Jump to content

Atomic Space Vixen

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Atomic Space Vixen

  1. I didn't know you had the qualification to edit the divinely conceived sola scriptura. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "The most supported..."? Really? The one example you bring up is Jospehus, who has already been disputed in this thread, and is hardly a contemporary. I keep hearing things like the NT is so well supported by history, that Jesus was the most historically documented human, but everyone when asked for support just mentions Josephus. Surely there would be more contemporary reports of such a revolutionary. I made the claim that he didn't exist then provided three links. You make the claim that he's the most supported historical figure, so it's up to you to provide the sources. I'm not editing anything, but 1) who's to say I don't have the qualifications to edit text and 2) I obviously disagree with you about the Bible being divinely conceived, especially with so much wrong in it. Edit (ha!): I didn't quote the "completed law" stuff, but I'm still not getting how Jesus made eating pork okay to God. I'm not being obtuse here, I just don't understand how something is so horribly wrong one day but hunky dory the next.
  2. Um, are those supposedly reliable sources? Providing a link to "nobeliefs.com" or "infidels.org" hardly strengthens your discourse. I can provide some delightfully informative link (more!) to one of the most underrated sciences ever! And the controversy about it is easy to explain. There is no real point in trying to refute the existance of Julius Caesar, since if he was proven a hoax, it would hardly change anything today. But proving that Jesus Christ didn't really exist would be a serious blow to many churches. Something very appealing to many people. Occam's Razor. While I'm not an expert in anything, let alone the Bible, I don't think the misoginy stems from it. It's a later (Catholic, mostly) invention. Christianism isn't inherently misogynistic. About the quotes, the boards have a limit of quotations per post. If you exceed the limit, the quotations will be all messed up. If that happens, simply make two posts instead of fitting it all into one. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's possible to be an atheist and still believe in an historical Jesus, because there are atheists who have accepted his existance as a given because so many people do, until they do some further digging. What's curious though was apparently there was a man who went around curing all diseases, raising the dead, and performing all other sorts of miracles, and we're not awash in contemporary accounts? There have been other arguments against Josephus and such in this thread, so I'll go on to the misogyny... Misogyny and homophobia all in one here... There may be arguments about "natural use" being misogynistic, but I know I don't feel good being told that my "natural use" is a receptacle for male seed. Now here's a goody... So it's good for a man to not touch a woman, but hey, better to be married and not fornicate. At least the polygamy of the OT is thrown out here. Here's another fine portion from 1 Corinthians... And now I'll skip down to my favourites... "While I'm not an expert in anything, let alone the Bible, I don't think the misoginy stems from it. It's a later (Catholic, mostly) invention. Christianism isn't inherently misogynistic." Christianity may not be, but the Bible certainly is and yes, the misogyny does stem from it.
  3. My claim isn't that Christianity is a violent faith, my claim is that there is violence in the Bible, certain violence by Christians can be excused by the Bible, and that Christianity has a violent history. I have shown the first two through quotes from the Bible, so I really don't understand how those can be disputed, and I think we're all familiar with the violent history of the religion. That's not to say that it's a violent religion overall today (though there have been areas where violence based on religion have been active and there are signs it's going to start growing in other areas) because most believers like to concentrate on the nice things, the love and forgiveness while ignoring the nastier parts of the Bible. You asked in your post about my beliefs, so here they are... I am an atheist. I can't prove that God doesn't exist because a negative can't be proven, but a complete lack of evidence of a deity so allegedly awesome and powerful to me makes it logical that such a being doesn't exist. I base my morality on the fact that humanity is basically a social animal. We need to be able to get along to properly function, and that includes not hurting each other. I don't want to be robbed, raped, or murdered, and I won't do that to anyone else. We should help the weak and unfortunate in society because at any time it could be any of us in that position. It's a basic social contract. Because my morality consists of not hurting others, I believe that an open marriage is just fine if both parties agree, but cheating on an unsuspecting spouse is wrong. I believe that a one-night stand is fine if both parties are looking for that, but not if one of the parties is being promised something longer lasting. Because I don't believe in an afterlife, once someone is born I believe it is reprehensible to end their one and only life before it naturally ends except in self-defense, so the death penalty is wrong because life imprisonment also protects innocent people and war is only acceptable if you are under attack or are protecting a weaker nation that is under attack. So there you go, a moral compass and belief system in two paragraphs.
