Do you think that torturing a baby is ever justified?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:28 pm

Bruv;1482423 wrote: With a large derriÃ¨re, don't forget.

errrr, I did not see pics of that!

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:31 pm

AnneBoleyn;1482429 wrote: errrr, I did not see pics of that!

I am just trying to lower the tone......and succeeding.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:32 pm

Bruv;1482432 wrote: I am just trying to lower the tone......and succeeding.
That's bass.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:52 pm

FourPart;1482433 wrote: That's bass.

It's the way you tell em.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 3:03 pm

Bruv;1482432 wrote: I am just trying to lower the tone......and succeeding.

Diplomacy corps will be calling your name. Accidentally spelt 'your' as 'yur'. Should have left it that way.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 3:03 pm

FourPart;1482433 wrote: That's bass.

Clever!

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 5:42 pm

There could be treble ahead...

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 2:04 am

Smaug;1482459 wrote: There could be treble ahead...

Let's bass the music & manse.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 4:40 am

Very punny! :wah:

Fri Jul 10, 2015 10:43 am

Bruv;1482415 wrote: I choose not to answer on her behalf, but trust me she does not feel like a second class anything, or should I say, if she does, she puts on a good show.

In the West, many women have shed their second class status but I am not sure if they are the majority yet. The feminist's and anti-feminists are both busy putting material out here at present and it is getting harder to know who is right. The non-Western world is lagging far behind us though.

Here is my latest from one who is usually right on the mark. She teaches Universities and I tend to trust her.

Regards

DL

Fri Jul 10, 2015 10:49 am

spot;1482419 wrote: Could we step back and say what that actually means, for a moment.

It means that the editors who produced the written version of the Pentateuch, back around 600BC, recorded the oral folk tradition that was extant at the time. It reflects the way a small group of Bronze Age tribes around the Yemen had interpreted the world, complete with a notion of an external God whose attributes they felt they could explore through these stories.

If these tribal scribes believed the tales to be literally true - and I have my gravest doubts that they did any such thing - it makes no difference at all to the actuality of this external God they described, no more than J K Rowling has described the reality of spellbinding for the generation which is now in its twenties.

That the scribes included "He shall rule over you" in Genesis 3 may mean they thought God had cursed Eve and all womankind. That would be interesting. There is no external God, and there is no curse, but there's a story about it in Genesis.

Why on earth do you insist that we play this appalling game of every Christian is bound by the label to believe that what these scribes wrote down is a literal truth?

I play the game because many Christians do not agree with you and women are still being oppressed.

I just put one link above and here is what past but more modern than ancient day Christians thought.

Regards

DL

Fri Jul 10, 2015 10:53 am

Is your wife Jamaican.

Regards

DL

Post by **spot** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 10:59 am

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1482486 wrote: I play the game because many Christians do not agree with you[/url]I urge you to find some and oppress them. We are not they. What you need, for your game, is a Christian bible literalist.

Fri Jul 10, 2015 11:14 am

spot;1482489 wrote: I urge you to find some and oppress them. We are not they. What you need, for your game, is a Christian bible literalist.

Every Christian has to be a bible literalist to some extent if they believe in Jesus. The bible is the only place that a literal and real Jesus can be found.

Regards

DL

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 11:21 am

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1482491 wrote: Every Christian has to be a bible literalist to some extent if they believe in Jesus. The bible is the only place that a literal and real Jesus can be found.

Regards

DL

That is about the most absurd of all your posts.

And women were being oppressed long before the Bible was ever dreamt up.

Your attitude toward women is hardly exemplary, as evidenced from some of your posts.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 11:25 am

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1482491 wrote: Every Christian has to be a bible literalist to some extent if they believe in Jesus. The bible is the only place that a literal and real Jesus can be found.The fact that you simply won't accept the plain statement of someone who is undoubtedly a Christian while regarding any suggestion of an external God, or a living Jesus, or a divinely inspired bible, as meaningless drivel, simply shows your inability to hear what's said to you.

There is no "literal and real Jesus", there are stories written around 2000 years ago which may or may not, in places, refer to someone of that name and era. Personally I doubt that much of what's written about Jesus in the bible does actually refer to anyone of that name and era, some are collated tales from other eras and some are frankly invented. Anyone of that name and era died long before the New Testament was brought into being, and like everyone else before or since he stayed that way. Dead.

"Living Jesus" is a very bad and unhelpful metaphor that has done an immense amount of damage and has no place in the modern world at all, it's a figment left over from pre-science and pre-Enlightenment.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 11:36 am

How many of the Disciples were women?

How many of the Gospels were written by women (Matthew, Mark, Luke & Joan?)?

How many of the Apostles were women?

This is Biblical Literalism.

If the Bible were to be literal there could only be a single version of the Bible. It would be called "The Bible". However, there are hundreds of different versions, each with their own wordings & interpretations in them, and these are just those that have emerged during the past few generations. Multiply the effect of those interpretations over 2 thousand years or more & you get some sort of idea of how literal they really are. Manuscripts have been proved to have been doctored so as to comply with what Christians want them to say, as well as totally reworded, appended & elaborated on.

