(February 12, 2013 at 8:37 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: I've been following this thread, and Drich still hasn't answered the question about whether or not the god of the NT and the OT is the same. It's a simple but intriguing question.

Oh, he did: he replied to me that yes, they are the same, but for reasons he refused to make clear, that god is still blameless for the atrocities committed in the old testament.

So, standard Drich nonsense, really.

Quote:Drich said: But that is exactly what it means. If troop of girl scouts decides to break off from the offical organization, and sell their own brand of cookies, wear different uniforms, rewrites it own rules and bi-laws, are they still to be considered 'Girl Scouts?' What if they still identify themselves by that name? What if a 37 year old man wanted to call himself a girl scout? Does it make him one? In a word, no.

I hear you Drich, but in order for this particular correlation to work the girl scouts would have to be providing an economic and political environment for the people they sell to with influential belief that without their cookies everyone's going to hell. The consumers would then have to be having private bake-offs where they give each other cookies that may be poisonous, then have some 37yr old guy set someone on fire in the name of the girl scouts, for refusing to eat the girl scout's official cookies and for baking their own based on the girl scouts' original assertion of hellfire to non sanctioned cookie eaters. Then you'd have to have the girl scouts lobbying the FDA to make laws against home-made cookies, throwing fuel on the fire telling everyone they're not allowed to bake home-made cookies (which is indeed a human right unless you disagree with religious freedom).

In my eyes, I humbly say, that if the girl scouts weren't there at all then perhaps freedom of cookie baking might mean a few people would get poisoned, but in the end there wouldn't be a cultural war that goes so
far as the girl scout's (out-dated) handbook which states clearly it's position in killing cookie bakers, with an established historical mechanism of setting them on fire. The fact that the consumers can't read and only have mouth-to-mouth interpretations of this handbook is merely flint for the fire.
Here's an idea, if the girl scouts truly wanted to 'help', they'd merely support the systems in place to combat poisonous cookies and promote inter-consumer peace, rather than condemning it then not setting up proper modes to ensure peace for the condemned. The fact that their purpose of
'informing' the community about hellfire rather than helping the community find heaven themselves in the self-explanatory and truly selfless actions of the girl scouts, shows me that the girl scouts put their handbook and spreading it's tenets over the well-being of those they're trying to teach about it. At the very least they're to blame for teaching the handbook in the first place without providing adequate support services to prevent inevitable collateral from happening, and for not (if not properly) informing the public as to it's 'out-dated sections' of the handbook in the first place.

In other countries, advocate groups have found and used with success in india to help women and victims there avoid being targeted with unwarranted violence: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...111846.htm

Through the loan program, each woman is issued a low-interest, collateral-free "microcredit" loan of about
750 rupees ($18) to start her own business such as basket weaving, tailoring or selling chicken eggs.
Participants meet in groups of about eight to 10 to support one another.

But the study also documents examples of the women's groups stopping potential attacks. In one case, a
woman was accused of causing disease in livestock and an attack was planned. Members of the self-help
groups gathered in a vigil around the woman's home and surrounded the accuser's home as well, stating their case to the accuser's wife. Eventually the wife intervened and her husband recanted and "begged for forgiveness."

Chaudhuri said the loan program is run by nongovernmental activists who have been successful in encouraging
the groups to look beyond the economic aspects and mobilize against domestic abuse, alcoholism and the
practice of witch hunts.
Through the bonds of trust and friendship, group members have established the necessary social capital to
collectively resist the deep-seated tradition of witch hunts, Chaudhuri said.

"Why would they go against something so risky, something that breaks tradition?" she said. "They do it
because they believe in the ideals of the microcredit group -- in women's development, family development
and gender equality."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...111846.htm

Quote:Drich said:
I can explain it to the "educated," the problem is the 'educated' think the know better, and ignore what has been explained:
The bible repersents 2 Different religions. Judism, and Christianity. These are divided by what are known as covenants or "testaments." The Old Testament refers to Judaism, and The New Testament refers to all things Christian.

Done..

The problem? The 'educated' who do not practice this religion don't want a reconcilliation. They have found a justification in the confusion they have created for themselves, and are content living there.

I think that if you want the educated to see your point you're going to have to explain it to them without making them take your word for it that they're wrong.
For one example, if the bible states in the OT that god is unchanging, then you might need to explain how god's rules in the NT differ from the OT. I think there's an evident cry for an answer on that one, people think
they know better because you refuse to address this issue in their eyes. They figure if you had an answer you would've said it by now, and since you don't of course they're going to think they know better.

Especially when the some of the books of the NT concrete god's will on the matter ie: Revelations. That's one point I've also heard and seen unaddressed.