  4. I haven't read through this thread yet, but I can pretty much guarantee nobody has brought up "A Little Princess" (1995 version) yet. When she finds her father and his memory comes back... Every time. It's at the point that I start crying before the scene even happens because I know it's coming up.
  5. My original comment regarding Buddhism... Which essentially leaves Buddhism and Wicca. Others then chose to focus on Buddhism and compare its history and teachings to that of Christianity. I pointed out where they were wrong. That is hardly attacking Christianity on Buddhists' behalf. If I say Germany was involved in starting more world wars than Switzerland, then pointed to evidence, that is hardly attacking Germans on behalf of the Swiss. I also find it amazing that pointing out the negatives in Christianity's history and the Bible is "attacking Christianity". I'm sorry, I was unaware it was all above reproach. I'd also like to be shown where I was "attacking all Christians." Did I say "all Christians are JERKS!"? No. I have attacked the validity of the Bible and the existance of Christ, which can be taken as an attack on all Christians because all Christians believe in at least parts of the Bible and they do believe in Jesus. And by saying "can be taken as an attack" I of course mean "will be taken as an attack" because I've been through this countless times before. Many Christians (note: not "all") take any questioning of their beliefs as a personal attack. I can't help that. All I can do is look at history, current events, and the Bible for source material. I've also never made the claim that I'm tolerant of religions. I'm not. I believe religion is dangerous and has held humanity back from our potential for far too long. I know the promise of an afterlife brings comfort to believers (and hey, how many people who honestly believe in an afterlife think they're going to hell?) and unfortunately there are those who need the threat of punishment in the next life to be halfway decent members of society, but when I look at how much suffering is being caused in the name of religion even today I can't help but think how much of a better place the world would be without it. I look at suicide bombers, gay teenage suicides, AIDS spreading through Africa but so much pressure to keep condoms out of the discussion, sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, Israel, Lebanon, etc... So no, I'm not tolerant of religion.
  6. Hmmm. I'm not sure where the quoting went wrong there...
  7. To believe Jesus didn't exist is to reject historical fact. There is abundant evidence to show he did exist. Whether or not you believe he was God is up to you, but for the sake of your argument, I suggest you bite the bullet and admit he was a historical person. Do you believe in Julius Ceaser? How about Alexander the Great? How about Buddha? Sun Tzu? Mohammad? Clicky Clicky Clicky As opposed to the tons of evidence leading to Caesar and Alexander having been real people. If there was "abundant evidence" showing an historical Jesus, there wouldn't be a controversy. I believe based on evidence, and while I would still doubt his divinity without adequate proof, I'd still believe in an historical Jesus if the evidence really was there. No, he said he "came to fulfill the Law", ie complete it. You can't pick up a bible (or any book for that matter) and find one verse you like and then misquote it. How do you "complete" a law? If Jesus did exist, how did that negate the law against eating pork or committing adultery? The Ten Commandments that Southern judges and legislators are so fond of posting in public buildings are in the OT, but weren't they "completed" by Jesus like the rest of the OT laws? You think I'm misquoting, so let's see what follows my original quote... It sounds to me like the laws of the OT are still in good standing according to The Lord. What "Abominations" are you referring to? Okay, you're a Christian and you're not familiar with "abominations" in the Bible? Well, please, let me oblige... Okay, this goes on and on. There are so many abominations, I'm surprised God can handle getting up in the morning. You early chastised me for supposedly taking a quote out of context, but you're not even familiar with abominations in the Bible? Gleefully? Evidence from the text he did it gleefully? What does the text say was the reason he did it? Have you read it? The "gleefully" was me editorializing. Do you really need me to go back to the Bible to show the countless thousands slaughtered, including innocent children? "Gleeful" is editorializing, "blood-thirsty" isn't. No sin "harder" to forgive than any other. The NT teaches that Lust=Adultury/rape and Hate=Murder. And "Lust=Adultury/rape [sic]" seems reasonable to you? "Hate=Murder" seems reasonable? A thought or emotion is equal to an action is reasonable to you? If so, I'm committing assault and battery right now. "He was trying to shoot me so I shot him" is self-defence. "He hated me so I shot him" is murder, and pretty psychopathic at that. And no, I'm not saying you're psychopathic. I'm saying the God of the Bible as written is. Why do we deserve hell? I've never killed anyone, raped anyone, and the only theft I've committed was as a teenage and I regret that. I hold doors and elevators for people, say "please" and "thank you". I've had unpleasant thoughts, but outside of a few