The whole thing is a fallacy & has no place in modern society.

Fri Jul 10, 2015 11:41 am

LarsMac;1482492 wrote: That is about the most absurd of all your posts.

And women were being oppressed long before the Bible was ever dreamt up.

Your attitude toward women is hardly exemplary, as evidenced from some of your posts.

Chastisement without correction just shows how heartless and cruel someone is. Do you spank your children without telling them why?

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Where else but from reading the bible in a literal way could one become a literal believer in Jesus?

Repair the absurdity of your own reply before denying the truth of mine.

Regards

DL

Fri Jul 10, 2015 11:45 am

spot;1482493 wrote: The fact that you simply won't accept the plain statement of someone who is undoubtedly a Christian while regarding any suggestion of an external God, or a living Jesus, or a divinely inspired bible, as meaningless drivel, simply shows your inability to hear what's said to you.

There is no "literal and real Jesus", there are stories written around 2000 years ago which may or may not, in places, refer to someone of that name and era. Personally I doubt that much of what's written about Jesus in the bible does actually refer to anyone of that name and era, some are collated tales from other eras and some are frankly invented. Anyone of that name and era died long before the New Testament was brought into being, and like everyone else before or since he stayed that way. Dead.

"Living Jesus" is a very bad and unhelpful metaphor that has done an immense amount of damage and has no place in the modern world at all, it's a figment left over from pre-science and pre-Enlightenment.

I agree with this last and also think of Jesus as a made up character.

Regards

DL

Fri Jul 10, 2015 11:50 am

FourPart;1482495 wrote: How many of the Disciples were women?

How many of the Gospels were written by women (Matthew, Mark, Luke & Joan?)?

How many of the Apostles were women?

This is Biblical Literalism.

If the Bible were to be literal there could only be a single version of the Bible. It would be called "The Bible". However, there are hundreds of different versions, each with their own wordings & interpretations in them, and these are just those that have emerged during the past few generations. Multiply the effect of those interpretations over 2 thousand years or more & you get some sort of idea of how literal they really are. Manuscripts have been proved to have been doctored so as to comply with what Christians want them to say, as well as totally reworded, appended & elaborated on.

The whole thing is a fallacy & has no place in modern society.

+ 1

Here is a striking example.

Even the word Christian is a doctored term.

Regards

DL

Post by **spot** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 11:51 am

And while I'm at it, John Brown's soul doesn't go marching on either.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 11:52 am

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1482497 wrote: Chastisement without correction just shows how heartless and cruel someone is. Do you spank your children without telling them why?

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Where else but from reading the bible in a literal way could one become a literal believer in Jesus?

Repair the absurdity of your own reply before denying the truth of mine.

Regards

DL

I read the Qur'an regularly, too. That does not make me a literal believer in Mohammed.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 12:19 pm

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1482501 wrote: + 1

Here is a striking example.

Even the word Christian is a doctored term.

Regards

DL

Beat you to that one

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1482464

Fri Jul 10, 2015 12:20 pm

LarsMac;1482503 wrote: I read the Qur'an regularly, too. That does not make me a literal believer in Mohammed.

I did not say you were. I showed the conditions required to believe in a literal Jesus which you denied in an ignorant way.

Regards

DL

Fri Jul 10, 2015 12:25 pm

FourPart;1482505 wrote: Beat you to that one

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1482464

I stand shamed for my tardiness. :-4

:sneaky: I am sitting. :wah:

Regards

DL

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 12:54 pm

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1482506 wrote: I did not say you were. I showed the conditions required to believe in a literal Jesus which you denied in an ignorant way.

Regards

DL

Every Christian has to be a bible literalist to some extent if they believe in Jesus....

That is the absurd part. Your logic is flawed.

One can believe in the teachings that the bible has to offer without being a literalist.

crazygal · Post by **crazygal** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:51 pm

Hell no never ever EVER.

Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:02 am

LarsMac;1482510 wrote: That is the absurd part. Your logic is flawed.

One can believe in the teachings that the bible has to offer without being a literalist.

??

I agree.

That was not the topic. The topic was belief in a real Jesus. Not the teachings.

Regards

DL

Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:04 am

crazygal;1482533 wrote: Hell no never ever EVER.

You just say that because you are a moral person. :-4

Regards

DL

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:29 am

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1482559 wrote: ??

I agree.

That was not the topic. The topic was belief in a real Jesus. Not the teachings.

Regards

DL

Actually,, the topic was "Every Christian has to be a bible literalist..."

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1482491 wrote: Every Christian has to be a bible literalist to some extent if they believe in Jesus. The bible is the only place that a literal and real Jesus can be found.

Regards

DL

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 12:52 pm

Actually, the topic was about whether it's right to torture babies.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 2:43 pm

FourPart;1482567 wrote: Actually, the topic was about whether it's right to torture babies.

With the implication - actually the outright accusation - that the bible claims God did, which is cobblers

The discussion would be far more interesting if it lacked these extreme posturing words like "torture".

Sat Jul 11, 2015 5:59 pm

spot;1482576 wrote: With the implication - actually the outright accusation - that the bible claims God did, which is cobblers

The discussion would be far more interesting if it lacked these extreme posturing words like "torture".