Last point I've heard is, if the followers of the bible cannot agree on their own religious beliefs then how are the non-believers expected to see it as a credible source of information? The lack of confidence in the bible is not spurred because non-believers (most of the time) have some grudge against god. The lack of confidence comes from god's authoritative inconsistencies or highly interpretive communications to mankind and as smart human beings, they don't just take "man's" word for anything.

(February 12, 2013 at 3:01 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Bullshit. Who gets to decide the HOW the "ESTABLISHED RULES TO BE AN ACTUAL CHRISTIAN" are interpreted?

You are confusing the 'moral law" with Cermonial law. "Moral law" (God's Expressed will governing behaivor) is in black and white. In this Christians are not indispute. It is the 'Cermonial' aspect of the law is what causing division in the church, and is subject to so much interpertation.

Quote: Magically out of all the people who claim to be a Christian, somehow out of the billions you got it right and all the others who are not interpreting the rules corectly who think they are, got it wrong.

My judgement here on the witch burners of PNG, and not to judge the state of their salvation nor the way they worship. I am solely looking at their actions and judging whether or not they are acceptiable forms of Christian Worship or has the bible classified them as sin.
Burning people and getting high before you do it is a sin according to the bible no matter the reason you are doing it.

Quote:THAT IS THE TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY.

Ah, no. Look it up again. Their actions do not consider with the established rules concerning Murder or Substance abuse, therefore can not be considered acceptiable fors of Christian worship. As I pointed out they are infact sins.

Quote:"I got it right"

So, get in line and take a number, you all do it, everyone in every religion does this. It is as impressive as taking a dump and quite ordinary.

Your clueless. This is not what is being discussed here.

---

(February 12, 2013 at 6:53 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(February 12, 2013 at 5:53 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Except no one denomination of christianity can quite agree on what those rules are, and you in particular don't seem to match with any of those sects completely. So, again I ask you: why is your specific version of christianity the only right and correct one? You never seem to answer this question.

Exactly.
List of Christian denominations
http://christianity.about.com/od/denomin...ntoday.htm

Quote:Number of Christian Denominations:

According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity (CSGC) at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, there are approximately 41,000 Christian denominations and organizations in the world. This statistic takes into consideration cultural distinctions of denominations in different countries, so there is overlapping of many denominations.

Drich, could you tell us which of these are True Christians™, and why?

We've had this discussion before, have you already forgotten?
http://atheistforums.org/thread-12406.html

---

(February 12, 2013 at 8:03 pm)Aegrus Wrote:

(February 8, 2013 at 10:36 am)Drich Wrote: Was she a sourcer or whatever they accused her of? Did she present herself that way?

Just saying if that region was known to burn witches then why be a witch? If she was a witch then she knew the risks involved. If a police officer gets shot and killed in a specific community for doing his job, does the BBC or any other self rightous group/person comdemn that whole community? Or do we seek justice by looking for the person or people who comitted the actual crime? Why should this be any different? Oh that's right the 'self righteous are on an ironic witch hunt to persecute the religious!

Drich, I think maybe you're missing the bit where WITCHES DON'T EXIST.

Then why did these people burn that lady?

---

(February 12, 2013 at 8:37 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: I've been following this thread, and Drich still hasn't answered the question about whether or not the god of the NT and the OT is the same. It's a simple but intriguing question.

Has anyone asked this question besides you yet?

Same God, different ways to worship Him.

---

(February 12, 2013 at 11:08 pm)missluckie26 Wrote:

Quote:Drich said: But that is exactly what it means. If troop of girl scouts decides to break off from the offical organization, and sell their own brand of cookies, wear different uniforms, rewrites it own rules and bi-laws, are they still to be considered 'Girl Scouts?' What if they still identify themselves by that name? What if a 37 year old man wanted to call himself a girl scout? Does it make him one? In a word, no.

I hear you Drich, but in order for this particular correlation to work the girl scouts would have to be providing an economic and political environment for the people they sell to with influential belief that without their cookies everyone's going to hell. The consumers would then have to be having private bake-offs where they give each other cookies that may be poisonous, then have some 37yr old guy set someone on fire in the name of the girl scouts, for refusing to eat the girl scout's official cookies and for baking their own based on the girl scouts' original assertion of hellfire to non sanctioned cookie eaters. Then you'd have to have the girl scouts lobbying the FDA to make laws against home-made cookies, throwing fuel on the fire telling everyone they're not allowed to bake home-made cookies (which is indeed a human right unless you disagree with religious freedom).