words have never acted on them. I'm bisexual and have had sex with consenting adult men and women (but not in the same way with each, and I'm not a man, so I'm not sure if that's an abomination or not). So why do I deserve eternal torment? So why do we all deserve hell, because God said so? Let's pretend God is real. That would mean that not only did he create the universe, he created heaven and hell. He then set the rules that would determine who goes where then gave us all sorts of flaws that would lead us to break those rules while all the while successfully hiding any and all evidence of his existance, which we need to accept to avoid hell. At some point, he decides to send his son, who is also himself, so he is both in one, to Earth to be born of a married virgin (was Joseph gay and Mary his beard?) and then to die for our sins, but we still have sins and can go to hell, and he can't really die because he is God, or the son of God who wasn't God so could die, but would be raised by God who... "why have thou forsaken me?" he asked of himself? But hey, believe in this mess or you will burn eternally. If a child stopped believing in Santa Claus would the parent be justified in whipping that child for the rest of their life? No, that's sick and twisted, but if God does it it's "loving and merciful". Give me a break. Please show were the Bible clearly demonstrates this. I already have. You just choose to believe that eternal torture is just fine. I take the Bible at its word, as do millions of others, and I find no contridiction. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You weren't even familiar with abominations, so maybe you should look harder.
  8. I'm not a Buddhist, so why would I care what they think of me attacking Christianity? I do love how you twisted my comments on the Bible and the history of Christianity as a direct attack on you. I'm sure you're a Christian who would gladly suffer a witch to live, no matter what the Bible tells you to do. Frankly I'm glad so many Christians pick and choose what they wish to believe from the Bible otherwise this world would be a much more hellish place to live. But they are scriptures. So why aren't they more prominent to Christian thinking? Because they're not nice. They don't fit in with the concept of a loving, merciful god, not unless someone really twists the meanings of "loving" and "merciful" in their minds. So who decides what in the Bible should be followed? What are these beliefs being based on? The only source of the alleged words of Jesus are the Bible, but unless every word in that book are accurate, how would someone know which are true and which are false? People are told that God is peaceful and loving, so those are the words they gravitate to, but it's not a peaceful and loving book. If the Bible is truth, then I am bound for a lake of fire, and yet I've done nothing in my life to deserve that fate. Peaceful and loving. Merciful. Yeah, right.
  9. Dang, that was one of the cheesiest fakes I've ever seen...
  10. I never disagreed with that. I was talking about the religion and what is done in the name of the religion, not with what individual believers do. A Buddhist drug addict killing a convenience store clerk while robbing the store is a Buddhist doing violence, but that has nothing to do with the religion. A Buddhist army embarking on a holy crusade to spread its beliefs is another matter altogether. Considering that many of the tenants and teachings of the Bible are violent or just plain absurd (oh, I could spend all day pointing out the misogyny), a Christian who only bases their beliefs on the nice stuff that gives them a warm fuzzy feeling is ignoring the words of the very god they claim to worship.
  11. Yes one of those quotes I gave was Jesus (full disclosure: I don't think he actually existed) saying that the law never changed. And if something was an abomination to God with the Israelites, how is it suddenly okay for non-Israelites who worship him? If it was an abomination to God then, and isn't now, that's a fickle omnipotent, omniscient deity who can change his mind from one century to the next (who apparently went and created all those abominations in the first place). Granted he wasn't slaughtering people as gleefully as he was in the OT by the hundreds and thousands by the time he got to the NT, so maybe he took a omnipotent Xanax. As for loving, gentle, and forgiving, how can adherents be expected to live with those qualities when the god they worship tosses non-believers or unrepentant "sinners" (is adultery, homosexuality, or false witness as bad as murder or rape?) into a lake of fire and eternal torment? That is neither loving, gentle, or forgiving, yet people keep insisting that God is all three. You can insist all you want that God is loving, gentle, forgiving, or merciful, when the Bible itself clearly demonstrates that he is not. I can tell you I'm eight feet tall and breathe fire, you can take that to the world and tell them I'm eight feet tall and breathe fire, we can all believe I'm eight feet tall and breathe fire, but I'm not and I don't. We can take this paragraph and point out where it says "I'm eight feet tall and breathe fire" and ignore where it contradicts that, and we have modern Christianity in a nutshell. I'm not just talking liberal Christianity, but fundamentalists tend to pick and choose what they like too.
