Stupid Creationist!

[Guado]

Originally Posted by genderhazard

The beheading of John the Baptist by Herod Antipas.

Herod had imprisoned John because he reproved Herod for divorcing his wife (Phasaelis), and unlawfully taking his brother Herod Philip I's wife, Herodias.

On Herod's birthday, Herodias' daughter (Salome) danced before the king and his guests. Her dancing pleased Herod so much that in his drunkenness he promised to give her anything she desired, up to half of his kingdom.

When the daughter asked her mother what she should request, she was told to ask for the head of John the Baptist on a platter. Although Herod was appalled by the request, he reluctantly agreed and had John executed in the prison.

That wasn't very civilized.

Which has nothing to do with teachings on which to live by. Just something that happened. It was not exactly a fun time to live in. It was more about finding teachings that were bad not just a bad thing that happened. Unless of course Gandhi's message is now meaningless because the British Empire was beating thousands upon thousands of people to death in India.

I remember a time I was criticizing the bible and was called on to find something wrong with it. I picked a page completely at random from the new testament just to be fair and what I got was a passage basically saying women are fit to be seen and not heard.

Called it. That would be from Paul who was writing to a specific culture that had a tendency to kill women that didn't do that. Paul also wrote his opinions. (and usually states such right before he does so)

Guado, can you manage a post without insulting someone?

When someone doesn't even bother to read a post before posting the exact opposite of what I said I shall insult.

[genderhazard]

Originally Posted by Guado

Which has nothing to do with teachings on which to live by.

That was not part of your criteria.

The Massacre of the Innocents is an episode of mass infanticide by the King of Judea, Herod the Great, that appears in the Gospel of Matthew 2:16-18

[Vengeance1701]

Originally Posted by Guado

When someone doesn't even bother to read a post before posting the exact opposite of what I said I shall insult.

Which dilutes your opinion considerably.

Even if you're right, nobody'll care because nobody cares about the opinions of someone who can't make their points without resorting to schoolyard tactics.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Called it. That would be from Paul who was writing to a specific culture that had a tendency to kill women that didn't do that. Paul also wrote his opinions. (and usually states such right before he does so)

It's the typical excuse to backpedal on but ultimately, everyone who claims to live by the bible is guilty of picking and choosing in some form or another. If you truly and honestly believe that the bible is the infallible word of a greater being than you, you can't throw out some of the rules just because you don't like them. Don't buy into a belief you can't be consistent about because inevitably a skeptic like me is going to call you out for it.

As for why I don't buy for a second that the bible is the word of any god, my proof is simple: The bible contradicts the heliocentric theory. At the time it was written, it was believed that earth was the center of the universe but today, we know that to be incorrect. A god would know that and thus if the bible was his own word, it would correctly state this as well.

In fact, if the bible really was the word of god, why does it contain not a shred of information beyond that which man of the time period knew? My answer is because it is the work of man, not of any god.

What would convince me otherwise? Two possibilities I can think of...

1. If it contained information that there's no way people of that time could have known themselves

2. If any of it's prophecies or predictions actually came true (to count, the prophecy cannot be vague, ambiguous, self fulfilling or retroactive)

[Rachel Bronwyn]

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

As for why I don't buy for a second that the bible is the word of any god, my proof is simple: The bible contradicts the heliocentric theory. At the time it was written, it was believed that earth was the center of the universe but today, we know that to be incorrect. A god would know that and thus if the bible was his own word, it would correctly state this as well.

Nyeh! That bit was intended to be read metaphorically! I know because god told me so That means my interpretation of the Bible is righter than yours

[genderhazard]

[Guado]

Originally Posted by genderhazard

That was not part of your criteria.

The Massacre of the Innocents is an episode of mass infanticide by the King of Judea, Herod the Great, that appears in the Gospel of Matthew 2:16-18

I would have thought that that was common sense since I was refuting her point that the New testament is innately destructive. If you are really saying that because bad things happened during the time the New Testament was written about it is innately destructive every peace rally, every civil rights movement every invention of man kind is innately destructive.

But if I must, clearly I wasn't giving enough clarity. What is so horrifying that it shows the message of the New Testament is innately destructive. Again if it's from any of the books with the words letters, letter or epistle or any variation of the word in whatever language you choose to get the translation off of it is opinions and not mutually inclusive with gospel truth.

Even if you're right, nobody'll care because nobody cares about the opinions of someone who can't make their points without resorting to schoolyard tactics.

If someone is really so deluded to say "He might be right but he made fun of me because I refuse to read what I post to so I won't listen!" then evolution is proven false. No way evolution would allow that to exist. I also find your bias hilariously amusing and thus I chose to ignore your point. Sorry I hurt your feelings.

It's the typical excuse to backpedal on but ultimately, everyone who claims to live by the bible is guilty of picking and choosing in some form or another. If you truly and honestly believe that the bible is the infallible word of a greater being than you, you can't throw out some of the rules just because you don't like them.

The reason why I said mentioning Paul only reveals one's ignorance of the Bible is because the letters of Paul were suggestions to certain cultures on how to live a Christ like life. Each of the letter was meant for the specific culture it was addressed to. Anyone who says that the entire Bible is the infallible word of God does not know what they are talking about. Yes parts of it are but parts of it are the letters the apostles were writing to the churches of the world giving advice (hence why they are called the Letters of Paul/John/Whoever to the Ephesians/Thessalonians/wherever.) The reason why they are included is because much of it can be good advice. (Encouraging others for example.)

[Bozo]

One side that is underrepresented in all these arguments: theistic evolution.

1. There is a designer, who
2. designs via scientific processes like evolution and the big bang.

Why not?

[Guado]

Originally Posted by Bozo

One side that is underrepresented in all these arguments: theistic evolution.

1. There is a designer, who
2. designs via scientific processes like evolution and the big bang.

Why not?

Entirely possible. As I said science and religion aren't mutually exclusive.

[Vengeance1701]

Yeah, I'm biased alright.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

It's not being biased when one side has verifiable scientific evidence and the other is based entirely on myth. Accepting scientific theory over fairytale is called rationality.

Originally Posted by Bozo

One side that is underrepresented in all these arguments: theistic evolution.

1. There is a designer, who
2. designs via scientific processes like evolution and the big bang.

Why not?

Because I would have to accept the notion a supernatural designer exists in order to believe this. I have no evidence of the existence of this supernatural designer. Believing in it would be comforting but, ultimately, irrational for me.

Is it possible? Sure. So is the existence of underpants gnomes. I have no evidence or personal incentive to believe in either though, therefore I tend to think not.

I don't know what if anything caused events like the creation of the universe and life or evolution. I don't claim to. I do know these things occurred though and can verify such. It doesn't involve faith to know the verifiable occurred. I am in absolutely no way a woman of faith.

[OhZone]

But the bananaman says! Oh, well.