Origin of Language = Epic Evolution/Atheist FAIL!

TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Origin of Language = Epic Evolution/Atheist FAIL!

Here is something I find quite puzzling.  If God did not create us, and we evolve from other creatures,  how did our languages come into existance?   The world is full of many rich cultures complete with an unique linguistic form of language following an agreed set of rules.  So who created the rules, the sounds, and how did this person or evolutionary ancestor get others to understand and agree with the rules?   THis is obviously a huge leap from the primitive grunts and noises that other animal species make.  Yes, primates can communicate on a basic level.  But they can't verbalize into words, or express complete sentences conveying abstract ideas. 

How would you convey to a fellow creature a metaphorical or philosophical question when there is no foundation for language?  You can point to objects and make a noise, but that only gets you so far in language.  The same problem exists for creating a written language.

 

Even if evolutionary linguists can come up with a plausible explanation, there remains one big problem.   Why don't we all speak the same language? 

 

Another issue is you don't see any transitional forms with anything resembling our complex voice box anatomy.  Why did we evolve to have this feature?  What was the enviromental factors that separated our genetic line from other animals and created the need for a voice box?  I would be more convinced if someone found a fossil that contained at least a primitive form of a voice box.

 

Sure, there are a number of theories, but they are pretty weak sauce with zero supporting evidence. 

 

OTOH, the Bible perfectly explains how language and culture came into being.  Man began with an universal language after the Flood with Noah.  Then after the man started building the tower of Babel, God confused the languages which scattered people all over the earth.  This also explains why we find global myth stories with many details striking similiar to the Bible's account.  They infused their own language and culture into the original story.

Yep, I'll take the truth of the Bible over fallible man's theories anytime.

 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:No, The joke's

TWD39 wrote:

No, The joke's on you since the atheist community went nuts over this, and boldy claimed that Mr. Greene was never an atheist.  Oh wait, I guess he is now huh?   It's a good story though showing how Christians do help their neighbors, and we're not evil monsters.  It's called having compassion, something atheists seem to lack.

I don't recall the atheist community making a big deal out of it. Most of us put virtually no stock in what other people believe, we arrive at our beliefs on our own rather than following what someone else says blindly. I know I certainly didn't go nuts over it. Nor have I ever criticized or put down the charitable works of many Christian charities, I have on occasion criticized specific ones for specific practices but in general, I think the ability to organize and provide a lot of charitable assistance is one of the few good things about churches. I have pointed that out many times and I suspect I give far more to Christian charities than you do, evil sinning atheist that I am.

Few people on this site ever say "all theists are ______" we generally judge people as individuals. You are an arrogant, narcissistic, belligerent, ignorant asshole. Now I am happy to tolerate arrogance, narcissism and belligerence and even ignorance as long as it is not willful. Your ignorance however appears to be completely willful which I find to be the most despicable personality trait a person can have.

We are all aware that many theists are very nice people and some very intelligent people are theists for some inexplicable reason- many (probably most) of the great people on this site were once theists of one brand or another. 

You however, routinely fall into the language of bigotry when your arguments are soundly destroyed and make sweeping generalizations. Rarely have you gone more than two or three posts before making a derogatory comment about "all atheists". I don't mind a few insults, but at least grow a spine and be specific and direct about your insults. Instead, you take a passive-aggressive approach and insult the group rather than any one person. Grow up and stop being a bigot. 


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:TWD39

Beyond Saving wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Translation - well I can't really argue against his article, and I certainly can't admit that he is right so I'll just claim wikipedia is a piss poor reference site.  That'll work.

Many people have directly addressed your wiki links. For the most part, the flaw has been that they are irrelevant to the topic. And wiki is a great reference site, and that is all it is- reference. It is not an authoritative source because it can be added to by anyone and as Dana pointed out often has incomplete or inaccurate information especially when it goes into details or controversial subjects. Tertiary sources have their place, but pointing to a tertiary source as if it is a primary source that conclusively proves your claim is ignorant.

 

TWD39 wrote:

Didn't you claim that your sinful practice of having sex with multiple partners carries little or no risk of catching a STD?  I would love to see you back up that claim.  Show me the scientific evidence!

Well I haven't exactly been documenting it, there may be a few pictures and videos floating around but I assure you I use the scientific method vigorously. I have my hypothesis, I test it regularly and then I observe the results. So far I am still STD free, thank you for your concern. But never fear, I shall continue to test my hypothesis as long as I am able to continue getting volunteers to help, science is a rough job but someone has to do it. Doesn't it make you wonder if there is a god, why he hasn't stricken me for not following his edicts yet? 

 

I see, so with that logic, a person who has spent years playing and petting alligators with no injury PROVES that alligators are harmless, right?   You really are delusional.

No, a person who has spent years playing and petting alligators with no injury provides evidence that there are ways to play with and pet alligators safely, which in fact there are because many people wrestle alligators and rarely suffer any serious injuries. All I ever claimed is that one can have sexual relations with multiple partners and can have minimal (not non-existent) risk of STD's through safe practices and using a little sense in determining who they have sex with. If you remember, it was in response to your naked assertion that STD's came from god to punish people having sex outside of marriage.

Your claim that STD's are evidence that god doesn't want people having sex outside of marriage is equivalent of declaring that the fact dogs bite people sometimes is evidence that god doesn't want us having pet dogs, or the fact that people fall down stairs is proof that god doesn't want us building stairs. There is risk in everything in life, and most of those risks can be minimized with a little care. Whether you want to wrestle alligators, own a dog, have an orgy or run up some stairs (or even all four at the same time) the risks of those activities can be managed and none of them are the nearly as dangerous as playing Russian Roulette which if I recall correctly was the absurd comparison you made (unless you cheat when you play Russian Roulette, which if I am playing, I am cheating, promise.) 

I probably also pointed out that by far the most likely way for me to die right now is a car accident, so if you are really concerned about my safety you ought to be convincing me not to drive anywhere rather than worrying about my sex life. 

  

 

No, a person who pets alligators is still merely lucky.  Animal behavior is unpredictable and they can turn on you anytime. 

 

Your ignorance regarding STDS is striking.  The only way you could achieve the minimal to non-existant risk factor that you boast is to always use protection with all forms of sex.  How many guys are willing to use a condom during oral sex?  Not many.   As for choosing your partner, you would need to monitor them closely, have documented proof from their doctor that they were tested and came clean after their last sexual encounter.   In the heat of the moment, I doubt you stop and ask for your partner's paperwork.   Even the highly regulated porn industry has failed to contain HIV and STDS 100%.

My claim was  that if you follow the Bible's laws on sex, then you have no worries about STDS along with being able to have a healthy relationship.  


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:jcgadfly

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

TWD39 wrote:
 

So I provide research and answers, and then what?  Oh let's see, you call me stupid.  Insult my faith.  Offer no counter-argument with supporting cites or evidence.  Or you simply bury me with more questions and completely ignore my points.  Atheists don't get a free pass either.  At some point, you have to BACK UP your bold statements.

You provided research? Exactly where was that? All you have done is spout bible quotes. The closest you have gotten to "research" is to throw up wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is useful for a general overview of a topic but as Dana succinctly explained, wiki is not exactly the most accurate source on any topic. Wikipedia is only intended to be and is pretty effective at being a tertiary source. It is useful if you are clueless on a topic and want to learn enough to decide an appropriate starting point for learning more or if you are only interested in a broad overview on a topic. It is hardly a source that can be considered complete and authoritative. When I was in elementary school my teacher would have flunked me if I turned in a report that used "Encyclopedia Brittanica" as a main source. People call you stupid because your arguments are on par with a second graders (not to insult second graders), start actually providing quality sources and reasoned arguments and people will treat you with more respect. 

try checking out this site for some ideas of what to look for in a quality source

http://methodsofdiscovery.net/?q=node/23

 

And exactly which "bold statement" has anyone refused to back up? Even in your criticisms of us you can only make vague blanket statements. Point out a specific and you will probably get a specific response. I know I am personally willing to back up any statement I make when specifically requested and most of the others participating in this thread are as well. 

 

 

 

 

Translation - well I can't really argue against his article, and I certainly can't admit that he is right so I'll just claim wikipedia is a piss poor reference site.  That'll work.

 

Didn't you claim that your sinful practice of having sex with multiple partners carries little or no risk of catching a STD?  I would love to see you back up that claim.  Show me the scientific evidence!

Except that people have spoken against the article you cited and wikipedia is a piss poor source (you weren't using it a s a reference site - you were citing it as an authority). I use wikipedia only to find a layman's explanation and then I go to the links at the bottom to provide a fuller explanation. (if people ask). Meanwhile, you insist on claiming that no one has provided evidence to counter your assertions while drowning in it. I thought the 9th commandment wasn't an option for you.

I'll leave the rest to Beyond Sacing.

 

Wow, again you manage to say something without really saying something.  If my references are wrong, PROVE it instead of bitching about the source. 

 

Speaking of Wikipedia, I'm particularly fond of this one:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Christianity_from_atheism

 

 

The only reason it looks like I'm not saying something to you is because you refuse to understand it. Must be nice to have that security blanket to fall back on.

To the list:

Overall, I see a lot of people who feel more comfortable in delusion than reality.I also see a lot of people who don't understand what atheism is (Sandage, Genovese, Turner, those listed that "converted"from Communism, Stalinism, Trostkyism, etc.)

Breaking it down, I see some people who became Christians because it was politically expedient to do so (and some of those if you looked at them more closely on the list you wouldn't call them Christians (ex. Anders Borg, Keir Heidle, many of those who converted to Catholicism or Russian orthodoxy).

I see some flat out liars (Kirk Cameron, Lee Strobel). If they were atheists I'm the sitting Pope.

I see some people who have harmonized philosophy and theology like McGrath (usually done by changing the Bible)

Some absolute nuts (Shelly Lubben, Enoch Powell) that you and Christianity can keep.

Just because some people have gone to irrationality in some aspects of their lives doesn't make me want to dismiss them for the work they've done (though some deserve it).

The reason wikipedia is not accepted as an academic source is because it can be edited by anyone. Most times it's caught -sometimes it's not. If you really want to impress me, cite a book (I know they have a lot of words in them but give it a shot). Then quote that book and tell us the title of the book so we can look for ourselves.

Going to bring up Antony Flew next?

 

 

Please demonstrate a specific lie that Lee Strobel has made.   Otherwise, it's more biased talk casually writing off Christians as nutballs  because that fits nicely in your mold.  I suppose you include C.S Lewis in that list as well huh?  Then again, you're the one who just makes up lies.  You falsely claimed that Andrew Womack ministiries lies about healing in order to bilk people from their money without a shred of evidence.  You burned up any currency of credibility with that one.

 

I will bring up this one.   Welcome Brother Greene to the family of Christ. Smiling

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Greene_(activist)

 

BTW, yes wikipedia can be edited by anyone including people who as authorities on the subject. 

Congrats on buying Mr Greene off - what you cited says as much.

As for Strobel - from caseagainstfaith.com (a critique of all Strobel's "Case for" books)

"But Strobel portrays himself as a former atheist and a tough reporter, and reminds us of this constantly. He seems to try too hard to make us believe that he isn't going to take an easy answer from those he interviews. Does he really expect us to believe that he spoke "in a voice laden with sarcasm" to those he interviewed? It is the fact that Strobel proceeds on the pretense of playing the part of the skeptic, but then clearly stacks the deck against the skeptic..."