  12. There is a difference between a person of a certain religion doing violence and violence being done in the name of a certain religion. I have been unable to find any examples of wars being started in the name of Buddhism, and I tried. I'm unaware of where in the teachings of Buddha it says to kill homosexuals, adulterers, witches, or people of other religions. Christianity is nowhere near a non-violent religion by the same standards, as its history is full of war and violence, as is the Bible. I'm just going to use the New Testament here, because quoting the Old Testament wouldn't be fair as the coming of Jesus was supposed to make all the violent stuff in the OT irrelavent... Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Or not, I guess, but I will still be nice and not quote the OT and all the violence it calls for.) Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. Matthew 10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. (Because of Jesus.) Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (More alleged words of Jesus.) Matthew 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. There is much of this repeated in the other three Gospels, so I won't repeat them but instead move on... Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. 2 Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power Hebrews 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (In other words, back to the OT... You'd better be obeying Leviticus or you die! No wonder so many Christians don't actually obey the bloody orders of the Bible.) I could go on and on, and I haven't even touched Revelation. I'd be interested in hearing where the teachings of Buddha comes even close to the non-violence preached by the Bible.
  13. Which essentially leaves Buddhism and Wicca. I'm curious though, what is it about religion that makes the most sense? The all-powerful, all-knowing giant invisible deity who would rather let people kill each other off instead of saying, hey, here I am and stop killing each other off? Or if you believe in a pantheon, how about many different gods of differing powers who are in many ways more flawed than human beings? Or about about the concept of a loving, merciful deity who will torture people for eternity just for their thoughts?
  14. Did you see, hear, touch, feel, or taste them? I'm very curious on this. It all sounds very naughty.
  15. Ha! You don't know Calgary. That's Ralph Klein's town, don't forget. Edmonton, despite all our Tory MPs, has earned somewhat of a reputation as "Redmonton" because we do tend to vote a little more left of the rest of the province. Hell, it's only living here that's keeping me sane in the backwater, greedy province.
  16. I had to swallow the bile that any mention of LOTR usually brings up and vote for anime/manga geeks. While there are a few good films, much of that style is pretty disquieting and often misogynistic. After reading many of the posts in this thread, I'd like to give a nod towards people who keep using "pr0n" instead of "porn" as well.
  17. Hehe, nice. Does anyone have any numbers for support in BC? I know in the last election it was about 30/30/30 for NDP/Liberal/Conservative, but with all thats happened since I want to see what the polls show now, but all I ever see is the numbers in Ontario and Quebec. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't know about BC, but I can pretty much guarantee a Tory landslide in Alberta, though I'll do what I can to make sure Anne McLellan keeps her seat. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Alberta is always a tory landslide, except in Calgary and Edmonton. I'm pretty sure BC will go to the NDP in the next election. People know the Conservatives are scary, and people think all the Liberals are corrupt, leaving the NDP, the ones who forced the Liberals to take money away from big corporations and give it to the people. I predict huge gains for the NDP next election. Heres hoping they can somehow manage to push through Proportional Representation like they wanted to. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't even know why I said "pretty much", because it is a guarantee. As for "except in Calgary and Edmonton", that depends on whether the election is federal or provincial. I don't know when Calgary last had an MP who wasn't Tory or Reform, but the Liberals did make inroads there in the last provincial election (though the Tories could still be considered having a landslide). Edmonton is the only area in the province with any non-Conservative MPs, having elected two last time around, though David Kilgour is jumping ship now. We pretty much are the only area to elect any sort of opposition provincially.
