(June 21, 2015 at 10:14 am)Rhythm Wrote: It is -sickness-, and that's the problem, not that it's "sinful".

It's god sacrificing himself to himself for a sin he himself created. The trinity takes this to a whole new level of stupid. So we don't even need to go into the details to wave this away, apart from this thread not being about it.

-and god can do whatever he wants, it;s irrelevant that god did this because he demanded it and because he could.  He shouldn't have, and even after having done it there is no way for a person to accept the offer and retain a single iota of moral fortitude, purchase, or authority.  Those that wish for it and those that accept it are opportunists, parasites, moral vultures gorging themselves on the carrion provided....regardless of whether or not it -was- done...or why, or by whom.

Sorry to but in, but you are being a hair silly.

(June 21, 2015 at 10:05 am)Won2blv Wrote: So would you classify every soldier in that has died as a suicide? No? Because it wasn't intentional? What if a soldier was surrounded by the enemy and had no way out but to take down as many of them with him and just stormed out with guns blazing? There are instances where you could say that the soldier was committing "suicide" but no one would even think to imply that to his grieving family.

The soldiers in your scenarios all don't intend to die.  I doubt many soldiers go out with the intention of dying.  It's a risk of course, even an extreme likelihood in some cases, but not a certainty and certainly not an intention.

Now compare the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus (assume of course that he does have supernatural powers).  He has the power to stop the Roman soldiers at anytime without hurting them or risking anyone's life, yet he lets them take him away and nail him up.

If the soldiers in your scenarios were armed to the teeth but dropped their weapons stood still and let civilians cut them up with bread knives it'd much closer to equivalent.

(June 21, 2015 at 10:05 am)Won2blv Wrote: And even if you could parse and find a way to say that the soldiers death by definition was a suicide it would not change the fact that his death had a justified cause.

World War II saw a number of suicide bombers.  They flew out of the range of return on purpose knowing full well that they would die in the process of dropping their payload.  Currently, suicide bombers are perpetually in the news.  The modern kind often even has their own death as a goal.  Both kinds of suicide bombers have what at least they themselves think are laudable goals,  but it's still suicide.

(June 21, 2015 at 10:05 am)Won2blv Wrote: Jesus did not kill himself and he never would have. Saying it was a suicide is like saying every soldier that has died in combat committed suicide since they knew of the possible outcome

Jesus, as told by Mathew knew perfectly well he was going to die.  It appears to have been the plan.

Quote:From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. 22 And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, ‘God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.’ 23 But he turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling-block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.’

Mathew 16:21-23

Quote:22 As they were gathering[h] in Galilee, Jesus said to them, ‘The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into human hands, 23 and they will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised.’ And they were greatly distressed.

Mathew 17:22-23

Believe we call "the plan" suicide-by-cop, nowadays. Still....meh.

How do you have a system where one of your main commandments is thou shall not kill but your atonement for breaking this commandment is to sacrifice something? Then if you decided not to atone, your punishment was being killed.

(June 20, 2015 at 11:08 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(June 20, 2015 at 3:24 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Yet you continue to believe my comment was about you personally, while the language I used made it clear I was speaking generally.

No, I don't, dumbfuck.  What I continue to do is object to you using my post in a dishonest manner.

Don't fucking quote me unless I have done what you're complaining about, or else we'll have this conversation again ... and again ... and again.

(June 20, 2015 at 3:24 am)Huggy74 Wrote: The Catholic Lady was able to figure that out, why is it so hard for you?  


It would seem someone needs some reading comprehension

... said the asshole who cannot figure out what my complaint is.  

You're being a cunt.  Stop it.

So it's still your position that since I quoted you in my post, that I was referring directly to you, even after making it very clear I was speaking generally and not about you personally?

Once again I must expose you for the hypocrite that you are.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30219-po...#pid816769

(December 12, 2014 at 9:42 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(December 12, 2014 at 3:32 am)Huggy74 Wrote: *edited portion in bold*
Wait a minute! what happened to requiring evidence/proof to back up one claims? Must I remind you of your own quote?
http://atheistforums.org/thread-29834-po...#pid812801
Gaystar News.... Not biased at all /sarcasm

They've been charged by a grand jury.