Enough of a lie?

Mr. Wommack put up a story about he and God (order intentional) healing a guy from a stroke with no evidence behind it and pictures one could find anywhere captioned to put his claim in a positive light. The donation button on his site is all the poof that I need that his intention is to bilk the faithful.

But then you'll just cover your eyes and insist that I presented nothing of substance - You make this too easy.

 

 

A quick review of your website gave me no specific to demonstrate that Strobel was never an atheist.  In fact, unless you know the man personally, I don't think you have a right to make such a judgement. You just can't accept that a person bathed in your science and logic could see the light and become saved.  I don't know Mr. Greene so your statement is another bold faced lie.  I welcome him as a brother in Christ.  You see, Christians help and support each other.  We don't believe in mocking and tearing down people like yourself. 

 

Mr. Wommack presented one of many healing stories with MRI scan images, the full name of his doctor, and a video with his doctor testifying to the miracle.  What more proof do you fricking need?  So what if he has a donation button?  Non-profit ministries cost a lot of money to run.  He never begs for money on his radio show and fully offers to send out materials for free if requested.  That's not indictive of a scam artist.


 

 

 

No the reason I believe Strobel was never an atheist to begin with comes from listening to his story and seeing just how ignorant he is about atheism and evolution. The same goes for Cameron.

Again, Wommack presented a story with pictures of folders saying they were MRI scans and doctors looking at scans (I can call up similar pictures via Google Images). I can get an actor to play a doctor for a video (I've played one on stage - am I an MD now?)

What more proof do I need? A move from no proof to some proof would be nice.

You don't advertise unless you're trying to sell something - Wommack, like so many others, is selling Jesus and himself as a package deal. The "stories of healing" are his ads.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:TWD39

Beyond Saving wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

No, The joke's on you since the atheist community went nuts over this, and boldy claimed that Mr. Greene was never an atheist.  Oh wait, I guess he is now huh?   It's a good story though showing how Christians do help their neighbors, and we're not evil monsters.  It's called having compassion, something atheists seem to lack.

I don't recall the atheist community making a big deal out of it. Most of us put virtually no stock in what other people believe, we arrive at our beliefs on our own rather than following what someone else says blindly. I know I certainly didn't go nuts over it. Nor have I ever criticized or put down the charitable works of many Christian charities, I have on occasion criticized specific ones for specific practices but in general, I think the ability to organize and provide a lot of charitable assistance is one of the few good things about churches. I have pointed that out many times and I suspect I give far more to Christian charities than you do, evil sinning atheist that I am.

Few people on this site ever say "all theists are ______" we generally judge people as individuals. You are an arrogant, narcissistic, belligerent, ignorant asshole. Now I am happy to tolerate arrogance, narcissism and belligerence and even ignorance as long as it is not willful. Your ignorance however appears to be completely willful which I find to be the most despicable personality trait a person can have.

We are all aware that many theists are very nice people and some very intelligent people are theists for some inexplicable reason- many (probably most) of the great people on this site were once theists of one brand or another. 

You however, routinely fall into the language of bigotry when your arguments are soundly destroyed and make sweeping generalizations. Rarely have you gone more than two or three posts before making a derogatory comment about "all atheists". I don't mind a few insults, but at least grow a spine and be specific and direct about your insults. Instead, you take a passive-aggressive approach and insult the group rather than any one person. Grow up and stop being a bigot. 

 

 

Go back to my original first post.  I was merely presenting my reasons why I think God is kind.   I never attacked, insulted, or called anyone out personally in the OP.   YOU are the one who took this down an ugly path with a quick extremely arrogant and rude response.  Then had the nerve to say that you enjoy mocking Christians.   So drop the self-righteous act.  You're not fooling me. 

 

BTW,  you never destroyed my arguments.  I could give a laundry lists of points I made that were conventiently ignored because the responses were nothing more than forcing more questions on me and directing attention away from the original topics.  That's intellectual dishonesty and I find it disgusting.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Beyond Saving

TWD39 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

No, The joke's on you since the atheist community went nuts over this, and boldy claimed that Mr. Greene was never an atheist.  Oh wait, I guess he is now huh?   It's a good story though showing how Christians do help their neighbors, and we're not evil monsters.  It's called having compassion, something atheists seem to lack.

I don't recall the atheist community making a big deal out of it. Most of us put virtually no stock in what other people believe, we arrive at our beliefs on our own rather than following what someone else says blindly. I know I certainly didn't go nuts over it. Nor have I ever criticized or put down the charitable works of many Christian charities, I have on occasion criticized specific ones for specific practices but in general, I think the ability to organize and provide a lot of charitable assistance is one of the few good things about churches. I have pointed that out many times and I suspect I give far more to Christian charities than you do, evil sinning atheist that I am.

Few people on this site ever say "all theists are ______" we generally judge people as individuals. You are an arrogant, narcissistic, belligerent, ignorant asshole. Now I am happy to tolerate arrogance, narcissism and belligerence and even ignorance as long as it is not willful. Your ignorance however appears to be completely willful which I find to be the most despicable personality trait a person can have.

We are all aware that many theists are very nice people and some very intelligent people are theists for some inexplicable reason- many (probably most) of the great people on this site were once theists of one brand or another. 

You however, routinely fall into the language of bigotry when your arguments are soundly destroyed and make sweeping generalizations. Rarely have you gone more than two or three posts before making a derogatory comment about "all atheists". I don't mind a few insults, but at least grow a spine and be specific and direct about your insults. Instead, you take a passive-aggressive approach and insult the group rather than any one person. Grow up and stop being a bigot. 

 

 

Go back to my original first post.  I was merely presenting my reasons why I think God is kind.   I never attacked, insulted, or called anyone out personally in the OP.   YOU are the one who took this down an ugly path with a quick extremely arrogant and rude response.  Then had the nerve to say that you enjoy mocking Christians.   So drop the self-righteous act.  You're not fooling me. 

 

BTW,  you never destroyed my arguments.  I could give a laundry lists of points I made that were conventiently ignored because the responses were nothing more than forcing more questions on me and directing attention away from the original topics.  That's intellectual dishonesty and I find it disgusting.

Love to see on item off the "laundry list". If the responses were "forcing more questions on you" maybe it was because you weren't phrasing your ideas in a way that made any sense. People ask questions to get to answers - "God said so" isn't enough.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1379
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
You're expecting all acquiesce to anything you've said . .

You're expecting all to acquiesce to anything you've said.

Ms.TWD wrote:
. .  nothing more than forcing more questions on me and directing attention away from the original topics.  That's intellectual dishonesty . .

    You cannot conclude this is some sort of a tactic on people's part.? You are entirely ignorant of how the board goes after one another, I can immediately tell. You aren't going by much, if you restrict your knowledge of the board to (only)  your own personal experience. Correct me if  I am wrong but you honestly cannot think nor expect (on an 'Atheist' Internet forum,) people would be expected to acquiesce to anything you 've said? IMHO, This almost sounds like a conspiratorial bordering on delusional mind frame that is emerging, if you honestly believe that! Asking questions is normal, a day-to-day normality, if you'd examine some of the older discussions, (it's not a tactic). Get back to me when you can.  (I've already demonstrated I am more than willing to wait my turn).

 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 269
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: No, a person

TWD39 wrote:
 

No, a person who pets alligators is still merely lucky.  Animal behavior is unpredictable and they can turn on you anytime. 

You can consider them a little lucky. However, those with knowledge and experience have a severely lower risk factor handling them than you or I would. Steve Irwin's ultimate demise came from a stingray. He handled an incredible amount of crocodiles, and was never killed by one. 

Same deal with sex. Let's read on and see what you say next.

TWD39 wrote:

Your ignorance regarding STDS is striking.  The only way you could achieve the minimal to non-existant risk factor that you boast is to always use protection with all forms of sex. 

Nice job trying to lump in minimal with non-existent. The risk IS minimal if you practice safe sex. Also, the fun is much greater than if you practice no sex. 

TWD39 wrote:

How many guys are willing to use a condom during oral sex?  Not many.  

Now, which diseases can you contract from oral sex? There are several, but most of them are not transmittable from saliva. In the odd instance that somebody's mouth is bleeding, perhaps there is added risk, but how often does your mouth bleed if you haven't vigorously brushed/flossed in the past 10 minutes? 

TWD39 wrote:

As for choosing your partner, you would need to monitor them closely, have documented proof from their doctor that they were tested and came clean after their last sexual encounter.   

You should be this thorough when verifying the authenticity of the stories in the bible!

TWD39 wrote:

In the heat of the moment, I doubt you stop and ask for your partner's paperwork.   Even the highly regulated porn industry has failed to contain HIV and STDS 100%.

True, it's not perfect. However...

TWD39 wrote:

My claim was  that if you follow the Bible's laws on sex, then you have no worries about STDS along with being able to have a healthy relationship.  

...neither is simply waiting until marriage. Some people have lied to you about waiting. Some people could have gotten infected by other means. Some people could have gotten a disease from being violated.The bible's laws on sex? Like taking your older brother's wife if he dies? Or perhaps a hand-maid named Zilpah? By the way, what Onan did would reduce the likelihood of pregnancy (while not a recommended method of reliable birth control)....but then he got killed for it by god. Or how about raping someone and paying her father 50 shekels? That's all in there good sir, the 7th commandment is NOT the only commandment in that book regarding sex. 

Oh, and by the way, my upbringing, and the shameful way that most christian denominations frame sex, was responsible for my inability to have any healthy relationships for a long time.

EDIT - Also to add, regions with abstinence-only sex education show almost no variation in adolescents being sexually active vs. regions that have proper sex education in schools. We are sexual creatures, and we are going to have sex, no matter what others say.  However, it shows an alarmingly higher rate of unwanted pregnancy and disease, often the result of not using protection (obviously due to being taught that it is both morally reprehensible, and ineffective). This teaching is responsible for suffering of people due to disease, and the suffering of children born to people who could not afford, or were otherwise incapable, of caring for them. 

TWD39 wrote:

BTW,  you never destroyed my arguments. 

You continuing to assert this doesn't make it so. I would have to disagree with the above statement (although it's rare that you even make a coherent argument in the first place)

TWD39 wrote:

I could give a laundry lists of points I made that were conventiently ignored because the responses were nothing more than forcing more questions on me and directing attention away from the original topics. 

Actually your assertions on the ridiculous Tower of Babel story, miracle claims, and lists of former atheists have been all either destroyed, or at least smacked a little. So far nobody's been extremely specific regarding Lee Strobel, but I'm sure researching a little bit of it, we will find that he indeed wasn't who he said he was.  Kirk Cameron often mentions specifically that he is a "former atheist, an evolutionist". He then says something along the lines of himself being young and famous, being able to do what he wants with reckless abandon. Then says he found god and Jesus, and is now a good person. He also demonstrates constantly that he has no idea how evolution works (or he does, and is deliberately dishonest to make money for his ministry, I'm not sure which). The second anybody uses the term "evolutionist" you know immediately that they're either highly unintelligent, or full of crap. 

TWD39 wrote:

That's intellectual dishonesty and I find it disgusting.

Address my post about the lineages please. I called you out quite clearly on your own dishonesty, and you have yet to defend yourself there. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The bugs that

 

TWD39 wrote:

Didn't you claim that your sinful practice of having sex with multiple partners carries little or no risk of catching a STD?  I would love to see you back up that claim.  Show me the scientific evidence!

