Christian stupid beliefs leads to boy's death.

[Skeptical Greg]

The statement is an instructive observation that those who do not have godly principles to guide them tend to be a law unto themselves and so tend to fall into an unwise type of conduct.

It's an idiotic observation that has no basis in fact.

However, it is a fact, that most inmates of U.S. prisons claim to have religious beliefs.

I'm not suggesting that atheists tend to be more law abiding than believers, but someone such as yourself, who screams out for logical behaviour from others, shouldn't make such fallacious statements ...

 

[daenku32]

I have a much more powerful sword at my disposal than that my friend:



Ephesians 6:17
Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.



Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-_edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.


NIV


As for dragons?
Dragons do not fare too well in the Bible.


Revelation 12
3. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. ....

7. And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9. The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

Rather humiliating--don't you think?

I thought Old Testament doesn't apply to us non-Jews.

 

[daenku32]

I strongly suspect that a teacher to explain to him what he was reading would have helped.

Acts 8:

30. Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked.
31. "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

Must not be part of Protestat faith since it's 'all about individualism'.

Are you telling us that we now need a central religious authority figure that's alive and selected by an elite group of religious people, to tell us how to read it?

 

[Radrook]

I thought Old Testament doesn't apply to us non-Jews.

The quotes are from the NT.
Or are you referring to the reference to Eden?
What do you understand as the meaning of the phrase "Old Testament"?

 

[Radrook]

Must not be part of Protestat faith since it's 'all about individualism'.

Are you telling us that we now need a central religious authority figure that's alive and selected by an elite group of religious people, to tell us how to read it?

There are things in the Bible that necessitate study before we understand them. The Apostles needed Jesus to teach them. The Apostles taught others. They organized churches where the scriptures were taught. Missionary work was organized to spread knowledge of th Gospel.

Jesus himself clearly commanded that Christians should teach others.

Matthew 28
19. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[1] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20. and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."


So this strange aversion to being taught is unscriptural.


Were the Apostles an elite group?
Did the Apostles teach?

BTW
On what authority do you base your rejection of scripture about the Ethiopian who was taught? Or the rejection of Jesus command to teach others. Or of the Apostles teaching others? Or all the other references in both the OT and NT that clearly tell us that we must teach others about God or be teachable ourselves?


Deuteronomy 4:9
Only be careful, and watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget the things your eyes have seen or let them slip from your heart as long as you live. Teach them to your children and to their children after them.

 

[daenku32]

The quotes are from the NT.
Or are you referring to the reference to Eden?
What do you understand as the meaning of the phrase "Old Testament"?

Ups. my bad. Got them mixed up. For some reason I mixed revalations with deuteronomy. Lucky that the confusion didn't make me kill anyone.

 

[Radrook]

Ups. my bad. Got them mixed up. For some reason I mixed revalations with deuteronomy. Lucky that the confusion didn't make me kill anyone.

You people don't need the Bible to find a reason to kill.
You find plenty of reasons all by yourselves.
Such as impressing the Russians by incinerating the citizens of Dresden for example. Most of you people don't even bat an eyelash when that comes up.

Strange!

Incidentally, heckling is not good for discussion purposaes.
It tends to put a stop to any further communication.

 

[daenku32]

There are things in the Bible that necessitate study before we understand them.

Then the book needs a warning sign. "Must not be read unless in the presence of religious authority figures." We don't want people to think that just because they read something from the bible that it's really so.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Radrook

On what authority do you base your rejection of scripture about the Ethiopian who was taught?
[/QUOTE]

Maybe I wasn't told that it's true by a 'valid' teacher. It could just be an misinterpretation.



btw, I'm not a Christian. I just want to understand them.

 

[Ipecac]

Writing is one thing.
Being inspired to write is another.

BTW
In reference to your insultant remarks:
That's a matter of your biased opinion.
It should be more than clear by now that the quotes aren't meant for you nor any other atheist, agnostic or satanist that might chance to read them. They are meant for those capable of apreciating them.

Who am I insulting? By today's standards, the people who wrote the bible were primitive and superstitious. The terms are perfectly descriptive.

As far as the rest, if your god exists and did write the bible, I would hope that the bible would speak to *everyone*. Suggesting that an all-powerful god would write a guide to eternal life and then make it incomprehensible to some is to define that god as unjust.

