(September 19, 2011 at 6:47 pm)Shell B Wrote: Stat, I have made it clear that I do not want to have an endless conversation with you about the same bullshit. Insult me all you want.

If you do not want to have an endless conversation with me then why do you keep responding? Believe me, I am more than happy not talking to you, but if you address one of my posts like you did in this thread I am going to start conversing with you. You insult yourself actually.

---

(September 19, 2011 at 7:09 pm)ElDinero Wrote: I was being facetious, really. Making the point that if anyone does take their morality from the Bible, they would believe it was moral to do a lot of really terrible things.

Terrible things according to whom?

Quote: If he (and you) really believe anything I have done, or you have done, deserves eternal torture, I think that is incredibly sad. Hitchens' summation of religion being 'the wish to be a slave' seems apt here.

Oh no! This was looking up to possibly being a great discussion until you quoted an utter mockery of a scholar like Hitch. His own desire to remain a slave to his depravity is what makes his quote so ironic, I am glad I was freed of those chains by Christ’s work for me.

Forget it Stat. You can claim victory if you wish, but I've seen the roundabouts you get on with Shell B, Rhythm and others, and I haven't got nearly the patience for it. But I think claiming anyone is a mockery of a scholar whilst retaining that quote as your signature is fairly disingenuous.

(September 19, 2011 at 8:37 pm)ElDinero Wrote: Forget it Stat. You can claim victory if you wish, but I've seen the roundabouts you get on with Shell B, Rhythm and others, and I haven't got nearly the patience for it. But I think claiming anyone is a mockery of a scholar whilst retaining that quote as your signature is fairly disingenuous.

Actually my quote is meant to poke a bit of fun; I certainly would not use it in a paid debate. Unfortunately Hitchens uses even greater misrepresentations unapologetically in his debates and then acts like he is proving something, he’s a joke. I am interested where you get your standard of morality to call anything in the Bible “terrible” though. Well the discussions between Shell and I are a two way affair, she loves to play the dodge and weave game. Rhythm follows me around like a groupie, so I can’t really help that fact. Just because I think Hitchens is a joke does not mean we can’t have a civil discussion right?

I've already the answered the question, on the previous page of this thread no less.

(September 19, 2011 at 8:29 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: If you do not want to have an endless conversation with me then why do you keep responding? Believe me, I am more than happy not talking to you, but if you address one of my posts like you did in this thread I am going to start conversing with you. You insult yourself actually.

You know quite well that you came in here reiterating your worthless comments from another thread. When I have told you several times that I do not want to have the conversation and respond to you with complete sarcasm again and again, yet you continue to attempt baiting me, what you are "more than happy" to do becomes quite clear. I respond because it is often fun to see how long it takes you to realize that I am not going to answer your loaded questions. Then, I am reminded that you are a cunt and decide to reiterate the fact that I am obviously not cooperating with you. You still don't get it, though. If I insult myself, then so be it. I would take it from myself, but I certainly do not have to take it from you.

---

(September 19, 2011 at 8:37 pm)ElDinero Wrote: Forget it Stat. You can claim victory if you wish.

Oh, he wishes and he will. Arrogance is a funny thing like that. Impossible to learn with an ego that big, I would think.

(September 19, 2011 at 8:51 pm)Shell B Wrote: You know quite well that you came in here reiterating your worthless comments from another thread. When I have told you several times that I do not want to have the conversation and respond to you with complete sarcasm again and again, yet you continue to attempt baiting me, what you are "more than happy" to do becomes quite clear. I respond because it is often fun to see how long it takes you to realize that I am not going to answer your loaded questions. Then, I am reminded that you are a cunt and decide to reiterate the fact that I am obviously not cooperating with you. You still don't get it, though. If I insult myself, then so be it. I would take it from myself, but I certainly do not have to take it from you.

---

Wait, who addressed who first in this thread? I must be losing it, I could have sworn you addressed me first and then ran away from the conversation. So you are admitting that you draw the conversations out on purpose and for fun? I didn't expect you to come clean on that.

Quote: Oh, he wishes and he will. Arrogance is a funny thing like that. Impossible to learn with an ego that big, I would think.

I actually have learned a lot from you Shell.

---

(September 19, 2011 at 8:48 pm)ElDinero Wrote: I've already the answered the question, on the previous page of this thread no less.

Well I did see that you suggested morality was man-made, but I was hoping you would clarify some more because man-made morality certainly would not apply to any god much less the God of scripture, so the fact you tried to apply it to God leads me to believe you do not actually believe morality is merely conventional but actually transcendent, unchanging, and universal. No?