 

 

cause STDs are just simpler life forms doing their best to survive in a hostile world, the poor wee things. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Go back to my

TWD39 wrote:

Go back to my original first post.  I was merely presenting my reasons why I think God is kind.   I never attacked, insulted, or called anyone out personally in the OP.   YOU are the one who took this down an ugly path with a quick extremely arrogant and rude response.  Then had the nerve to say that you enjoy mocking Christians.   So drop the self-righteous act.  You're not fooling me. 

 

BTW,  you never destroyed my arguments.  I could give a laundry lists of points I made that were conventiently ignored because the responses were nothing more than forcing more questions on me and directing attention away from the original topics.  That's intellectual dishonesty and I find it disgusting.

I'm not talking about your first post, you have had 400 odd posts since then. I remember being quite respectful with my initial responses to you because it was hot outside and I was bored so I took you serious for much longer than I normally would. If there is any point that you think I ignored (or anyone else) feel free to point it out specifically. It is quite possible in a thread that moves this quickly that some important point is missed. I am more than happy to address anything. Tell me specifically what point I missed and I will provide a response with evidence.

 

P.S.

I don't need to fool you, you have already sufficiently fooled yourself.  


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: No, a person

TWD39 wrote:
 

No, a person who pets alligators is still merely lucky.  Animal behavior is unpredictable and they can turn on you anytime. 

 

Nice of you to demonstrate you ignorance of all things in nature again. Animal behavior is rather predictable and it is perfectly possible to wrestle alligators rather safely. (an entire industry revolves around "alligator wrestling" where the practitioners do everything they can to make it appear more dangerous than it actually is.)  

 

TWD39 wrote:
 

Your ignorance regarding STDS is striking.  The only way you could achieve the minimal to non-existant risk factor that you boast is to always use protection with all forms of sex.  How many guys are willing to use a condom during oral sex?  Not many.   As for choosing your partner, you would need to monitor them closely, have documented proof from their doctor that they were tested and came clean after their last sexual encounter.   In the heat of the moment, I doubt you stop and ask for your partner's paperwork.   Even the highly regulated porn industry has failed to contain HIV and STDS 100%.

My claim was  that if you follow the Bible's laws on sex, then you have no worries about STDS along with being able to have a healthy relationship.  

You have evidence?

And no, following the "bible's laws" don't protect you, if the person you have sex with has an STD, you are at risk of getting it, whether they are your spouse or just some random person. If you are having sex with someone who is not infected with an STD, you are not at risk. The only applicable questions are whether or not a person has an STD, whether or not they would know they have an STD and whether or not they would tell you the have an STD. If someone I am fucking fucks someone else, they will tell me about it. If your spouse is fucking someone else are they going to tell you? 

The porn industry is not highly regulated, yet despite that, instances of STD's are extremely rare and there has been one, count them, ONE outbreak of HIV all stemming from the same performer. There are people who literally have sex with HUNDREDS of people for the porn industry, yet avoid major STD's. Maybe god supports porn stars?


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 269
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:And no,

Beyond Saving wrote:

And no, following the "bible's laws" don't protect you, if the person you have sex with has an STD, you are at risk of getting it, whether they are your spouse or just some random person. If you are having sex with someone who is not infected with an STD, you are not at risk. The only applicable questions are whether or not a person has an STD, whether or not they would know they have an STD and whether or not they would tell you the have an STD. If someone I am fucking fucks someone else, they will tell me about it. If your spouse is fucking someone else are they going to tell you? 

The porn industry is not highly regulated, yet despite that, instances of STD's are extremely rare and there has been one, count them, ONE outbreak of HIV all stemming from the same performer. There are people who literally have sex with HUNDREDS of people for the porn industry, yet avoid major STD's. Maybe god supports porn stars?

No, he doesn't. If god supported porn stars, then NONE of them would get STDs. But the ones that do are of god, and are to serve as a warning to the rest (the vast majority of whom will NEVER get one!).

Also, yes, fine, married people do get STDs, even if they hold out. They could have gotten it from a toilet seat, or a bad coincidence while being sprayed with blood.  But these people following god's law also get their STDs as a warning from god to the porn stars and fornicators! They did not get it due to unfortunate circumstance at all. 

None of the above is indicative of how a godless world would function! [/idiot]

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It never ceases to amaze me

It never ceases to amaze me how people will give credit for something to an omnipotent, perfect creator, yet fail to see all the ways in which perfection doesn't exist.

They say the universe is perfect, except it isn't, and the heat death is apparently inevitable. They say the Earth is perfect, except no human could have survived walking around 2 billion years ago, and in a few billion years Earth will be swallowed by the sun. Long before then it'll be uninhibitable. They say HIV is perfect, and then some mother gets it from a transfusion during birth, and a 8 year old girl in Africa gets it by being raped.

These people should be locked up as the loons they are.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:You can

Jabberwocky wrote:

You can consider them a little lucky. However, those with knowledge and experience have a severely lower risk factor handling them than you or I would. Steve Irwin's ultimate demise came from a stingray. He handled an incredible amount of crocodiles, and was never killed by one. 

Same deal with sex. Let's read on and see what you say next.

 

I'm sure the lady who owned the chimp told many people how safe and loving chimps are.  That is until the chimp suddenly decided to rip off her friend's face.  Even trained handlers accept a degree of risk.  That's why you don't see alligators in petting zoos.  That's why the alligator shows are popular because there is an element of danger. 

If you have sex with multiple partners, you are putting your physical life at risk, plain and simple.   That's a fact you can't get away from.

 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Nice job trying to lump in minimal with non-existent. The risk IS minimal if you practice safe sex. Also, the fun is much greater than if you practice no sex. 

I wouldn't want to trade in those moments of fun for a lifetime of genital warts or genital herpes.  Then you'll get to live out the remaining part of your life kicking yourself for being so stupid.  Placing your entire life on the faith of a piece of latex especially if you believe this life is all you get is really stupid, IMO.  Condoms do break, ya know.

 

According to this article, it tosses around numbers like 70% or 80% protection rate.   That doesn't sound extremely minimal or non-existent to me.

 

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/13999099/ns/today-today_health/t/do-condoms-really-protect-against-stds/

 

 

 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

How many guys are willing to use a condom during oral sex?  Not many.  

Now, which diseases can you contract from oral sex? There are several, but most of them are not transmittable from saliva. In the odd instance that somebody's mouth is bleeding, perhaps there is added risk, but how often does your mouth bleed if you haven't vigorously brushed/flossed in the past 10 minutes? 

Gum disease is pretty common and bleeding gums is a symptom.  There could be tiny breaks in the skin that the naked eye can not see which would allow a virus to infect the body. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

...neither is simply waiting until marriage. Some people have lied to you about waiting. Some people could have gotten infected by other means. Some people could have gotten a disease from being violated.The bible's laws on sex? Like taking your older brother's wife if he dies? Or perhaps a hand-maid named Zilpah? By the way, what Onan did would reduce the likelihood of pregnancy (while not a recommended method of reliable birth control)....but then he got killed for it by god. Or how about raping someone and paying her father 50 shekels? That's all in there good sir, the 7th commandment is NOT the only commandment in that book regarding sex. 

Oh, and by the way, my upbringing, and the shameful way that most christian denominations frame sex, was responsible for my inability to have any healthy relationships for a long time.

EDIT - Also to add, regions with abstinence-only sex education show almost no variation in adolescents being sexually active vs. regions that have proper sex education in schools. We are sexual creatures, and we are going to have sex, no matter what others say.  However, it shows an alarmingly higher rate of unwanted pregnancy and disease, often the result of not using protection (obviously due to being taught that it is both morally

reprehensible, and ineffective). This teaching is responsible for suffering of people due to disease, and the suffering of children born to people who could not afford, or were otherwise incapable, of caring for them. 

 

Really, I've never once heard of two virgins marrying and contracting a STD.  The only extremely rare instance I could think of is if a partner worked in the medical field and got exposed to HIV from a patient, something that rarely happens these days.   Sex was designed for married couples  to bond intimately through physical and emotional connections.    Studies show that condom use only creates a false sense of security and leads to more sexual activity, hence more disease and more teen pregnancy.  Society's relentless promotion of sexual images through all forms of media  share a large part of the blame. 

 

As for your references to the OT, again you show your ignorance on Biblical matters.  Those laws are Mosaic laws, designed as part of God's overall plan to rescue all humanity from the bondage of sin through  Christ.   Christ gave us a new Convenant.   Those laws no longer apply as a result.   You don't see Christians out there sacrificing lambs either. 

 

The Bible's teaching on sex are true, and simply work.  You just can't admit that there is something GOOD in the Bible.  Sex with multiple partners does not lead to a healthy marriage.  Need a non-Christian example?  Jake the Snake Roberts once said on his dvd documentary that he was constantly having sex on the road with the WWE, and eventually it became harder and harder to keep it exciting.  And he said he could no longer go home and make love to his wife.   It was meaningless.

 

 

to be cont....

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD,I just want to start out

TWD,

I just want to start out by saying I'm not mocking God. You, however, are fair game.

1. Sex was designed for married couples? Really? Who married all the animals? Or are you going to say that God's command to "be fruitful and multiply" was a marriage ceremony?

2. The 10 commandments no longer apply again? You keep vacillating on that point. Did Christ abolish the laws or fulfill them?

3. No, Christians don't sacrifice animals any more. They also no longer need to make restitution or even apologize to those they offended. They just need to ask God for forgiveness and promise not to do it again (until they need to).

4. I have admitted that there's something good in the Bible. You can't seem to see where Biblical advice is wrong.Wiping out the male population of a town so you can take and rape the virgins, handing one person to another for sex because you  "own" them (which is also wrong) and forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist as his punishment is wrong.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote: Actually

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Actually your assertions on the ridiculous Tower of Babel story, miracle claims, and lists of former atheists have been all either destroyed, or at least smacked a little. So far nobody's been extremely specific regarding Lee Strobel, but I'm sure researching a little bit of it, we will find that he indeed wasn't who he said he was.  Kirk Cameron often mentions specifically that he is a "former atheist, an evolutionist". He then says something along the lines of himself being young and famous, being able to do what he wants with reckless abandon. Then says he found god and Jesus, and is now a good person. He also demonstrates constantly that he has no idea how evolution works (or he does, and is deliberately dishonest to make money for his ministry, I'm not sure which). The second anybody uses the term "evolutionist" you know immediately that they're either highly unintelligent, or full of crap. 

 

Wrong again.  Let's look at Towel of Babel again.  Here was my points:

 

1.  Atheists accept (usually without question) archaelogical finds as long as they don't support the Bible.  ex. camels,  builders of the pryamids. 

 

2.  If an archaeological find does support the Bible, the atheist simply writes it off claiming that references to names and places is worthless and no different than fiction.

 

3.  I pointed out then that even if the tower was fully intact today, you would simply claim that the building does not prove that the tower of Babel story took place.   The response was that I was actually right on this account.  Therefore,  YOU can no longer say that I can't even craft a single coherent argument!

 

4.  Lack of evidence is not proof that something never happened.  It's simply lack of evidence for whatever reason.   You can not claim as 100% fact that events like the Exodus never occured.

