God becoming an Atheist !

[Norfolk And Chance]

so he was wrong about the race but right about the genocide. ok as long as there's a concensis among humans agreeing what the inferior human race is, genocide is justified

I never said that.

[Jackalope]

Good news, I made my mind up quickly. This guy is stupid AND disingenuous.

I figured that out pretty quickly last night when he revealed that he thinks that slavery is moral.

---

i'm done here. all of you clearly show that you are closed minded. especially you ElDinero

Suppose close mindedness is better then just plain credulous.

I think the word you were looking for is cretinous. Interesting etymology on that one, BTW.

[chi pan]

I figured that out pretty quickly last night when he revealed that he thinks that slavery is moral.

just like usual, take what i say out of context... this is getting old. why don't you actually look at the facts rather than just looking only at what supports your belief

[Jackalope]

I figured that out pretty quickly last night when he revealed that he thinks that slavery is moral.

just like usual, take what i say out of context... this is getting old. why don't you actually look at the facts rather than just looking only at what supports your belief

I asked you flat out whether or not you found anything immoral with slavery as it was defined and codified in the bible. You said you saw nothing immoral about it, as long as slaves were treated as equals. Which is impossible given the nature of the relationship.

You stated your belief quite clearly, and it is certainly not my problem that you can't see the immorality of it. That's your failing, not mind, and I'm not here to debate you on it any longer. Anyone who doubts what I'm saying is completely free to read and judge it for themselves. Your own words indict you.

[chi pan]

I asked you flat out whether or not you found anything immoral with slavery as it was defined and codified in the bible. You said you saw nothing immoral about it, as long as slaves were treated as equals. Which is impossible given the nature of the relationship.

no, i said as long as their humanity is not taken away. you fail to mention that!!!!!

[chi pan]

just b/c the bible does not restrict something doesn't mean it condones it. the bible doesn't say you can't drink does that mean it's right? no it just means it's not wrong. though you cannot get drunk, it doesn't say you cannot drink.

[kılıç_mehmet]

If God became an Atheist would that be lack of self esteem
or just a delusion?
Interesting situation for any believers to ponder over.

Sounds like a commie joke;
Some commie(probably Stalin) dies and goes to the afterlife, and they put him in hell, where he starts up a riot over and over again, demanding equal distribution of God's favor.
So the angels go and tell God about it, and God requests Stalin to his presence.
So he goes, they talk a few minutes, and then a few more and a lot more time passes, when the angels become restless, and knock on the door;"Lord God, is everything alright?", God answers, "There is no God-Mod you fucking fascists! Come, comrade Stalin!".

[ElDinero]

actually i said by your logic, if you would have read my post thoroughly. i do not agree with this logic however if you do, then at the same time you must agree with what i used b/c it uses the same logic.

But it isn't by my logic at all, it's yours. You do agree with it, because it's why you're refusing to address the rest of the stuff in my link. YOU said that the reason YOU don't have to address all the other points is because you believe one part is not credible which invalidates the rest of the website. Did you, or did you not say that?

i don't need to do the rest of them, if one passage is not credable from that biased site, then obviously others will be as well.

Yes, you did. So, since you have made the above statement (and since the Bible is certainly a biased document), answer my question. If someone could find one passage that was not credible, would that invalidate the entire Bible? If not, why are you applying different rules to the Bible than you are to evilbible.com?

For the purposes of spelling it out (because you've demonstrated that you need this to be done at all times), it isn't my logic and not a statement I agree with. A website with a bias could stretch the definitions of human sacrifice to its limits for the sake of labouring their point; this would not mean that all their content was void as a result. The one example you chose to address (Abraham/Isaac) is probably the easiest one for a Christian to get out of by saying 'Oh it was a test, he never would have let him go through with it', not that it's much of an excuse. However, our fellow poster Minimalist asked you to explain the context of a passage he had selected and how it was ok, which as far as I can see you have not addressed. So why not give that one a go?

[chi pan]

You do agree with it, because it's why you're refusing to address the rest of the stuff in my link.

no i'm refusing to do every single verse on your referance site b/c if i do that you'll come up with another site and another site and in the end you won't listen to a word i say. i will adress arguments, but not ones listed on a different site. i accomplish nothing if i adress all of these and you just say whatever i disagree.

[ElDinero]

Then why did you say you weren't going to do it because 'if one passage is not credable from that biased site, then obviously others will be as well'? That's the reason you gave. Now you've changed your reason. You said it mate, not me. Is this the embarrassing backpedal I suggested a few posts back? I think it is. Quite funny to watch.

Can I also just say it's hilarious that you're accusing anyone of taking anything out of context after your deliberate twisting of Norfolk's point about natural selection earlier in this thread, you fucking hypocrite.