(September 19, 2011 at 3:22 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(September 19, 2011 at 3:14 pm)Carnavon Wrote: I suppose one could ask where does this behaviour come from?

It evolved, just like every other useful trait.

I am no expert on animal bedhaviour so I would really be stupid to argue on this. The alternative to "evolve" would be that it has been "programmed. I think some of the old behaviourists called it "instinct". Is it not a possible alternative - whether you agree with it or not?

Instinct is not an alternative to evolution. Instinct is evolved.

(September 19, 2011 at 3:59 pm)ElDinero Wrote:

(September 19, 2011 at 3:14 pm)Carnavon Wrote: Will atheists make it into heaven? All I was saying is that we are all deserving of eternal damnation and no "good works" can change that. We are all imperfect.
If an atheist is convinced in his/her heart of his/her own sinfulness and realise that their only hope of being made right with God is through the blood of Jesus Christ, repent, and make Jesus Lord of their lives, then they will be saved. Based on their lives, they deserve hell - as we all do.
The question remains what you use as guideline on which is "better". Why?
I accept the Bible as the Word of God in which He gives me guidelines for my life. I am going out on a bit of a limb here, but it seems to me that morality cannot be "legislated". It is a state of the heart. The purpose of the law in the Bible (e.g Ten Commandments) is to reveal sin and not to make us holy. Human judgement is very subjective and as the Bible states "the heart is deceitful above all things". You will also know that sometimes even our best actions may be questioned whether it is our own ego's that we want to bolster or is it for the better for the suposed "beneficiary" of our actions.
Have a great day ( here in RSA, it is now night time)

Firstly, I find this self-loathing approach of yours really weird and sad. You're saying that over the course of our natural lives, we will all do things that warrant being tortured for eternity - do you honestly believe that? I agree of course that we all do things we shouldn't, but does the punishment fit the crime? I don't think I've ever done anything bad enough to warrant that. Have you?

You do not use the Bible as your source of morality, no matter what you claim. I am almost certain of it. If you do, then perhaps you would deserve eternal torture.

The so-called self-loathing approach is just an appreciation of my sinful nature. I have the same value as any other person, and so do you and so does the beggar in the street. The Bible states clearly that God is not a respecter of a person (his/her value is not tied to their standing in society/their ethnicity etc.) To appreciate this you may consider that Christ died for us while we were still sinners.
You are suggesting that some sins are so "acceptable" that eternal damnation would be too serious a punishment? This is possibly ignoring the seriousness of any sin and the holiness of God. If you were to consider Jesus' statement that for instance even looking at a woman (man) with lust, you have already committed adultery in your heart.
You consider that the two of us should go "scottfree" because we have not really done some serious wrongs? Only the really bad guys should be damned? Who are we to judge? Can I condemn you because I consider your sins more serious than mine? What do we use as standard - what you, I or society deem unseemly at a certain place in history?
Yes, I use the Bible to remind me of what the life of a Christian should be like - and this is summarised by
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
As a further reminder of the standard:
Mat 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
You would agree that these are fine standards and consider how many times we transgress this?
I agree, if I use Gods commandments as standard, I am done for. That is the purpose why Jesus came and died for our sins - so those that accept Him can have eternal life and not suffer the punishment due to them.
The offer stands.

I would not agree those are fine standards. Love, like respect, is earned, so God would have to earn my love. I do not love my enemies, that is stupid. My enemies are people who would exploit the weak for their own gain, so no, I don't love them. They can fuck off.

And as with every single other Christian, you've cherry picked which bits of the Bible you want to represent YOUR Christianity. Jesus said he came 'not to bring peace, but to bring a sword'. Would that be the same as loving thine enemy? I don't need to go back to the barbaric commandments of your God, pre-Christ, to find shitty stuff. There's plenty of crap messages in the New Testament, spoken by your 'saviour' that not only aren't good, but you ignore completely in favour of four passages that sum up how you want to view your religion.

We do not deserve eternal damnation for minor transgressions. And I don't believe in the concept of sin anyway, nor that any of the seven deadly sins are necessarily bad. I don't really think anyone deserves eternal damnation. It's easy to ignore the seriousness of such sins when they're stupid, and ignore the holiness of God when there's no reason to think he exists. What a sad picture of people you have, it's fairly pathetic. Waking up in the morning hating yourself, thinking the best you deserve is to be flogged and tortured for the rest of time.