 

5.  I did proof supporting proof for the tower such as Herodotus description of the tower.  Of course, this was completely ignored. 

 

Your statement on Lee Strobel is quite telling though.  You claim that the list of former atheists was destroyed by your superior arguments and Strobel can't possibly have been an atheist.   Yet, you admit that you don't have proof to make such a claim.  Just merely your biased assumptions.   Not a model of honesty. 

The list was quite plentiful.  Are you going to claim that every one of them were never atheists?

 

 

 

 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Address my post about the lineages please. I called you out quite clearly on your own dishonesty, and you have yet to defend yourself there. 

 

I already did.  One lineage is legal, the other biological.   Your response was something like, nopers,  you're wrong again, idiot! haha.   It would be pointless to go to the time and energy to drag out specifics since this will be your default defense anyways.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Jabberwocky

TWD39 wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Actually your assertions on the ridiculous Tower of Babel story, miracle claims, and lists of former atheists have been all either destroyed, or at least smacked a little. So far nobody's been extremely specific regarding Lee Strobel, but I'm sure researching a little bit of it, we will find that he indeed wasn't who he said he was.  Kirk Cameron often mentions specifically that he is a "former atheist, an evolutionist". He then says something along the lines of himself being young and famous, being able to do what he wants with reckless abandon. Then says he found god and Jesus, and is now a good person. He also demonstrates constantly that he has no idea how evolution works (or he does, and is deliberately dishonest to make money for his ministry, I'm not sure which). The second anybody uses the term "evolutionist" you know immediately that they're either highly unintelligent, or full of crap. 

 

Wrong again.  Let's look at Towel of Babel again.  Here was my points:

 

1.  Atheists accept (usually without question) archaelogical finds as long as they don't support the Bible.  ex. camels,  builders of the pryamids. 

 

2.  If an archaeological find does support the Bible, the atheist simply writes it off claiming that references to names and places is worthless and no different than fiction.

 

3.  I pointed out then that even if the tower was fully intact today, you would simply claim that the building does not prove that the tower of Babel story took place.   The response was that I was actually right on this account.  Therefore,  YOU can no longer say that I can't even craft a single coherent argument!

 

4.  Lack of evidence is not proof that something never happened.  It's simply lack of evidence for whatever reason.   You can not claim as 100% fact that events like the Exodus never occured.

 

5.  I did proof supporting proof for the tower such as Herodotus description of the tower.  Of course, this was completely ignored. 

 

Your statement on Lee Strobel is quite telling though.  You claim that the list of former atheists was destroyed by your superior arguments and Strobel can't possibly have been an atheist.   Yet, you admit that you don't have proof to make such a claim.  Just merely your biased assumptions.   Not a model of honesty. 

The list was quite plentiful.  Are you going to claim that every one of them were never atheists?

 

 

 

 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Address my post about the lineages please. I called you out quite clearly on your own dishonesty, and you have yet to defend yourself there. 

 

I already did.  One lineage is legal, the other biological.   Your response was something like, nopers,  you're wrong again, idiot! haha.   It would be pointless to go to the time and energy to drag out specifics since this will be your default defense anyways.

TWD, your problem is that you believe that lack of evidence is proof that it must have happened. the Herodotus account is equally likely to talk about his visit to Babylon. Babylon existed - there is nothing that says the tower of Babel was in Babylon (save perhaps in your mind).

Also, shouldn't the legal and biological lineages of Jesus be consistent throughout (at least among the humans)?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
In ancient and repetitive

In ancient and repetitive news: TWD will accept the most baseless, anecdotal evidence for god, but rejects centuries of proven and documented science, then says we are the ones with the problem. lol

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1379
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Who influenced Who ?

TWD39 wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

 Speaking of the fertile land between two rivers, of *the Sumerians  ..

Thorkild Jacobsen's translation from one of the oldest bodies of religious texts in the world:  " .. taking in, then sending an envoy to Aratta)." 

  For anyone who can but does not. With a quick internet search on 'google', one finds this . .

  In those days...the people entrusted [to him] could address Enlil, verily, in but a single tongue. In those days...did Enki...estrange the tongues in their mouths as many as were put there.. The tongues of men which were one (Jacobsen 1997; cf. Kramer 1968, 1970; Cohen 1973).

  Though a lot to take in but you do realize these accounts, of the region, both pre-date and precede the biblical account ?

 

 

Quote:
Is there conclusive proof that the oldest created written record of Genesis was formed after the sumerian tablets?
 

   Of course there is proof it's know as radio-carbon dating, if you'd bother to do any research to begin with ,you won't have left yourself open to this one.

Quote:
The OT stories could have been handed down carefully through oral tradition.  As mankind scattered after the Babel incident,  the stories became diluted and details altered to fit whatever culture they devised.

 Interesting theory but you have 'no proof of that' (little sarcasm to point out, it answers nothing when 'you' do this).  This is an argument from ignorance. If 'you' were to make the argument the snake in Eden, would be the Genesis (no pun intended) of all the 'snake(s)' legends of the world. Humor me. Hindu myths do not indicate this by there specific stories of Kadru wife of Kashyapa, not wanting to lose a bet (someone you might relate to) tried to get her children, a thousand snakes, to change the color of the tail of the solar horse that drew the sun across the sky. I needn't get into detail or the outcome but there is one significant point not the miss. It was related to the sun in some way. In Egypt, Apep (Apophis) ever threatening the passage of the sun, through the twelve gates And so forth. If they were all derived from the Genesis account. That would actually weaken your position a bit. Because for that to be true ( besides having to ignore history and calender dates), then an underlining 'solar imagery' in the Genesis account, must be found. Only causing all the more problems for you with the 'Bible is 100% correct', as you've alleged.

Not in the way you're suggesting at all. The influence of one religion had on another can be tricky, but not impossible go over. Titles of other Gods being incorporated into the titles for the Hebrew God. The Bible can only be better understood when properly situated within its ancient context. We are the luckiest of  generations to be able to immediately have access to so much. There is always the context to consider, as to, the intended audience. It should remain no harm by illuminating the biblical text for modern audiences so culturally removed from their origin. Nothing to be afraid of. An example, “The Cloud Rider”Throughout the Ugaritic texts, which I can attest because I've read them, Baal is repeatedly called “the one who rides the clouds,” or “the one who mounts the clouds.” The description is recognized as an official title of Baal. I would seem part of the literary strategy of the Israelite prophets was to take this well-known title and attribute it to Yahweh in some way. Consequently, Yahweh, the God of Israel, bears this descriptive title in several places in the Old Testament (Isaiah 19:1; Deuteronomy 33:26; Psalm 68:33; 104:3). Though upon examination it is not a word for word exchange (at least not in the English translation). For a faithful Israelite only one God who “rode” on the clouds: Yahweh. Until we get to a passage like  Daniel 7, that is. Strong parallel can be found in the Ugaritic materials, which it provides that for us:    9 As I looked on, the thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took His seat. His garment was like white snow, and the hair of His head was like lamb's wool. His throne was fiery flames; its wheels were blazing fire. 10 A river of fire streamed forth before Him; thousands upon thousands served Him; myriads upon myriads attended Him; the court sat and the books were opened . . . 13 As I looked on, in the night vision, One like a son of man came with the clouds of heaven; he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented to Him. 14 Dominion, glory, and kingship were given to him; all peoples and nations of every language must serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship, one that shall not be destroyed. The plurality of thrones in the passage tell us plainly that we have here what scholars of the Hebrew Bible call a divine council scene — the high sovereign in his throne room, meeting with the heavenly host. A little removed from a Trinitarian view, with some. The literature of Ugarit has many such scenes, and the biblical divine council and the council at Ugarit are very similar. In point of fact, the flow of Daniel 7 actually follows the flow of a divine council scene in the Baal Cycle:Ugarit / Baal Cycle. Further evidence again the Bible being so ancient; nothing came before. Daniel 7 El, the aged high God, is the ultimate sovereign in the council.   Compared with The Ancient of Days, the God of Israel is seated on the fiery, wheeled throne (See : Ezekiel 1). El bestows kingship upon the god Baal, the Cloud-Rider, after Baal defeats the god Yahm in battle. Then there's Yahweh, the Ancient of Days, bestows kingship upon the Son of Man who rides the clouds after the beast from the sea (yamma) is destroyed. It is known Baal, held the Cloud-Rider title! To the Jewish audience reading books like Daniel understood the implications of the prophet Daniel was describing a parallel closely found to follow  the Baal cycle.. There are hints the Jews intimately knew the religions that they came in contact with. In relevant speculations on the part of Jewish writers speculated that the “second god” was the archangel Michael, or perhaps Gabriel.  Some Jewish writers even wrote that Abraham or Moses occupied that position!  For Christians given to typology the answer was obviously Jesus, I imagine. What else could it be. It is well known that Jesus’ favorite title for himself, according to the text, was “son of man.” As Jcgadfly pointed out is either a Messianic title or that of a prophet. It seems perfectly evident in Matthew 26, according to the text, as Jesus stood before Caiaphas. When asked to give the Sanhedrin a straight answer about who he was, Jesus quoted Daniel 7  But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”  By quoting this passage, Jesus was making an overt, unmistakable claim to be deity—he in fact was the one who rides on the clouds.  That this is no exaggerated interpretation is evident from Caiaphas’ unsurprising reaction:  Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy.”  The statement is only blasphemous if one is claiming to be the rider on the clouds. That idea may have been acceptable to Jews at the time, but it was simply intolerable that this man Jesus  would claim to be that. But, I digress. By this case you can see, while fully acknowledging things like the Hebrew  בֹּ֔שֶׁת at its' root is the word 'shame' This word is also seen in a direct connection with Baal worship. All of this should be said, while being mindful of the fact of these two passages, as follows:

 

Hosea 9:9-11

They have gone deep in depravity  As in the days of Gibeah;He will remember their iniquity, He will punish their sins.

10 I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your forefathers as the earliest fruit on the fig tree in its first season.But they came to Baal-peor and devoted themselves to shame, And they became as detestable as that which they loved. 11 As for Ephraim, their glory will fly away like a bird—No birth, no pregnancy and no conception!

 

Jeremiah 11:11-15

11 Therefore thus says the Lord, “Behold I am bringing disaster on them which they will not be able to escape; though they will cry to Me, yet I will not listen to them. 12 Then the cities of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem will go and cry to the gods to whom they burn incense, but they surely will not save them in the time of their disaster. 13 For your gods are as many as your cities, O Judah; and as many as the streets of Jerusalem are the altars you have set up to the shameful thing, altars to burn incense to Baal.14 “Therefore do not pray for this people, nor lift up a cry or prayer for them; for I will not listen when they call to Me because of their disaster. 15 “What right has My beloved in My house .When she has done many vile deeds?

 

 

Quote:
If the Bible is a mere copy of earlier texts, why is God changed to a non-physical entity?

  You should know the answer to that, the children in Sunday School well may not have missed it. Simpliest explaination should suffice by passages like the following:

   

Deuteronomy 5:6-9a

 

‘I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 9a you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God

 

Jeremiah 11:12-14

 

12 Then the cities of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem will go and cry to the gods to whom they burn incense, but they surely will not save them in the time of their disaster. 13 For your gods are as many as your cities, O Judah; and as many as the streets of Jerusalem are the altars you have set up to the shameful thing, altars to burn incense to Baal.

