Sex vs. Christianity

[frankiej]

You are here to teach me how to make up my own mind? Arrogant prick.

So a passage from a holy book destroys the need of any holy book. Ah okay... praise Jesus.

*glances arround furtively* Um, I'm sorry sir, but I think they changed it to Jeebus now. *bows out*

</sarcasm>

Well, you are obviously not a True Christian then.

[catfish]

Anyone else noticing that apparently this guy doesn't know his Genesis very well? He was caught in a mistake earlier about which book of Genesis something came from, that's forgivable. I have a terrible memory. But then he claimed that the flood myth does not say it was a worldwide flood. I correct him on what I assume will be explained as another "mistake", and he has ignored it thus far.

You should research what e-artz means in Hebrew. Then come back here with definitive proof that e-artz means "the world".

---

*glances arround furtively* Um, I'm sorry sir, but I think they changed it to Jeebus now. *bows out*

</sarcasm>

Well, you are obviously not a True Christian then.

Sorry, but just as the the reasons I stated for joining this discussion, you don't get to define who is and who isn't a christian...

---

Original sin is not Biblical.

And the flood story doesn't specify a world-wide flood.

Why the fuck should I listen to you? You have already proven yourself as a representative that doesn't read the Bible logically through your own argument.

Original sin is not Biblical? Funny. Without original sin there is no need for Christ. If you don't understand this you are fuck all ignorant of Christianity.

You are also fuck all ignorant of fluid dynamics and want to apply your own special definition to 'highest mountain' if you want to say the flood wasn't global. Palestine isn't in a fishtank. Even if the flood doesn't cover Everest, assuming this is your argument, all the world's seas would have risen to at least have covered the depth equivalent to the highest mountain known by Palestinian goat herders. This would still constitute a global flood by any definition, unless of course you are serioiusly pig dick ignorant.

[frankiej]

Well, you are obviously not a True Christian then.

Sorry, but just as the the reasons I stated for joining this discussion, you don't get to define who is and who isn't a christian...

Are you too moronic to understand a joke? I was parodying you, you fool.

[C.W. Sims]

No sir, I should research a damn thing, mostly because I can't be bothered. I have read the bible from front to back, I have studied various religions since the age of thirteen and finally came to the knowledge that they are all man made bullshit. I am simply showing you what the book says, as it is written in the form the majority of people in our world today have read it in. If that is an incorrect translation so be it. But the story as most widely known by those who frequent this forum claims it to have been a worldwide flood. End of story.

Also your attack on frankiej for claiming I am not a true christian is simply more proof of you lack of attention to detail. He was speaking in humorous response to something I had said, which you even quoted in your reply. How can that be so hard to understand?

Seriously guys, are we all doing this just to have fun with this troll? Honestly, I can't see anything more than amusement being accomplished here. I think I'm done. I have better shit to do. My book is calling my name and I think I will go read some science and get my mind off this lunatic bullshit.

Oh and by the way, Cato, I think you hit the nail right on the head. I think he really and truly is.

[catfish]

No, you can't. As long as you bind yourself to it they still have control over you. Even now you're only able to make moral justifications as long as they're compatible with certain cherry picked Bible verses.

What is so worthwhile about it that you need to hang onto it? You know what morality is, you don't need religion for that. You never did. When did cherry picking ever reveal the whole truth? If you're choosing through your own moral compass then you're not following the Bible, you're following parts. A version tailored to you? Why? Why bother? You don't need it, you're more moral than that book. I don't know anyone who isn't.

Morality isn't the reason you hang onto that book. Have you asked yourself what the real reason is?

You don't get it... I don't agree with the Bible, the Bible agrees with me.

It's a story of fucked up ppl doing fucked up things and only claiming "thus saith the Lord" when the "Lord" was actually silent...

The problem is that you seem to have a problem with a freethinking bible reader. What, must I accept what you or your preist says is true?

---

But the story as most widely known by those who frequent this forum claims it to have been a worldwide flood. End of story.

Sheeple... "someone else told me it's true, so it must be"

Dismissed...

---

So, does anyone who claimed that they read the Bible front-to-back speak the truth?

[Reforged]

No, you can't. As long as you bind yourself to it they still have control over you. Even now you're only able to make moral justifications as long as they're compatible with certain cherry picked Bible verses.

What is so worthwhile about it that you need to hang onto it? You know what morality is, you don't need religion for that. You never did. When did cherry picking ever reveal the whole truth? If you're choosing through your own moral compass then you're not following the Bible, you're following parts. A version tailored to you? Why? Why bother? You don't need it, you're more moral than that book. I don't know anyone who isn't.

Morality isn't the reason you hang onto that book. Have you asked yourself what the real reason is?

You don't get it... I don't agree with the Bible, the Bible agrees with me.

It's a story of fucked up ppl doing fucked up things and only claiming "thus saith the Lord" when the "Lord" was actually silent...

The problem is that you seem to have a problem with a freethinking bible reader. What, must I accept what you or your preist says is true?

Out of the two of us I'm the one whos read the whole thing. Who do you think gets it more? The only reason you think the Bible agrees with you is because you've been taught the path to truth is through cherry picking. Cherry picking? Really? Think about that for a moment. Does a historian learn his trade through cherry picking what he wants to learn? How about a builder? An accountant? Philosopher? No, none of them do. Why should being a Christian be any different? If being a Christian was a trade then The Bible would be the manual... so why is cherry picking through it taught as an appropriate method of learning?
If you really are freethinking then consider that question and see if you can think of reasons other than that gained from passages added later on in the new testament. Anything in the Bible will have been written to benefit the Bible. You use that as a reference and its about as reasonable as me asking a murder suspect to be the judge and jury for his own courtcase. It will basically say "because God wants you to"... but you yourself said it was written by men. What the fuck do they know about what God wants?

[catfish]

Damn, I never thought I would ever say this, but you atheists are too damn fundemental, or just mental...

[liam]

I'd take sex everytime...oh, that wasnt the question?

[Reforged]

Damn, I never thought I would ever say this, but you atheists are too damn fundemental, or just mental...

Are you for real? Fine, the answer is passages were added later about choosing what you want because people were pretty peeved about the old testament and some of the new testament. You add another passage saying "oh actually, choose any passage you like" and ta-da. Fixed.
You get a wider range of people in your religion. No mess, no fuss.
Truth has nothing to do with The Bible.

[Cato]

This is all you have in response to my irrefutable argument for the Biblically described global deluge? You then posses a very general stupidity that transcends religious apologetics.