the intellectuals and people with eyeglasses?

Phibes: Yes Comrade, but long have I dreaded this moment. Why oh why have I been put in this awful position of historical inevitability sob
Example II:

commissar: Comrade Phibes! We have captured all the capitalists! The killing fields are prepared! Shall we begin with all the intellectuals and people with eyeglasses?

Phibes: Ahahaha die, die etc.
Do you see the difference?

I do. Example one is not believable.

Johnny Bold · Post by **Johnny Bold** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:43 am

Thought for the day:
To spiritually evolve beyond the desire to sin.

Scripture for the day:
Romans 12:20
Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

Laff for the day:
E-mail received (which explains the CAP'S)
A ROMAN CATHOLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEST.
KIDS WERE ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS.
THEIR ANSWERS, SPELLING AND ALL:

1. IN THE FIRST BOOK OF THE BIBLE, GUINESSIS. GOD GOT TIRED OF CREATING THE WORLD SO HE TOOK THE SABBATH OFF.

2. ADAM AND EVE WERE CREATED FROM AN APPLE TREE. NOAH'S WIFE WAS JOAN OF ARK. NOAH BUILT AND ARK AND THE ANIMALS CAME ON IN PEARS.

3. LOTS WIFE WAS A PILLAR OF SALT DURING THE DAY,

BUT A BALL OF FIRE DURING THE NIGHT.

4. THE JEWS WERE A PROUD PEOPLE AND THROUGHOUT HISTORY THEY HAD TROUBLE WITH UNSYMPATHETIC GENITALS.

5. SAMPSON WAS A STRONGMAN WHO LET HIM SELF BE LED ASTRAY BY A JEZEBEL LIKE DELILAH.

6. SAMSON SLAYED THE PHILISTINES WIT H THE AXE OF THE APOSTLES.

7. MOSES LED THE JEWS TO THE RED SEA WHERE THEY MADE UNLEAVENED BREAD WHICH IS BREAD WITHOUT ANY INGREDIENTS .

8, THE EGYPTIANS WERE ALL DROWNED IN THE DESSERT. AFTER WARDS, MOSES WENT UP TO MOUNT CYANIDE TO GET THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

9. THE FIRST COMMANDMENTS WAS WHEN EVE TOLD ADAM TO EAT THE APPLE.

10. THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT IS THOU SHALT NOT ADMIT ADULTERY.

11. MOSES DIED BEFORE HE EVER REACHED CANADA .. THEN JOSHUA LED THE HEBREWS IN THE BATTLE OF GERITOL ..

12. THE GREATEST MIRICLE IN THE BIBLE IS WHEN JOSHUA TOLD HIS SON TO STAND STILL AND HE OBEYED HIM.

13. DAVID WAS A HEBREW K ING WHO WAS SKILLED AT PLAYING THE LIAR. HE FOUGHT THE FINKELSTEINS, A RACE OF PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN BIBLICAL TIMES.

14. SOLOMON, ONE OF DAVIDS SONS, HAD 300 WIVES AND 700 PORCUPINES.

15. WHEN MARY HEARD SHE WAS THE MOTHER OF JESUS, SHE SANG THE MAGNA CARTA.

16. WHEN THE THREE WISE GUYS FROM THE EAST SIDE ARRIVED THEY FOUND JESUS IN THE MANAGER.

17. JESUS WAS BORN BECAUSE MARY HAD AN IMMACULATE CONTRAPTION.

18. ST. JOHN THE BLACKSMITH DUMPED WATER ON HIS HEAD.

19. JESUS ENUNCIATED THE GOLDEN RULE, WHICH SAYS TO DO UNTO OTHERS BE FORE THEY DO ONE TO YOU. HE ALSO EXPLAINED A MAN DOTH NOT LIVE BY SWEAT ALONE..

20. I T WAS A MIRICLE WHEN JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD AND MANAGED TO GET THE TOMBSTONE OFF THE ENTRANCE.

21. THE PEOPLE WHO FOLLOWED THE LORD WERE CALLED THE 12 DECIBELS.

22. THE EPISTELS WERE THE WIVES OF THE A POSTLES.

23. ONE OF THE OPPOSSUMS WAS ST. MATTHEW WHO WAS ALSO A TAXIMAN.

24. ST. PAUL CAVORTED TO CHRISTIANITY, HE PREACHED HOLY ACRIMONY WHICH IS ANOTHER NAME FOR MARRAIGE.

25. CHRISTIANS HAVE ONLY ONE SPOUSE . THIS IS CALLED MONOTONY.

Johnny Bold · Post by **Johnny Bold** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:55 pm

http://www.jvim.com/

Anyone else catch this guys act?
He tries to tie current (and not so current) events in with Bible Scripture and Prophesy.

Some of it is pretty cool.
My only beef with the guy has to do with when Bu$h_Corp set off on their disastrous self serving venture which may still be the ruin of America. At the onset of that retarded thang, Jack was appearing to be honestly questioning those de$pots, then he got called to the White House and was asked to be a spiritual adviser to Bu$h - after that he was like all pro Bu$h Bull Crap.

I still catch his act the odd time, and can dig how he ties things together, but the grain of salt factor shall forever remain at the forefront when it comes to the sellout-able JVI.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 1:01 pm

It's Prophecy, BTW.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:44 pm

Johnny Bold wrote:
http://www.jvim.com/

Anyone else catch this guys act?
He tries to tie current (and not so current) events in with Bible Scripture and Prophesy.

Some of it is pretty cool.
My only beef with the guy has to do with when Bu$h_Corp set off on their disastrous self serving venture which may still be the ruin of America. At the onset of that retarded thang, Jack was appearing to be honestly questioning those de$pots, then he got called to the White House and was asked to be a spiritual adviser to Bu$h - after that he was like all pro Bu$h Bull Crap.

I still catch his act the odd time, and can dig how he ties things together, but the grain of salt factor shall forever remain at the forefront when it comes to the sellout-able JVI.

How do you know he sold out ? That would qualify you as some sort of prophet or "seer" wouldn't it ? Maybe in his discussions with Bush, Bush gave him information that compelled him to sincerely change his mind. I don't know.

Neither do you.

Johnny Bold · Post by **Johnny Bold** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:42 pm

^^
Prophesy fulfilled is called what?

Tom In VA wrote: How do you know he sold out ? That would qualify you as some sort of prophet or "seer" wouldn't it ? Maybe in his discussions with Bush, Bush gave him information that compelled him to sincerely change his mind. I don't know.

Neither do you.

I agree that I may know nothing when it comes to the greater scheme of things - that said; I still maintain that it is my G-d given right to form an opinion, as I have when it comes to the despots hiding behind Bu$h_Corp.
Said opinion is based upon how the actions of those puke$ were/are completely out of whack with the teachings of Christ in regard to love, and forgiveness.

As for Burning Bu$h giving JVI information that compelled him to sincerely change his mind - if so, my guess is said imfo had more to do with being invited to dine with prestige and power, or it involved a bank act with at least 6 figures to go along with it, over anything that had to do with behaving like a true Christian.