14 “Therefore do not pray for this people, nor lift up a cry or prayer for them; for I will not listen when they call to Me because of their disaster.

 

Jeremiah 2:28

“But where are your gods Which you made for yourself? Let them arise, if they can save you In the time of your trouble; For according to the number of your cities Are your gods, O Judah.

. . .

 

p.s. -- Twd39 also said, 'For example, why would Epic of Gilgamesh contain dimensions for a boat that wouldn't work or be sea worthy?

 If the Sumerian boat were ever constructed, the boat would have be very large and circular, if large-scale models were made, it would fair far better than a long Noah's ship (assuming you could carve enough trees to produce such an object).

 


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:TWD39

danatemporary wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

 Speaking of the fertile land between two rivers, of *the Sumerians  ..

Thorkild Jacobsen's translation from one of the oldest bodies of religious texts in the world:  " .. taking in, then sending an envoy to Aratta)." 

  For anyone who can but does not. With a quick internet search on 'google', one finds this . .

  In those days...the people entrusted [to him] could address Enlil, verily, in but a single tongue. In those days...did Enki...estrange the tongues in their mouths as many as were put there.. The tongues of men which were one (Jacobsen 1997; cf. Kramer 1968, 1970; Cohen 1973).

  Though a lot to take in but you do realize these accounts, of the region, both pre-date and precede the biblical account ?

 

 

Quote:
Is there conclusive proof that the oldest created written record of Genesis was formed after the sumerian tablets?
 

   Of course there is proof it's know as radio-carbon dating, if you'd bother to do any research to begin with ,you won't have left yourself open to this one.

Quote:
The OT stories could have been handed down carefully through oral tradition.  As mankind scattered after the Babel incident,  the stories became diluted and details altered to fit whatever culture they devised.

 Interesting theory but you have 'no proof of that' (little sarcasm to point out, it answers nothing when 'you' do this).  This is an argument from ignorance. If 'you' were to make the argument the snake in Eden, would be the Genesis (no pun intended) of all the 'snake(s)' legends of the world. Humor me. Hindu myths do not indicate this by there specific stories of Kadru wife of Kashyapa, not wanting to lose a bet (someone you might relate to) tried to get her children, a thousand snakes, to change the color of the tail of the solar horse that drew the sun across the sky. I needn't get into detail or the outcome but there is one significant point not the miss. It was related to the sun in some way. In Egypt, Apep (Apophis) ever threatening the passage of the sun, through the twelve gates And so forth. If they were all derived from the Genesis account. That would actually weaken your position a bit. Because for that to be true ( besides having to ignore history and calender dates), then an underlining 'solar imagery' in the Genesis account, must be found. Only causing all the more problems for you with the 'Bible is 100% correct', as you've alleged.

Not in the way you're suggesting at all. The influence of one religion had on another can be tricky, but not impossible go over. Titles of other Gods being incorporated into the titles for the Hebrew God. The Bible can only be better understood when properly situated within its ancient context. We are the luckiest of  generations to be able to immediately have access to so much. There is always the context to consider, as to, the intended audience. It should remain no harm by illuminating the biblical text for modern audiences so culturally removed from their origin. Nothing to be afraid of. An example, “The Cloud Rider”Throughout the Ugaritic texts, which I can attest because I've read them, Baal is repeatedly called “the one who rides the clouds,” or “the one who mounts the clouds.” The description is recognized as an official title of Baal. I would seem part of the literary strategy of the Israelite prophets was to take this well-known title and attribute it to Yahweh in some way. Consequently, Yahweh, the God of Israel, bears this descriptive title in several places in the Old Testament (Isaiah 19:1; Deuteronomy 33:26; Psalm 68:33; 104:3). Though upon examination it is not a word for word exchange (at least not in the English translation). For a faithful Israelite only one God who “rode” on the clouds: Yahweh. Until we get to a passage like  Daniel 7, that is. Strong parallel can be found in the Ugaritic materials, which it provides that for us:    9 As I looked on, the thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took His seat. His garment was like white snow, and the hair of His head was like lamb's wool. His throne was fiery flames; its wheels were blazing fire. 10 A river of fire streamed forth before Him; thousands upon thousands served Him; myriads upon myriads attended Him; the court sat and the books were opened . . . 13 As I looked on, in the night vision, One like a son of man came with the clouds of heaven; he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented to Him. 14 Dominion, glory, and kingship were given to him; all peoples and nations of every language must serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship, one that shall not be destroyed. The plurality of thrones in the passage tell us plainly that we have here what scholars of the Hebrew Bible call a divine council scene — the high sovereign in his throne room, meeting with the heavenly host. A little removed from a Trinitarian view, with some. The literature of Ugarit has many such scenes, and the biblical divine council and the council at Ugarit are very similar. In point of fact, the flow of Daniel 7 actually follows the flow of a divine council scene in the Baal Cycle:Ugarit / Baal Cycle. Further evidence again the Bible being so ancient; nothing came before. Daniel 7 El, the aged high God, is the ultimate sovereign in the council.   Compared with The Ancient of Days, the God of Israel is seated on the fiery, wheeled throne (See : Ezekiel 1). El bestows kingship upon the god Baal, the Cloud-Rider, after Baal defeats the god Yahm in battle. Then there's Yahweh, the Ancient of Days, bestows kingship upon the Son of Man who rides the clouds after the beast from the sea (yamma) is destroyed. It is known Baal, held the Cloud-Rider title! To the Jewish audience reading books like Daniel understood the implications of the prophet Daniel was describing a parallel closely found to follow  the Baal cycle.. There are hints the Jews intimately knew the religions that they came in contact with. In relevant speculations on the part of Jewish writers speculated that the “second god” was the archangel Michael, or perhaps Gabriel.  Some Jewish writers even wrote that Abraham or Moses occupied that position!  For Christians given to typology the answer was obviously Jesus, I imagine. What else could it be. It is well known that Jesus’ favorite title for himself, according to the text, was “son of man.” As Jcgadfly pointed out is either a Messianic title or that of a prophet. It seems perfectly evident in Matthew 26, according to the text, as Jesus stood before Caiaphas. When asked to give the Sanhedrin a straight answer about who he was, Jesus quoted Daniel 7  But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”  By quoting this passage, Jesus was making an overt, unmistakable claim to be deity—he in fact was the one who rides on the clouds.  That this is no exaggerated interpretation is evident from Caiaphas’ unsurprising reaction:  Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy.”  The statement is only blasphemous if one is claiming to be the rider on the clouds. That idea may have been acceptable to Jews at the time, but it was simply intolerable that this man Jesus  would claim to be that. But, I digress. By this case you can see, while fully acknowledging things like the Hebrew  בֹּ֔שֶׁת at its' root is the word 'shame' This word is also seen in a direct connection with Baal worship. All of this should be said, while being mindful of the fact of these two passages, as follows:

 

Hosea 9:9-11

They have gone deep in depravity  As in the days of Gibeah;He will remember their iniquity, He will punish their sins.

10 I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your forefathers as the earliest fruit on the fig tree in its first season.But they came to Baal-peor and devoted themselves to shame, And they became as detestable as that which they loved. 11 As for Ephraim, their glory will fly away like a bird—No birth, no pregnancy and no conception!

 

Jeremiah 11:11-15

11 Therefore thus says the Lord, “Behold I am bringing disaster on them which they will not be able to escape; though they will cry to Me, yet I will not listen to them. 12 Then the cities of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem will go and cry to the gods to whom they burn incense, but they surely will not save them in the time of their disaster. 13 For your gods are as many as your cities, O Judah; and as many as the streets of Jerusalem are the altars you have set up to the shameful thing, altars to burn incense to Baal.14 “Therefore do not pray for this people, nor lift up a cry or prayer for them; for I will not listen when they call to Me because of their disaster. 15 “What right has My beloved in My house .When she has done many vile deeds?

 

 

Quote:
If the Bible is a mere copy of earlier texts, why is God changed to a non-physical entity?

  You should know the answer to that, the children in Sunday School well may not have missed it. Simpliest explaination should suffice by passages like the following:

   

Deuteronomy 5:6-9a

 

‘I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 9a you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God

 

Jeremiah 11:12-14

 

12 Then the cities of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem will go and cry to the gods to whom they burn incense, but they surely will not save them in the time of their disaster. 13 For your gods are as many as your cities, O Judah; and as many as the streets of Jerusalem are the altars you have set up to the shameful thing, altars to burn incense to Baal.

14 “Therefore do not pray for this people, nor lift up a cry or prayer for them; for I will not listen when they call to Me because of their disaster.

 

Jeremiah 2:28

“But where are your gods Which you made for yourself? Let them arise, if they can save you In the time of your trouble; For according to the number of your cities Are your gods, O Judah.

. . .

 

p.s. -- Twd39 also said, 'For example, why would Epic of Gilgamesh contain dimensions for a boat that wouldn't work or be sea worthy?

 If the Sumerian boat were ever constructed, the boat would have be very large and circular, if large-scale models were made, it would fair far better than a long Noah's ship (assuming you could carve enough trees to produce such an object).

 

 

 

Paragraphs please if you expect me to read, much less respond to all that.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Doubt she expected either

Doubt she expected either TWD.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Doubt she

jcgadfly wrote:

Doubt she expected either TWD.

 

I see you are continuing your trend of having nothing worthwhile to say. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:jcgadfly

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Doubt she expected either TWD.

 

I see you are continuing your trend of having nothing worthwhile to say. 

Giving you what your posts deserve. I notice that you keep running from the ones that have substance from myself and others. Ridicule is pretty much all you merit so I'm happy to oblige.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It's really the only thing

It's really the only thing he actually responds to.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1379
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Twd does speak english ???

 Twd does speak english ??? Is that enough of an insult, maybe not

Vastet wrote:
It's really the only thing he actually responds to.

 Twd does speak english, am I right ? What's the meaning of these words ? If you can understand this key portion, there'is no  excuse. But people have not been nice in judging Twd's reading comprehension. Re-quoting, as follows:

dana wrote:
.. Nothing to be afraid of. An example, “The Cloud Rider”Throughout the Ugaritic texts, which I can attest because I've read them, Baal is repeatedly called “the one who rides the clouds,” or “the one who mounts the clouds.” The description is recognized as an official title of Baal. I would seem part of the literary strategy of the Israelite prophets was to take this well-known title and attribute it to Yahweh in some way. Consequently, Yahweh, the God of Israel, bears this descriptive title in several places in the Old Testament (Isaiah 19:1; Deuteronomy 33:26; Psalm 68:33; 104:3). Though upon examination it is not a word for word exchange (at least not in the English translation). For a faithful Israelite only one God who “rode” on the clouds: Yahweh. Until we get to a passage like  Daniel 7

 If these words have meaning and are understandable, then anyone who speaks english can understand the rest.

Or are we all to put up with your "Why bother" attitude some more ? That has followed you from your first Thread. This attitude instead of something worthwhile ? Twd39 wrote: "It's quite obvious that nothing I present will change your opinion so why bother?" Learn to address important things, instead of personal slights. How about get back to important matters, then ? Most people jump at the chance to discuss Bible quotes, but then there's you. If someone acts with deliberate discourtesy or says something unkind, youre right there to answer. What will this lead to, I wonder? (Few dont know the ending, if this continues).

