The Bible Takes It Up The Ass, Again!

[DeistPaladin]

Protecting your god means he is no god, my God needs no protection.

1. Admiration is not protecting
2. I can prove Min exists.

[Minimalist]

It probably will not be long until the churches will divide as sharply upon political, as upon theological questions; and when that day comes, if there are not liberals enough to hold the balance of power, this Government will be destroyed. The liberty of man is not safe in the hands of any church. Wherever the Bible and sword are in partnership, man is a slave.
All laws for the purpose of making man worship God, are born of the same spirit that kindled the fires of the auto da fe, and lovingly built the dungeons of the Inquisition. All laws defining and punishing blasphemy -- making it a crime to give your honest ideas about the Bible, or to laugh at the ignorance of the ancient Jews, or to enjoy yourself on the Sabbath, or to give your opinion of Jehovah, were passed by impudent bigots, and should be at once repealed by honest men. An infinite God ought to be able to protect himself, without going in partnership with State Legislatures. Certainly he ought not so to act that laws become necessary to keep him from being laughed at. No one thinks of protecting Shakespeare from ridicule, by the threat of fine and imprisonment. It strikes me that God might write a book that would not necessarily excite the laughter of his children. In fact, I think it would be safe to say that a real God could produce a work that would excite the admiration of mankind. Surely politicians could be better employed than in passing laws to protect the literary reputation of the Jewish God.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll

Jesus can go fuck himself, G-C.

[Godscreated]

---

It probably will not be long until the churches will divide as sharply upon political, as upon theological questions; and when that day comes, if there are not liberals enough to hold the balance of power, this Government will be destroyed. The liberty of man is not safe in the hands of any church. Wherever the Bible and sword are in partnership, man is a slave.
All laws for the purpose of making man worship God, are born of the same spirit that kindled the fires of the auto da fe, and lovingly built the dungeons of the Inquisition. All laws defining and punishing blasphemy -- making it a crime to give your honest ideas about the Bible, or to laugh at the ignorance of the ancient Jews, or to enjoy yourself on the Sabbath, or to give your opinion of Jehovah, were passed by impudent bigots, and should be at once repealed by honest men. An infinite God ought to be able to protect himself, without going in partnership with State Legislatures. Certainly he ought not so to act that laws become necessary to keep him from being laughed at. No one thinks of protecting Shakespeare from ridicule, by the threat of fine and imprisonment. It strikes me that God might write a book that would not necessarily excite the laughter of his children. In fact, I think it would be safe to say that a real God could produce a work that would excite the admiration of mankind. Surely politicians could be better employed than in passing laws to protect the literary reputation of the Jewish God.

---

-- Robert Green Ingersoll

Jesus can go fuck himself, G-C.

This is your answer, you are only making things worse for yourself, you should have stayed in the sandbox on this one.

GC

---

Protecting your god means he is no god, my God needs no protection.

1. Admiration is not protecting
2. I can prove Min exists.

Those who find themselves avoiding the inevitable should not be admired, but hey if you set your sights that low on admiration that's on you.

GC

[DeistPaladin]

Those who find themselves avoiding the inevitable should not be admired, but hey if you set your sights that low on admiration that's on you.

[EvolutionKills]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I give a flying fuck about what you were arguing about. My point still stands; that this new information (however you interpret it) does nothing to validate extraordinary claims in the Bible. As far as the Bible is concerned, it's a trivial piece of information; that if true is trivially true. This thread doesn't revolve around you and your ego dumbass.

I have no ego about this it's people with, oh I just can't lose an argument to a Christian, who have egos that cause them to go completely dumb, that would be you.

GC

Argue about camels all you want, I don't care. My only point was that this is a seemingly trivial piece of information, that the existence or non existence of Camels in ancient Iraq would do nothing to substantiate the extraordinary claims of the Bible. I don't have a dog in this camel fight, I'm just pointing out that whoever is right; neither affects the claims for any miracles. So check yourself moron.

[Angrboda]

GC, do you have anything to say that isn't just a worthless bare assertion?

[Godscreated]

Those who find themselves avoiding the inevitable should not be admired, but hey if you set your sights that low on admiration that's on you.

That mean you agree, but don't want to admit it?

GC

---

GC, do you have anything to say that isn't just a worthless bare assertion?

I brought proof by definition, apparently proof is not good enough for losers such as yourself.

GC

---

---

I have no ego about this it's people with, oh I just can't lose an argument to a Christian, who have egos that cause them to go completely dumb, that would be you.

---

GC

Argue about camels all you want, I don't care. My only point was that this is a seemingly trivial piece of information, that the existence or non existence of Camels in ancient Iraq would do nothing to substantiate the extraordinary claims of the Bible. I don't have a dog in this camel fight, I'm just pointing out that whoever is right; neither affects the claims for any miracles. So check yourself moron.

I didn't start this thread Min did and, he did it out of ignorance of the difference between biological proof and archaeological spoof. If you have no dog in this fight then stay away, no one was discussing other things in scripture, that's for another thread. By the way I love knowing I'm arguing against such childish attitudes.

GC

[Angrboda]

GC, do you have anything to say that isn't just a worthless bare assertion?

I brought proof by definition, apparently proof is not good enough for losers such as yourself.

Proof by definition doesn't settle material facts. When used this way it becomes the fallacy of an ipse dixit argument.

So, no, you've got nothing.

[Jacob(smooth)]

GC, quick, they said you have nothing. Tell em THEY have nothing.

I know I'm a little late into this thread but can I join in the saying I won the argument game.

I win.

[Minimalist]

I didn't start this thread Min did and, he did it out of ignorance of the difference between biological proof and archaeological spoof.

What you know about archaeology could be written on a postage stamp, G-C.

Your "definition" is worthless as is apparent from the people who had been domesticating these animals for 6 millenia, definition or no.

There really is no one who needs to understand how thoroughly your fucking bible has been trashed by modern archaeology but you will continue to shove your head up your ass in a fervent attempt to deny exposure to reality.

Sucks to be you but that really is your problem.