In my eyes, I humbly say, that if the girl scouts weren't there at all then perhaps freedom of cookie baking might mean a few people would get poisoned, but in the end there wouldn't be a cultural war that goes so
far as the girl scout's (out-dated) handbook which states clearly it's position in killing cookie bakers, with an established historical mechanism of setting them on fire. The fact that the consumers can't read and only have mouth-to-mouth interpretations of this handbook is merely flint for the fire.
Here's an idea, if the girl scouts truly wanted to 'help', they'd merely support the systems in place to combat poisonous cookies and promote inter-consumer peace, rather than condemning it then not setting up proper modes to ensure peace for the condemned. The fact that their purpose of
'informing' the community about hellfire rather than helping the community find heaven themselves in the self-explanatory and truly selfless actions of the girl scouts, shows me that the girl scouts put their handbook and spreading it's tenets over the well-being of those they're trying to teach about it. At the very least they're to blame for teaching the handbook in the first place without providing adequate support services to prevent inevitable collateral from happening, and for not (if not properly) informing the public as to it's 'out-dated sections' of the handbook in the first place.

In other countries, advocate groups have found and used with success in india to help women and victims there avoid being targeted with unwarranted violence: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...111846.htm

Through the loan program, each woman is issued a low-interest, collateral-free "microcredit" loan of about
750 rupees ($18) to start her own business such as basket weaving, tailoring or selling chicken eggs.
Participants meet in groups of about eight to 10 to support one another.

But the study also documents examples of the women's groups stopping potential attacks. In one case, a
woman was accused of causing disease in livestock and an attack was planned. Members of the self-help
groups gathered in a vigil around the woman's home and surrounded the accuser's home as well, stating their case to the accuser's wife. Eventually the wife intervened and her husband recanted and "begged for forgiveness."

Chaudhuri said the loan program is run by nongovernmental activists who have been successful in encouraging
the groups to look beyond the economic aspects and mobilize against domestic abuse, alcoholism and the
practice of witch hunts.
Through the bonds of trust and friendship, group members have established the necessary social capital to
collectively resist the deep-seated tradition of witch hunts, Chaudhuri said.

"Why would they go against something so risky, something that breaks tradition?" she said. "They do it
because they believe in the ideals of the microcredit group -- in women's development, family development
and gender equality."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...111846.htm

Quote:Drich said:
I can explain it to the "educated," the problem is the 'educated' think the know better, and ignore what has been explained:
The bible repersents 2 Different religions. Judism, and Christianity. These are divided by what are known as covenants or "testaments." The Old Testament refers to Judaism, and The New Testament refers to all things Christian.

Done..

The problem? The 'educated' who do not practice this religion don't want a reconcilliation. They have found a justification in the confusion they have created for themselves, and are content living there.

I think that if you want the educated to see your point you're going to have to explain it to them without making them take your word for it that they're wrong.
For one example, if the bible states in the OT that god is unchanging, then you might need to explain how god's rules in the NT differ from the OT. I think there's an evident cry for an answer on that one, people think
they know better because you refuse to address this issue in their eyes. They figure if you had an answer you would've said it by now, and since you don't of course they're going to think they know better.

Especially when the some of the books of the NT concrete god's will on the matter ie: Revelations. That's one point I've also heard and seen unaddressed.

Last point I've heard is, if the followers of the bible cannot agree on their own religious beliefs then how are the non-believers expected to see it as a credible source of information? The lack of confidence in the bible is not spurred because non-believers (most of the time) have some grudge against god. The lack of confidence comes from god's authoritative inconsistencies or highly interpretive communications to mankind and as smart human beings, they don't just take "man's" word for anything.

Maybe tomorrow.

(February 13, 2013 at 1:15 am)Drich Wrote:

(February 12, 2013 at 6:53 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Exactly.
List of Christian denominations
http://christianity.about.com/od/denomin...ntoday.htm
Drich, could you tell us which of these are True Christians™, and why?

We've had this discussion before, have you already forgotten?
http://atheistforums.org/thread-12406.html

That thread is from April. I joined in August. Have you forgotten already?

---

(February 13, 2013 at 1:15 am)Drich Wrote:

(February 12, 2013 at 8:03 pm)Aegrus Wrote: Drich, I think maybe you're missing the bit where WITCHES DON'T EXIST.

Then why did these people burn that lady?

I wish you were joking, but...

Drich Wrote:Has anyone asked this question besides you yet?

Same God, different ways to worship Him.

Wow... really? It was asked several times through this thread, which means maybe the answer is more important than the flippant response you just gave me... but, whatevs.

So your god is ok with people burning other people alive as long as Jews are doing the burning?

(February 13, 2013 at 1:15 am)Drich Wrote:

(February 12, 2013 at 8:03 pm)Aegrus Wrote: Drich, I think maybe you're missing the bit where WITCHES DON'T EXIST.