 

 

 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:If you have sex

TWD39 wrote:

If you have sex with multiple partners, you are putting your physical life at risk, plain and simple.   That's a fact you can't get away from.

If you get married you are putting your physical life at risk, plain and simple. (By far the most likely person to murder or abuse you is your spouse, I can provide statistics if you wish- they also happen to be higher than the odds of dying from any STD- most STD's are not life threatening)

 

TWD39 wrote:

I wouldn't want to trade in those moments of fun for a lifetime of genital warts or genital herpes.  Then you'll get to live out the remaining part of your life kicking yourself for being so stupid.  Placing your entire life on the faith of a piece of latex especially if you believe this life is all you get is really stupid, IMO.  Condoms do break, ya know.

... so it is better not to have any fun at all and live a sexless life because if you have sex you might contract a disease?  

 

TWD39 wrote:

According to this article, it tosses around numbers like 70% or 80% protection rate.   That doesn't sound extremely minimal or non-existent to me.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/13999099/ns/today-today_health/t/do-condoms-really-protect-against-stds/

 

Practice your reading comprehension- it reduces your chances of getting an std 70-80% when you are having sex with an infected partner. It doesn't mean that 20-30% of the time you get infected. Even having unprotected sex with an infected partner infection rates are not 100%. And despite your insistence to the otherwise, most std's are not lethal and really are not even that big of deal. The vast majority of stds can be dealt with through antibiotics and when caught early have no lasting effects. 

Obviously, the largest step you can take to protect yourself is to have partner(s) that you can trust to inform you if they have an infection. This means that they have to have enough trust that you aren't going to flip out and go crazy about it. I am absolutely confident that anyone I have sex with trusts me enough to tell me if they caught an std.

If your spouse got an std would they tell you about it? If your spouse did tell you, how would you react? Would it threaten your relationship?

The bottom line is that a spouse in a monogamous marriage who goes out and cheats then catches an std has every reason in the world to lie about it, putting the other spouse at risk of also catching it, especially since they might not use protection. Whereas in my situation, I might slightly increase my risk by having multiple partners, I also dramatically decrease my risk because my relationships are based on mutual trust. They have no reason in the world not to tell me who they had sex with or if they catch something because it will not put our relationship at risk. 

 

 

TWD39 wrote:

The Bible's teaching on sex are true, and simply work.  You just can't admit that there is something GOOD in the Bible. 

If there is anything good in the bible it certainly isn't anything about sex or marriage. 

 

TWD39 wrote:

Sex with multiple partners does not lead to a healthy marriage. 

For some people it does, for some people it might not. I think people can figure out their marriage arrangements for themselves. For some people a monogamous marriage works great, for others it doesn't. People are different, so why do you insist everyone lives like you? 

 

TWD39 wrote:

Need a non-Christian example?  Jake the Snake Roberts once said on his dvd documentary that he was constantly having sex on the road with the WWE, and eventually it became harder and harder to keep it exciting.  And he said he could no longer go home and make love to his wife.   It was meaningless.

Your point? I fail to see how his problems in his marriage are in anyway applicable to me or the subject. I am not married, I will never be married, I have no desire to marry and there is no way anyone I am having sex with is going to be living in my house for more than a few days. Do I even need to start pointing out all of the people who are miserable in Christian marriages? Look at the divorce rate, then consider the sheer number of people who are miserable but stay married because it is the "right thing". I see the poor schmucks all the time, they are like ticking time bombs waiting to go off.  


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Jake was also drunk and

Jake was also drunk and hopped up on various drugs for the majority of his career. I'm sure there was a lot more going on than simple infidelity.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3093
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: 1.  Atheists

TWD39 wrote:

 

1.  Atheists accept (usually without question) archaelogical finds as long as they don't support the Bible.  ex. camels,  builders of the pryamids. 

this atheist doesn't, and any atheist who "accepts" (still not sure what that means) any archeological find without question is fucking retarded.

as several people here, including me, keep trying to tell you, archeological finds prove nothing except the existence of themselves.  that's it.  they can corroborate certain stories, or lend credence to certain stories, but they cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt those stories.  conclusive proof in history pretty much doesn't exist, and that's the tough shit we have to live with.

that being said, if you expect a person to believe 100% that a historical event with supernatural elements occurred, you're either going to have to find a person with very low standards of proof, or you're going to have to find better "proof" than a pile of ancient bricks someone dug up.  ditto one collection of religious texts among thousands and your own personal testimony.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3093
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:I already did. 

TWD39 wrote:

I already did.  One lineage is legal, the other biological.   Your response was something like, nopers,  you're wrong again, idiot! haha.   It would be pointless to go to the time and energy to drag out specifics since this will be your default defense anyways.

i responded to that too, several posts back, and i'm someone who has had formal study in both the fields of religion and classical studies.  i don't know about jabberwocky, but my response was a bit more nuanced than "nopers."  i think it only fair for you to address my response or stop shooting off your josh mcdowell-esque argument like nobody has called your bullshit.  especially since you got snarky about one of the posters not "understanding the culture."

i understand first century palestine.  thoroughly.  i'm also familiar enough with modern new testament scholarship to know that no scholar outside a place like dallas theological accepts that totally unsubstantiated argument.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 269
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:I already

TWD39 wrote:

I already did. 

No you didn't. You simply asserted it without any explanation whatsoever!

TWD39 wrote:

One lineage is legal, the other biological.

Once again.  Asserted, never explained.

I won't drop this. Explain in detail where one gospel implies a legal lineage vs. a biogical one. You asserted your claim without explaining it. That's all. Your strongest assertion accused me of biblical ignorance, as usual, citing no evidence.  EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION! Why ignore that both biblical lineages go to Joseph, citing a different father?

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 269
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:I already

TWD39 wrote:

I already did. 

No you didn't. You simply asserted it without any explanation whatsoever!

TWD39 wrote:

One lineage is legal, the other biological.

Once again.  Asserted, never explained.

I won't drop this. Explain in detail where one gospel implies a legal lineage vs. a biogical one. You asserted your claim without explaining it. That's all. Your strongest assertion accused me of biblical ignorance, as usual, citing no evidence.  EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION! Why ignore that both biblical lineages go to Joseph, citing a different father?

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1379
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Show yourself approved . .

  Show yourself approved . .

Twd39 wrote:

Paragraphs please if you expect me to read, much less respond to all that.

jcgadfly wrote:

Doubt she expected either TWD.

         
ThunderJones__Aug_11 wrote:

 

Someone's angry they couldn't keep up with all those mean atheists that were challenging their asinine claims. Now that someone is dropping in random threads to snipe at people instead of dealing with the counter-arguments that still wait in their original thread they started.

 More not keeping up, huh ? It kills me, because we've all said there is no set time-limit (that goes for me as well).

 

 


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:TWD39 wrote:I

iwbiek wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

I already did.  One lineage is legal, the other biological.   Your response was something like, nopers,  you're wrong again, idiot! haha.   It would be pointless to go to the time and energy to drag out specifics since this will be your default defense anyways.

i responded to that too, several posts back, and i'm someone who has had formal study in both the fields of religion and classical studies.  i don't know about jabberwocky, but my response was a bit more nuanced than "nopers."  i think it only fair for you to address my response or stop shooting off your josh mcdowell-esque argument like nobody has called your bullshit.  especially since you got snarky about one of the posters not "understanding the culture."

i understand first century palestine.  thoroughly.  i'm also familiar enough with modern new testament scholarship to know that no scholar outside a place like dallas theological accepts that totally unsubstantiated argument.

 

Really, then EXPLAIN to me while Matthew and Luke would deliberately create two lineages that do not agree with each other.  Did they just forget to compare notes one night?   Since you are the master expert, did you even consider the role of Jer 22:30?  Your ridiculous surface reading interpretation comes crashing down like a house of cards if you haven't.  Why did those who assembled the NT and believed it inerrant failed to see the differences?   I suspect the truth is they knew a lot more about the Jewish culture than you do and it made perfect sense to them.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:iwbiek

TWD39 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

I already did.  One lineage is legal, the other biological.   Your response was something like, nopers,  you're wrong again, idiot! haha.   It would be pointless to go to the time and energy to drag out specifics since this will be your default defense anyways.

i responded to that too, several posts back, and i'm someone who has had formal study in both the fields of religion and classical studies.  i don't know about jabberwocky, but my response was a bit more nuanced than "nopers."  i think it only fair for you to address my response or stop shooting off your josh mcdowell-esque argument like nobody has called your bullshit.  especially since you got snarky about one of the posters not "understanding the culture."

i understand first century palestine.  thoroughly.  i'm also familiar enough with modern new testament scholarship to know that no scholar outside a place like dallas theological accepts that totally unsubstantiated argument.

 

Really, then EXPLAIN to me while Matthew and Luke would deliberately create two lineages that do not agree with each other.  Did they just forget to compare notes one night?   Since you are the master expert, did you even consider the role of Jer 22:30?  Your ridiculous surface reading interpretation comes crashing down like a house of cards if you haven't.  Why did those who assembled the NT and believed it inerrant failed to see the differences?   I suspect the truth is they knew a lot more about the Jewish culture than you do and it made perfect sense to them.

This is a substantive post, TWD - you should probably start running.

I don't believe they did (mostly because Matthew and Luke didn't write the gospels - no one knows who did). However, when it was copied over and over the people copying it screwed up. Ehrman and other textual critics (even Christian ones) accept this. As neither of us have the originals we don't know what the lineages were.  The Jeremiah passage merely shows that the Greeks who wrote the gospels did research.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:TWD39

Jabberwocky wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

I already did. 

No you didn't. You simply asserted it without any explanation whatsoever!

TWD39 wrote:

One lineage is legal, the other biological.

Once again.  Asserted, never explained.

I won't drop this. Explain in detail where one gospel implies a legal lineage vs. a biogical one. You asserted your claim without explaining it. That's all. Your strongest assertion accused me of biblical ignorance, as usual, citing no evidence.  EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION! Why ignore that both biblical lineages go to Joseph, citing a different father?

 

LOL, oh of course you won't.  But why should I when you show time and time again that you will reject anytime I or ANY Christian will say? 

 

 I don't owe you diddly jack especially since you completely ignore my points.  If I can't use Christian apologetics as a resource then you can't use SAB which is a poorly researched highly biased book of hatred towards Christianity.  Now if you are willing to address my points first then I'll be glad to address your arguments.  You could start by admitting that you were wrong that I NEVER present a coherent argument.  If you can't crest that wall, any discussion with your kind is a lesson in frustration.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Jabberwocky

TWD39 wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

I already did. 

No you didn't. You simply asserted it without any explanation whatsoever!

TWD39 wrote:

One lineage is legal, the other biological.

Once again.  Asserted, never explained.

I won't drop this. Explain in detail where one gospel implies a legal lineage vs. a biogical one. You asserted your claim without explaining it. That's all. Your strongest assertion accused me of biblical ignorance, as usual, citing no evidence.  EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION! Why ignore that both biblical lineages go to Joseph, citing a different father?

 

LOL, oh of course you won't.  But why should I when you show time and time again that you will reject anytime I or ANY Christian will say? 

 

 I don't owe you diddly jack especially since you completely ignore my points.  If I can't use Christian apologetics as a resource then you can't use SAB which is a poorly researched highly biased book of hatred towards Christianity.  Now if you are willing to address my points first then I'll be glad to address your arguments.  You could start by admitting that you were wrong that I NEVER present a coherent argument.  If you can't crest that wall, any discussion with your kind is a lesson in frustration.