Quote:Five members of a controversial North Carolina church were indicted this week on charges that they kidnapped and assaulted a fellow member because he had been possessed by “homosexual demons.”

On Monday, a Rutherford County grand jury indicted Sarah Covington Anderson, Adam Christopher Bartley, Brooke McFadden Covington, Justin Brock Covington and Robert Louis Walker Jr. on charges of second degree kidnapping and simple assault. Anderson was also charged with assault by strangulation.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/nc-ch...al-demons/

I expect that the theists here who pointed to the grand jury's refusal to charge Wilson in Ferguson to argue his innocence will now take up arguments as to why the grand jury system is flawed, in this case.

As you can see, you quoted me in your own post.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30219-po...#pid816960

(December 12, 2014 at 1:54 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(December 12, 2014 at 12:17 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(December 12, 2014 at 1:54 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I expect that the theists here who pointed to the grand jury's refusal to charge Wilson in Ferguson to argue his innocence will now take up arguments as to why the grand jury system is flawed, in this case.

Forget Furgeson, what about Eric Garner who was put in an illegal chokehold and killed by the police? The autopsy report indicated that he died from being choked, also Indisputable video evidence, yet no grand jury indictment.

What other conclusion can you draw? There is no defense lawyer present at a grand jury only the prosecutor. So explain how only hearing one side of the case is NOT flawed, especially when it comes down to the prosecutor bringing a case against one of it's own.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-pro...-work.html

I wasn't aiming that comment at you directly, and I should have made that clear; my apologies.

Hold up! did you just state that the comment in your post which quoted me wasn't in fact directed at me?
Why then can you not comprehend when I stated that my post wasn't directed at you personally?

Also, if you or anyone has any evidence of me being dishonest, post it, and well compare that evidence (which you will be hard pressed to find) against the evidence I have on you....

(June 21, 2015 at 3:22 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Well, according to C_L, Catholicism has thought slavery was immoral for the last 2,000 years. They have had perfect morality all along. The speedbumps along the way were just imperfect men making bad decisions. Nevermind that these men were the ones writing all the laws and catechisms that are copypasta'd all over this site. I think we now officially qualify as a catechism hosting site now.

Randy, if we petition the Church to pay our server fees for doing God's work in hosting the stupid amounts of catechism you've plastered all over this site, do you think his holiness would deign to break off a piece? I think one of his shoes would pay the server fees for a year or two...

Mike-

I'm interested in what atheists think, and I would have no problem with you posting passages from Hitchens or Harris or Dawkins as you think appropriate. As I said to Nestor in the Gary Habermas Q & A thread, I would LOVE to go hear a good debate between Ehrman and a skilled Christian representative.

So I'm disappointed to see you speaking so disdainfully of my posting of snippets from the Catechism. Presumably, you are interested in hearing what Christians (Catholics specifically) think on a given topic, and if the Catechism presents a point of view more eloquently and accurately than I might do on my own, why the objections?

Of course, if you aren't interested in a discussion with Catholics about these things, why bother reading these threads at all?

Fuck, Huggy, you've got your head so far up your own ass...

The very thing you're accusing him of being a hypocrite of, he apologized for and said he shouldn't have done. Had you said that, there would be no issue.

Your childishness is just on a level all its own.

(June 21, 2015 at 2:52 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Bottom line: if Jesus came along and replaced the Old Testament laws, as modern Christians usually argue contrary to what Jesus himself said, then that represented an old, vindictive morality being replaced (to continue with the Bush references) with a kinder, gentler set of rules.

If Jesus did not replace those rules in the OT, the Christians need to explain why we nowadays consider slavery evil where before it was considered acceptable.

You cannot have it both ways, because no matter what you wish to say, morality has shifted.

Also, the bible says that god does not change. The god of the Old Testament clearly said that warriors could take the virgins from defeated villages and use them for sex. That was god who gave that command. It wasn't simply reporting what the Ancient Hebrews did. Even if god changed the rules the fact that he is unchanging means that he is the same being who said rape of captive women was all right.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

Quote: As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

and

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

Quote:"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

Nope: Hmm! Still waiting to hear what that is an allegory for if it isn't meant to be literal. I'm fucked if I can think of anything

Sounds like God used to be an immoral scumbag and had to come down to teach himself a few things.