Then why did these people burn that lady?

If the Jews weren't in a conspiracy to overthrow Europe, why did the Nazis attempt to exterminate them?

Simply put; people can be wrong. The fact that someone was punished does not necessarily mean they were guilty of a crime.

(February 13, 2013 at 1:29 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:

Drich Wrote:Has anyone asked this question besides you yet?

Same God, different ways to worship Him.

Wow... really? It was asked several times through this thread, which means maybe the answer is more important than the flippant response you just gave me... but, whatevs.

So your god is ok with people burning other people alive as long as Jews are doing the burning?

Not just Jews, Old Testament Jews. And yes.

Why? The the act (any act) it self has no intrinsic 'moral' value in God's economy. What makes an act righteous or evil is not the act itself but how that act correlates to God's expressed will. In other words God's expressed will is what makes something sinful, not how we "feel" about something.

For OT Jews they were to burn witches. For New Testament Christians they are to follow Peter's example in acts 8:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...on=NIV;KJV

This is why I can identify the actions of burning anyone as a non Christian act.

---

(February 13, 2013 at 1:56 am)Aegrus Wrote:

(February 13, 2013 at 1:15 am)Drich Wrote: Then why did these people burn that lady?

If the Jews weren't in a conspiracy to overthrow Europe, why did the Nazis attempt to exterminate them?

Simply put; people can be wrong. The fact that someone was punished does not necessarily mean they were guilty of a crime.

So your saying despite what a give person maybe able to do, people can perceive them as something and still act on that perception even if they are not really guilty of what they have been accused of?

So really if you think about it does not really matter if someone is really a witch or not does it?

(February 13, 2013 at 2:02 am)Drich Wrote:

(February 13, 2013 at 1:29 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Wow... really? It was asked several times through this thread, which means maybe the answer is more important than the flippant response you just gave me... but, whatevs.

So your god is ok with people burning other people alive as long as Jews are doing the burning?

Not just Jews, Old Testament Jews. And yes.

Why? The the act (any act) it self has no intrinsic 'moral' value in God's economy. What makes an act righteous or evil is not the act itself but how that act correlates to God's expressed will. In other words God's expressed will is what makes something sinful, not how we "feel" about something.

For OT Jews they were to burn witches. For New Testament Christians they are to follow Peter's example in acts 8:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...on=NIV;KJV

This is why I can identify the actions of burning anyone as a non Christian act.

---

(February 13, 2013 at 1:56 am)Aegrus Wrote: If the Jews weren't in a conspiracy to overthrow Europe, why did the Nazis attempt to exterminate them?

Simply put; people can be wrong. The fact that someone was punished does not necessarily mean they were guilty of a crime.

So your saying despite what a give person maybe able to do, people can perceive them as something and still act on that perception even if they are not really guilty of what they have been accused of?

So really if you think about it does not really matter if someone is really a witch or not does it?

I'm sorry, is it news to you that people can be falsely accused of a crime?

How. . . the hell. . .would it not matter if an innocent person was burned?

If anyone hear's a loud thunk, that's the sound of my faith in humanity dropping out of my ass and going through the floor.

(February 13, 2013 at 2:02 am)Drich Wrote:

(February 13, 2013 at 1:29 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Wow... really? It was asked several times through this thread, which means maybe the answer is more important than the flippant response you just gave me... but, whatevs.

So your god is ok with people burning other people alive as long as Jews are doing the burning?

Not just Jews, Old Testament Jews. And yes.

Why? The the act (any act) it self has no intrinsic 'moral' value in God's economy. What makes an act righteous or evil is not the act itself but how that act correlates to God's expressed will. In other words God's expressed will is what makes something sinful, not how we "feel" about something.

For OT Jews they were to burn witches. For New Testament Christians they are to follow Peter's example in acts 8:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...on=NIV;KJV

This is why I can identify the actions of burning anyone as a non Christian act.

Wow... that's fucked up. You worship a god who you think at one time ordered people to be burned to death for being witches... even though there's no such thing as witches.

Of course that point's moot when you take into account that there's no such thing as the Christian god either.

(February 12, 2013 at 8:03 pm)Aegrus Wrote: Drich, I think maybe you're missing the bit where WITCHES DON'T EXIST.

Hai.

Anyway, on the subject of cousins:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlkwmNWjlJg

Yall look like my cousins

---

(February 13, 2013 at 3:25 am)Aegrus Wrote: If anyone hear's a loud thunk, that's the sound of my faith in humanity dropping out of my ass and going through the floor.

Don't worry, it never gets better.

<insert argument for hedonism>