You mean the way you ignore,run from and reject anything any atheist will post here?

Oh, I like the way you listened to my command to run from my post. Is that the sheep that God trained you to be coming out?

Personally, I don't care if you use Christian apologetics - just don't try to pass them off as facts when they're demonstrably not.

You might want to run from this post as well.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1379
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
The 'laziest person' on the board Ever:

  Nu #468. You do realize following up on a reply is standard behaviour on this board, no ? For a person with a super competitive streak. You sure dont make any sense. You'd think you wouldnt be so lazy as to not bother to google the phrase "Baal cycle". Precisely, What's it going to take for you to get serious and get past this 'laziness' ? Quite Frankly, I fail to see the wisdom of your strategy. Are we to think you are so lazy, you can get around to something eventually ? Again, I don't see the wisdom in what you are doing. Especially, you wanting to be respected. DO CHECK OUT Nu # 468, I'll be happy to wait.

 

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3093
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: Really, then

TWD39 wrote:

 

Really, then EXPLAIN to me while Matthew and Luke would deliberately create two lineages that do not agree with each other.

they didn't.  number one, there is no textual evidence that either those biblical figures wrote "their" gospels.  they don't name their authors.  those authorships weren't claimed until around the end of the first century by bishops like papias of hierapolis.

number 2, those gospels disagree on more than a genealogy.  their accounts of the events surrounding jesus's death and resurrection differ considerably, and only the most ridiculous gymnastics have to be done in order to "harmonize" them.

number 3, you're working deductively.  you start with the presuppositions that, a., the bible is inerrant and therefore cannot contradict itself, and b., the authors of the gospels are exactly who tradition claims they were and they worked together closely on their accounts.  i strive to work inductively, starting with the texts rather than presuppositions, and assuming nothing other than what the texts themselves make plain.  what i see is two contradictory accounts.  therefore i am bound to assume that the authors did not collaborate and were perhaps unaware of each other's accounts, or maybe even disagreed with each other.  they may even have been separated by a generation.  that being said, i do NOT submit my hypotheses as facts.  that is what truly separates us.  

TWD39 wrote:

Since you are the master expert, did you even consider the role of Jer 22:30?  Your ridiculous surface reading interpretation comes crashing down like a house of cards if you haven't. 

no, i did not consider it because it has no relevance to the discussion at hand.  i don't know what kind of spurious exegesis your sunday school teacher has offered you, but if you think this verse somehow "proves" (or even refers to) a "biological" genealogy as opposed to a "legal" genealogy, then i don't know why i'm continuing wasting my time typing this.  you're also being deductive again, presupposing that the canonical texts make up a thematically unified whole and thus can be used to verify one another.

TWD39 wrote:
 

Why did those who assembled the NT and believed it inerrant failed to see the differences?   I suspect the truth is they knew a lot more about the Jewish culture than you do and it made perfect sense to them.

suspicion does not equal evidence.  i "suspect" that they didn't care because the majority of believers had no access to the texts, nor were they literate enough to comprehend them.  it's not like you could walk into wal-mart in those days and pick up an NKJV, and considering the vast majority of those who assembled the new testament canon were neither culturally nor religiously jewish, i see no merit in your "suspicion" that they knew anything about jewish culture, particularly pre-70 CE jewish culture (it did change monumentally, you know).  the earliest schema for "assembling" the NT we have is the muratorian fragment, and even religious scholars don't dare date it any earlier than 170, and the earliest extant copy is from the 7th century.  any scholar, religious or secular, will tell you that by 170, any significant jewish presence in the church was long gone.  we can also look at justin martyr's debate with the jew trypho, from around the same time.  from what i recall, justin doesn't quote from any jewish source or tradition other than the hebrew bible, even though the earliest mishnaim and midrashim were already being compiled, nor does he use any recognizably "jewish" hermeneutic when interpreting it.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD, run from #487 also

TWD, run from #487 also

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:they didn't. 

iwbiek wrote:

they didn't.  number one, there is no textual evidence that either those biblical figures wrote "their" gospels.  they don't name their authors.  those authorships weren't claimed until around the end of the first century by bishops like papias of hierapolis. 

 

But it's kinda odd that the gospels make no mention of the destruction of the temple which occured in 70 A.D since Luke has Jesus foretelling its destruction in Luke 21:6.   WHy would they not describe the event in great detail to further their cause?  It's more logical that the gospels were written before the temple destruction.  Also, you have Papias atrributing authorship of Matthew to Matthew.  How do you know he was wrong?  Also, you have Ignatius who quoted Matthew.  So Matthew was clearly in circulation before the death of Ignatius in 115 A.D. 

 

The claim that the gospels were written much later by unknown authors just doesn't hold up.

 

 

iwbiek wrote:

number 2, those gospels disagree on more than a genealogy.  their accounts of the events surrounding jesus's death and resurrection differ considerably, and only the most ridiculous gymnastics have to be done in order to "harmonize" them.

 

 

The gospels tell the story from different perspectives because they are written by different people and eye witnesses.  No two people tell the same story in the same way.  The seemingly differences (which have been explained) are indicative that the Bible is true and Jesus really did exist.  

iwbiek wrote:

number 3, you're working deductively.  you start with the presuppositions that, a., the bible is inerrant and therefore cannot contradict itself, and b., the authors of the gospels are exactly who tradition claims they were and they worked together closely on their accounts.  i strive to work inductively, starting with the texts rather than presuppositions, and assuming nothing other than what the texts themselves make plain.  what i see is two contradictory accounts.  therefore i am bound to assume that the authors did not collaborate and were perhaps unaware of each other's accounts, or maybe even disagreed with each other.  they may even have been separated by a generation.  that being said, i do NOT submit my hypotheses as facts.  that is what truly separates us.  

 

You are doing the same thing though.  You approach the Bible with the assumption that it is all fiction so your reasoning is to attack anything that threatens that position.  Couple that with a strong biased anger towards God and Christian principles, and I would say you are incapable of objective reasoning on this topic.   You will always reject anything that supports my faith. 

There is much truth and goodness in the Bible, but I seriously doubt you see that from your blind biased attitude. 

Perhaps, you should try reading Proverbs 18:1-3.  I believe it is describing you and your atheist buddies perfectly! lol  The Bible is so true.

 

 

iwbiek wrote:

no, i did not consider it because it has no relevance to the discussion at hand.  i don't know what kind of spurious exegesis your sunday school teacher has offered you, but if you think this verse somehow "proves" (or even refers to) a "biological" genealogy as opposed to a "legal" genealogy, then i don't know why i'm continuing wasting my time typing this.  you're also being deductive again, presupposing that the canonical texts make up a thematically unified whole and thus can be used to verify one another.

 

Then you just proven yourself ignorant of the topic.  It is a most relevant point.  In fact, if the geneologies both matched perfectly, I'm sure you would be using this verse to promote a case against the Bible.

 

 

iwbiek wrote:

suspicion does not equal evidence.  i "suspect" that they didn't care because the majority of believers had no access to the texts, nor were they literate enough to comprehend them.  it's not like you could walk into wal-mart in those days and pick up an NKJV, and considering the vast majority of those who assembled the new testament canon were neither culturally nor religiously jewish, i see no merit in your "suspicion" that they knew anything about jewish culture, particularly pre-70 CE jewish culture (it did change monumentally, you know).  the earliest schema for "assembling" the NT we have is the muratorian fragment, and even religious scholars don't dare date it any earlier than 170, and the earliest extant copy is from the 7th century.  any scholar, religious or secular, will tell you that by 170, any significant jewish presence in the church was long gone.  we can also look at justin martyr's debate with the jew trypho, from around the same time.  from what i recall, justin doesn't quote from any jewish source or tradition other than the hebrew bible, even though the earliest mishnaim and midrashim were already being compiled, nor does he use any recognizably "jewish" hermeneutic when interpreting it.

 

Lack of evidence does not equate to no evidence existing.   There certainly could be earlier manuscripts that have just not been discovered yet.   The gospel of Luke is more historical in nature yet it fails to record many key events occuring after 50 A.D. such as Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James, Paul, and Peter.   How do you explain that?  I'm sure before the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 was discovered, skeptics were boldly claiming an even much later date.   It's only a matter of time before archaelogy puts an end to the doubts.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:TWD, run from

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD, run from #487 also

 

Looks like I just proved you to be a liar yet again.  


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No, but you did again prove

No, but you did again prove you fail at comprehending English.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:No, but you did

Vastet wrote:
No, but you did again prove you fail at comprehending English.

 

Guess that means you are a liar for the cause as well.  He claimed I ran away from the hard questions.  I didn't.  I believe an apology is quite warranted.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:jcgadfly

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD, run from #487 also

 

Looks like I just proved you to be a liar yet again.  

Not so sure - you managed only assertions again. It might have been better for you if you had ignored it.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3093
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:You are doing

TWD39 wrote:

You are doing the same thing though. You approach the Bible with the assumption that it is all fiction so your reasoning is to attack anything that threatens that position. Couple that with a strong biased anger towards God and Christian principles, and I would say you are incapable of objective reasoning on this topic. You will always reject anything that supports my faith.

PLEASE READ THIS FIRST AND ACT ACCORDINGLY.

i have not made any claims about the overall fictional or nonfictional nature of the bible in the current discussion.  my views on this are irrelevant to our discussion.  ALL I HAVE SAID is that there is no compelling evidence, biblical or extrabiblical, for the claim that matthew and luke give two valid genealogies, one "biological" and the other "legal."  i am not interested in arguing with you about whether or not the bible as a whole is "true."  i ask you not to make suppositions about my motives and i also ask you not to lump me in with any "buddies."

the only reason i bothered to mention your presuppositions is that inerrancy is a standard part of the modern evangelical credo and thus i think it reasonable to assume you hold that position.  if you do not, simply tell me and i will cheerfully retract what i said to that effect.

if you refuse to acknowledge that the position i have outlined above is the only position i have taken in our current discussion, and plan to continue to sidetrack the discussion into remarks about some supposed "anger" or "hatred" i have for a deity, please just TELL ME NOW before you even bother reading the rest of my response and i will waste no more time on this exchange.  i would appreciate that courtesy.

TWD39 wrote:

 

The claim that the gospels were written much later by unknown authors just doesn't hold up.

never claimed it.  just pointed out that there is no compelling evidence for traditional authorship.

 

TWD39 wrote:
 

No two people tell the same story in the same way.  The seemingly differences (which have been explained) are indicative that the Bible is true and Jesus really did exist.

fine, but those explanations are purely theoretical and thus do not "prove" the gospels give varying accurate perceptions of an event.  and i'm sorry, i don't think that standard is unreasonable.

allow me to quote myself:

iwbiek wrote:

 i do NOT submit my hypotheses as facts. that is what truly separates us.

 

TWD39 wrote:

 

Then you just proven yourself ignorant of the topic.  It is a most relevant point.  In fact, if the geneologies both matched perfectly, I'm sure you would be using this verse to promote a case against the Bible.

if i'm ignorant, enlighten me.  if you can demonstrate to me that the verse you refer to plainly and in context conclusively supports the idea that first-century jews or their hebrew ancestors made a distinction between "biological" and "legal" genealogical records and bothered to keep track of them, i will concede that your hypothesis is more likely than i originally gave it credit for.