(I was a Christian for 35 years. I did "appreciate" the bible. Then my brain kicked in and I realized that I had no more reason to believe Chrisitianity than any other unsubstantiated belief.)

 

[plindboe]

You christians should grow up, then maybe this kind of senseless killing won't happen.

So a christian kills someone because of stupidity -> Ergo all christians should grow up. That's the worst reasoning I have encountered for a while.

 

[Ipecac]

You people don't need the Bible to find a reason to kill.
You find plenty of reasons all by yourselves.
Such as impressing the Russians by incinerating the citizens of Dresden for example. Most of you people don't even bat an eyelash when that comes up.

Strange!

Incidentally, heckling is not good for discussion purposaes.
It tends to put a stop to any further communication.

I thought your Dresden example was strictly limited to demonstrating that some killing is seen as necessary. Now it's an example of "you people", by which I presume you mean atheists, killing? Huh? I thought the good Christian leaders of the west ordered that bombing.

 

[uruk]

I agree. However, like I say, in a round about way the responsibility is God's.

Under this reasoning all crimes committed would be god's responsibility.

 

[Blue Monk]

Writing is one thing.
Being inspired to write is another.

Believing the inspiration came from God is one thing.
Establishing that the inspriration came from God as fact is another.

 

[Benguin]

You people don't need the Bible to find a reason to kill.
You find plenty of reasons all by yourselves.
Such as impressing the Russians by incinerating the citizens of Dresden for example. Most of you people don't even bat an eyelash when that comes up.

Why is it you attempt to characterise anyone who disagrees with you in the same way?

Churchill ordered the bombing, even if he later recanted on it as he believed the consequences wrong.
(a christian who saw WW2 as fight to preserve christian civilisation)

'Bomber' Harris was the advocate.
(traditional english public school protestant)

It was done to impress Stalin.
(trained catholic priest who airbrushed his history to impress his marxist chums)

Show me the atheism ...

And I would not suggest for a second atheism immunises anyone from immorale or repugnant acts.

 

[Gulliamo]

Ironically, in order to be a Satanist, you have to be of the same faith as Judeo-Christian-Muslim faith. Why, you ask, is this so?

Because Satan is a creation of this faith. No one outside of these three believes in Satan.

Three? What three are you referring to? Christians, Satanists and who?

 

[Doctor X]

Perhaps if someone gave him some viagra for his penknife?

--J.D.

 

[LostAngeles]

Three? What three are you referring to? Christians, Satanists and who?

Jews, Christians, and Muslims. In order to be a Satanist, and thusly believe in Satan, you have to be one of those three first.

 

[Z]

The history of our world is full of repugnant atrocities... and the scales tilt inexorably to the side of atrocities by the Faithful against atrocities by the Athiests.

Need I even bother with the Inquisition, the Burning Times, the Crusades, the last couple of thousand years in the Middle East, 9-11, and so forth? And of those examples which I do not know had a faithful person or persons at the helm, I don't know that they were atheists either, such as Waco, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, Oklahoma City, Hiroshima, Nagasaki? What were the religions leanings of those responsible in these terrible atrocities?

And what about Hitler? He obviously had something against Jews - but was he some form of Christian himself, or an atheist? I really don't know - funny, how I can be immersed in Holocaust culture for so long and not know such a thing.

Even going back to Rad's precious Book of Common Lies - er, Bible - look at the atrocities required by God of his chosen people, the least of which is mutilation of genitals, burning of animals, and warfare against other peoples.

So, which way are the scales tipped, Rad?

 

[Benguin]

Jews, Christians, and Muslims. In order to be a Satanist, and thusly believe in Satan, you have to be one of those three first.

I've just never understood how satanists square that circle ... what exactly is it they believe in?

 

[Z]

If I understand correctly, they believe pretty much in the whole Bible, except that Satan is on Man's side, and God is a bastard. God makes this big ol' universe, creates life, gives Adam and Eve the Garden, then plants two 'trees' smack in the middle, making them as tempting as possible, thereby setting up the First Couple for the Big Fall... then Satan comes along, calls God a Big, Fat Liar, and gets Man to think for himself.

If I remember properly, the view is that Satan's fall had to do with disobeying God regarding treatment of Man - that Satan's been on Man's side the whole time, while God has been toying with and trying to enslave Man all along.

That's if I remember correctly.