  18. Hehe, nice. Does anyone have any numbers for support in BC? I know in the last election it was about 30/30/30 for NDP/Liberal/Conservative, but with all thats happened since I want to see what the polls show now, but all I ever see is the numbers in Ontario and Quebec. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't know about BC, but I can pretty much guarantee a Tory landslide in Alberta, though I'll do what I can to make sure Anne McLellan keeps her seat.
  19. I'm not going to deny that capitalism has a few good points, just as socialism has good points. The key is to combine the two for maximum societal benefit. Unchecked capitalism gives us robber barons, sweatshops, and massive pollution. But back to schools, you keep going on about how private schools are "more efficient", the question is, how? Are public schools buying unnecessary books? Useless computers? Globes? Maps? Chalk? All the time while, by your own arguments, paying teachers less. Where is all this tremendous ineffecient waste? Is it teaching kids that are hopeless? Classes like art or music that have nothing to do with raising good like wage monkeys? I keep hearing this argument that public schools and, being in Canada, public healthcare is all so wasteful and the private sector can do sooo much better. Yet what I'm missing in the talking points are actual examples. Of course there are shorter waits for private MRIs because fewer sick people can afford $500 for a test. The public system can become more efficient by testing fewer people, which is how private clinics pull it off, but that means there are people not being tested and then lives are at stake. If you'd like to take a look at failed systems, take a look at capitalism. The gap between rich and poor is growing every day. Jobs are being lost overseas to factories that pay slave-level wages. Profitable companies laying off staff for no other reason than increasing profit and raising share prices. A serious illness in the United States can bankrupt a family whether they have insurance or not. Enron. Capitalism may not be failing the rich, but it is failing society. Again, I don't have a problem with people getting rich. What I have a problem with is the rampant life crushing greed that comes with unchecked capitalism. That's not a system I want running my schools. One book for every two students is more efficient, but hardly in the best interests of the students. I ask you again, what are public schools doing that is so "inefficient" that only a private company can do better? I'd also like to point out at this time I have no problem with there being private schools, as long as there is a public system. Private schools should also receive no government money, because at that point they shouldn't be considered private and any student who applies should get in and stay in unless they exhibit behaviour that requires expulsion, under the same rules as any other public school. Positive changes should be made in public schools. "Self-esteem" is all well and good, but we need different levels of classes for different levels of students. Maybe bus them to different schools. I remember being intellectually unchallenged in school. That needs to be addressed, and there is no reason why that can't be done in the public system. Imagine jockless schools where more focus is put on science than on football. It can be done, and it can be done in the public system. This doesn't require private companies. Again I ask, what are the "inefficiencies" that only private schools can take care of?
  20. What hidden agenda? Stephen Harper spoke at a hate rally recently. There is nothing hidden about their agenda. It's conservative through and through.
  21. The great thing about socialism is that it doesn't put a price tag on human beings. A private school needs to be one thing above all else, profitable. If it's not, it's not going to last long. Socialism will take care of those children private companies wouldn't accept because they would negatively affect profitability. Of course it's inefficient. People are inefficient. That doesn't mean we shouldn't give them the best opportunities we can.
  22. Back on topic, what's really pissing me off is the idea, and too many people are buying into this, that the only other choice than Liberal is Conservatives. The NDP can't catch a break, and I'm saying this as someone who has voted Liberal all her life. I want a strong leader to save my party, Paul Martin has to go, but I'd also like to vote NDP to punish them. However, 1) I can't trust enough people to do the same thing and I'd rather have a corrupt Liberal government in power doing some good things than an honest Conservative government doing bad things, 2) I live in Anne McLellan's riding and I haven't heard of her being involved in the wrong-doings (which of course means I live in Alberta, and you can imagine the hand-rubbing and bared teeth going on here).
  23. Ask him if Ken Lay should be in charge, now that he's in need of a job. I'm a liberal, but I agree much needs to be changed in education. Business isn't the answer, of course, government needs to be involved, but there have to be changes made both in and out of the system. It's one thing to make children go to school, but it's another to make them want to learn, or able to learn. So many can learn 1337 speak but they can't spell simple words correctly? There's something wrong there.
  24. As long as it's a book in the KOTOR era and not one that's about Revan or the Exile. That would be bound to piss off too many people. "Ha! Revan has an outtie! Get back in the kitchen, women!" No, no, we have enough of that around here already.
  • Create New...