 

TWD39 wrote:

Lack of evidence does not equate to no evidence existing.

very true.  but it does equate to a hypothesis remaining a hypothesis.

TWD39 wrote:

There certainly could be earlier manuscripts that have just not been discovered yet.   The gospel of Luke is more historical in nature yet it fails to record many key events occuring after 50 A.D. such as Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James, Paul, and Peter.   How do you explain that? 

i have no time for non sequiturs.  let's stay on track or end the conversation.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Normal 0

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE











































































































































/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

Bullet points to your response to iwbiek, TWd.

 1. Since the destruction of the Temple was "foretold" in the book of Daniel (if you believe such things) and these guys were good researchers of the OT it doesn't surprise me in the least that Luke would put those words in Jesus' mouth. It becomes more of a problem when you look at the scholarly consensus of Daniel as being written during Maccabean times.

2. Different people and decades apart. Not an eye-witness to be found. What it indicates to me was that the guys who wrote the gospels tried to top each other in the stories of the crucifixion and resurrection (literary embellishment of previous work was common).

3. There are many good things in the Bible. There are also bad things. What I do when I look at the Bible is think that if there was a God that was everything Christians say he is he would've written a much better book. There would only be one version and it wouldn't need interpretation. Nothing anyone can do will attack your faith - Faith is defense against all evidence

 Your "so true" book is rife with contradictions - some are here http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=contra

4.Indeed it does not. Archaeological evidence that you claim points to one thing when it points to another doesn't help you As for why those deathe weren't mentioned, the author of Luke also wrote Acts and felt that those deaths would be better mentioned there.

Remember, the gospels are not history - they're designed to be persuasive (as was the entire NT - look at 1 John 5).

Sorry for the Word formatting folks.

 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 269
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:LOL, oh of

TWD39 wrote:

LOL, oh of course you won't.  But why should I when you show time and time again that you will reject anytime I or ANY Christian will say? 

All I'm asking you to do, is explain your position. You simply assert that one lineage is "biological" and the other "legal". You don't say why Joseph's biological father is not his legal one, and where the scripture (or ANY source) implies that what you say is the case. See Iwbiek's post (#398). He explains (we like explanations here) why you're wrong in your assertion, and all you have done is re-stated your position, without offering anything to support it.

TWD39 wrote:

 I don't owe you diddly jack especially since you completely ignore my points. 

I ignore your points if they're unsupported.  It's simply unfortunate that this is how most of your points are made.

TWD39 wrote:

If I can't use Christian apologetics as a resource then you can't use SAB which is a poorly researched highly biased book of hatred towards Christianity. 

Holy actual crap. I will re-iterate AGAIN that I used the SAB to copy and paste bible verses, because it is an accurate KJV version of the bible, and I find it quicker to navigate than biblegateway. I pulled the verses from the SAB, not the arguments. The arguments are my own. I will even concede that some of the SAB's comments are a stretch, but they mostly have a good point.  Unless the bible verses in the SAB are modified to make it sound more ridiculous, it is a good place from which to copy and paste bible verses. Having compared several verses to other websites, it seems to be correct word for word. So once again, I am not using their arguments! 

As far as using Christian apologetics, you can feel free to use them as a resource, as long as they cite a source for their information. If any of my pasted bible verses from the SAB are incorrect, I wish for you to correct me.

TWD39 wrote:

Now if you are willing to address my points first then I'll be glad to address your arguments.  You could start by admitting that you were wrong that I NEVER present a coherent argument.  If you can't crest that wall, any discussion with your kind is a lesson in frustration.

Well, looking at this thread, you asserted that without god, languages are impossible. After stating that, explanations for languages were offered by many, and you were also asked to prove the authenticity of the tower of babel story.  Your response was to assert that the story was true with no evidence, and you caricatured the arguments. You kept on saying that going from simple grunts to irony is impossible. When many explanations were offered as to what order linguistic functions likely emerged, you simply dismissed it, continuing to assert your myth without evidence. I wouldn't call any of that "presenting a coherent argument". 

I will now quote something you said later

TWD39 wrote:

 The seemingly differences (which have been explained) are indicative that the Bible is true and Jesus really did exist. 

This is pretty telling of how you think.

1. Everything in this book is true

2. If it seems to contradict itself, there is an explanation

3. The explanations re-inforce the truth

4. Therefore, it is all true

Wonderful. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:TWD39

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD, run from #487 also

 

Looks like I just proved you to be a liar yet again.  

Not so sure - you managed only assertions again. It might have been better for you if you had ignored it.

 

 

You said I would run away.  I took the time to respond to the questions.  That is a clear cut lie on your behalf.    If you are going to charge me with making empty assertions then you are just as guilty by falsing accusing Andrew Womack as being a scam artist, and offering bogus explanations for the origin of languages without a single shred of proof to back it up. 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:jcgadfly

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD, run from #487 also

 

Looks like I just proved you to be a liar yet again.  

Not so sure - you managed only assertions again. It might have been better for you if you had ignored it.

 

 

You said I would run away.  I took the time to respond to the questions.  That is a clear cut lie on your behalf.    If you are going to charge me with making empty assertions then you are just as guilty by falsing accusing Andrew Womack as being a scam artist, and offering bogus explanations for the origin of languages without a single shred of proof to back it up. 

 

 

Not giving a constructive response is worse. you'd have been better off ignoring it. Instead you asserted things and claim you won.

As for Wommack, what I said was that he takes money from the faithful and sells them false hope. The evidence has shown that. I've told you how easily such claims can be fabricated. You insist that there's proof. When I ask for it, you fall back on Wommack's claims. Claims are not proof. I may as well include you in the scam artist category. We have offered you theories of how language evolved which you reject out of hand because they're not "God did it" while accusing us of doing that to you. Just because you don't like the proof that has been offered to you (again because it isn't "God did it&quotEye-wink doesn't mean it isn't proof. 

I'd much rather speak to you while saying nothing. It matches your speaking without thinking.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: If you

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

If you get married you are putting your physical life at risk, plain and simple. (By far the most likely person to murder or abuse you is your spouse, I can provide statistics if you wish- they also happen to be higher than the odds of dying from any STD- most STD's are not life threatening)

 

That's a ridiculous notion.  Studies also show that married couples live longer.  We can play this game all day.  Your statement has nothing to do with my point. You could be assaulted by a jealous ex-gf too.  STDS are a serious problem, and you are dishonest by downplaying it like it is nothing of concern.

 

  

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Practice your reading comprehension- it reduces your chances of getting an std 70-80% when you are having sex with an infected partner. It doesn't mean that 20-30% of the time you get infected. Even having unprotected sex with an infected partner infection rates are not 100%. And despite your insistence to the otherwise, most std's are not lethal and really are not even that big of deal. The vast majority of stds can be dealt with through antibiotics and when caught early have no lasting effects. 

Obviously, the largest step you can take to protect yourself is to have partner(s) that you can trust to inform you if they have an infection. This means that they have to have enough trust that you aren't going to flip out and go crazy about it. I am absolutely confident that anyone I have sex with trusts me enough to tell me if they caught an std.

If your spouse got an std would they tell you about it? If your spouse did tell you, how would you react? Would it threaten your relationship?

The bottom line is that a spouse in a monogamous marriage who goes out and cheats then catches an std has every reason in the world to lie about it, putting the other spouse at risk of also catching it, especially since they might not use protection. Whereas in my situation, I might slightly increase my risk by having multiple partners, I also dramatically decrease my risk because my relationships are based on mutual trust. They have no reason in the world not to tell me who they had sex with or if they catch something because it will not put our relationship at risk. 

 

 Your argument falls flat on its face when you consider that some STDS like HIV are silent killers and people are out there having sex not knowing they are carrying a STD.  The only way you could be 100% safe is to ask your partner to not have sex for 6 months and then get tested.

 

Bottom line, there's a lot of nasty stuff out there, and it's risky dangerous behavior.  Just a quick search revealed that tte CDC reported over a million cases of Chlamydia in 2010.  I'm sure it's grown since then.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats10/surv2010.pdf

 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:That's a

TWD39 wrote:

That's a ridiculous notion.  Studies also show that married couples live longer.  We can play this game all day.  Your statement has nothing to do with my point. 

None of your statements have anything to do with anything, including this random tangent about my sex life we are on. 

 

TWD39 wrote:

You could be assaulted by a jealous ex-gf too. 

Nah, I never date jealous people, that would be very risky for both of us. 

 

TWD39 wrote:

STDS are a serious problem, and you are dishonest by downplaying it like it is nothing of concern.

Evidence? Show me some proof. Of course there is some risk, there is risk in everything. I am more than willing to accept the risk, I fail to see why you are worried about it. It is hardly the death sentence you make it out to be.   

  

TWD39 wrote:

Your argument falls flat on its face when you consider that some STDS like HIV are silent killers and people are out there having sex not knowing they are carrying a STD.  The only way you could be 100% safe is to ask your partner to not have sex for 6 months and then get tested.

The only way to be 100% safe is to have no human contact living in a cabin in the middle of nowhere, I do not have interest in doing that at the moment. The question is whether or not your partner(s) would know they have an std (do they get tested regularly) and whether or not they would tell you.

So I will repeat my question (third time), if your spouse cheated on you and caught an std, would they tell you? If your spouse was cheating on you, would they even go to the doctor to get tested? (Knowing that spending that money may increase the odds of being caught) If your spouse was cheating on you, would they even use a condom? Most married people I know don't make a habit of carrying around condoms. I always have two or three on me just in case.

 

TWD39 wrote:

Bottom line, there's a lot of nasty stuff out there, and it's risky dangerous behavior.  Just a quick search revealed that tte CDC reported over a million cases of Chlamydia in 2010.  I'm sure it's grown since then.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats10/surv2010.pdf

And Chlamydia is one of the more common stds, is easily treatable, has a small risk of complications. Chlamydia is treated by taking antibiotics and abstaining from intercourse for... 7 days. Now granted, if I go 7 days I get a little cranky but I think I could manage if I ever get it. The only major complications that can occur is causing PID and damage to the fallopian tubes in women which can cause infertility. This only happens if it goes untreated for a long time. Everyone should be screened for stds at their regular physical, if you do so it will be caught long before any serious damage occurs. 

And excuse me if one million cases fails to terrify me. The adult population is over 225 million people, one million isn't that many. That very same year, over 2 million people were injured in car accidents, many of those injuries resulted in death or permanent physical disabilities that can't be fixed with antibiotics. Should I stop driving because of that? (And I drive more than average so I am at higher risk there too.) Should I avoid all human contact because over 25 million people get influenza every year and because of my personal medical condition I am at high risk of developing potentially deadly complications?

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811552.pdf

 

Of the things I do that put my life in danger, sex is way down on that list. But you are free to live your life in a sexless and boring bubble if you wish. I would rather enjoy a shorter life than be bored in a long one. If someday I die in a plane crash, fall to my death parachuting or am mauled to death by some wild animal, know that I died happy doing something I love (and god had nothing to do with it). You are free to attempt to eliminate every risk from your life, I don't see the point. I will die someday, it might be tomorrow, it might be 50 years from now, but until it happens I plan on living. 

But back to the initial disagreement, if stds are a result of not following "gods law", why is the risk of getting one far less than 100% even when not following the law? Is god inconsistent with punishment?