I am willing to be corrected.

What word would you use to describe what God did to King David's baby and the babies drowned in the great flood.

Being French, I always appreciate someone's help with my poor grammar.

Regards

DL

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 6:25 pm

FourPart;1482567 wrote: Actually, the topic was about whether it's right to torture babies.

was referring to our particular diversion.

But, of course it's not right to torture babies, or anyone else. The whole thread is absurd, aside from the fact that he actually has run the same thread, with basically the same title months ago.

We have actually been giving the troll much more time than he deserves, IMHO.

Sat Jul 11, 2015 6:29 pm

LarsMac;1482584 wrote: was referring to our particular diversion.

But, of course it's not right to torture babies, or anyone else. The whole thread is absurd, aside from the fact that he actually has run the same thread, with basically the same title months ago.

We have actually been giving the troll much more time than he deserves, IMHO.

You may be right as I target believers and there do not seem to be may here.

They are the ones who need moral guidance. Generally atheists and or non-believers and I share the same morality and it is way above theists morality.

I hope you more intelligent and moral people are doing your duty to help theists think better.

I think it quite disgusting that a man like me, who is not particularly good, has to try to teach what little I know of morals to believers who claim to be more moral than myself and most here.

Regards

DL

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 6:35 pm

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1482583 wrote: What word would you use to describe what God did to King David's baby and the babies drowned in the great flood.I find it far more interesting that the Bronze age people to whom the tales were relevant believed that this external God they'd invented was capable of such damnable behaviour. It stemmed from a period when there were lots of Gods believed in - just as there are now, I suppose. The tribe remembers stories of tough times from before they settled down in agrarian settlements and they attribute the toughness to their God. They defeat other tribes in mass slaughter and attribute their victory to The God of Battles. Eventually some poor sod of a monotheist scribal editor has to bring all the stories into a coherent assembly which toes the party line.

What word would I use to describe what God did? The point is that He didn't. He's non-existent. There is no such devil out there doing these things. The word the tribes used was Jealous.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 6:38 pm

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1482585 wrote: I think it quite disgusting that a man like me, who is not particularly good, has to try to teach what little I know of morals to believers who claim to be more moral than myself and most here.First you need to find one. You seem singularly incapable of that, from all I've seen.

Sat Jul 11, 2015 7:04 pm

spot;1482586 wrote: I find it far more interesting that the Bronze age people to whom the tales were relevant believed that this external God they'd invented was capable of such damnable behaviour. It stemmed from a period when there were lots of Gods believed in - just as there are now, I suppose. The tribe remembers stories of tough times from before they settled down in agrarian settlements and they attribute the toughness to their God. They defeat other tribes in mass slaughter and attribute their victory to The God of Battles. Eventually some poor sod of a monotheist scribal editor has to bring all the stories into a coherent assembly which toes the party line.

What word would I use to describe what God did? The point is that He didn't. He's non-existent. There is no such devil out there doing these things. The word the tribes used was Jealous.

Shucks. I thought I was going to learn a new adjective. Oh well. Torture it shall remain.

I hear you on the ancients but would point out that the literal reading of those myths is fairly recent. Only in the last what, 100 years or so.

Before that, no one stated that they literally believed in and adored a genocidal son murdering God.

The religious have regressed and I want to bring back as many as I can to God seeking instead of idol worshiping a satanic God.

I think it is every moral man and woman's duty.

Regards

DL

Sat Jul 11, 2015 7:05 pm

spot;1482587 wrote: First you need to find one. You seem singularly incapable of that, from all I've seen.

This from you who just backpedaled like a G D fool form your dislike of my use of words without giving a better one.

What theist have you seen me work with or was that just a hypocritical knee jerk reaction from a jerk?

Regards

DL

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 12, 2015 1:47 am

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1482589 wrote: This from you who just backpedaled like a G D fool form your dislike of my use of words without giving a better one.

What theist have you seen me work with or was that just a hypocritical knee jerk reaction from a jerk?Tell me, would you discuss issues in this fashion over a pint in a pub?

I simply see no reason for you to be such an unpleasant poster. How does it help?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jul 12, 2015 1:55 am

Blessed are the numpties for reason will always pass them by.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 12, 2015 1:59 am

I come here to enjoy the company of friends, not to be continually spat at by deranged single-issue visitors.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Sun Jul 12, 2015 2:29 am

GCB please attend another site. Can't you see that most of the members on Forum Garden are sick to death of your aimless ramblings. You are rude, insulting and arrogant, and I wish you would leave this site and pester other sites. You have out-stayed your welcome GCB, you have nothing sensible to offer this forum and what you do offer is just a repeat of rubbish you have inflicted on people before. I ask you politely to go elsewhere. Go !

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 12, 2015 2:39 am

Or he could, of course, go into the insane Frodo Baggins thread and discuss their mutual obsession with someone who thinks it has meaning. That would be a neat fix.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Sun Jul 12, 2015 2:45 am

Actually Mr. spot, perhaps it would be a good idea for him to leave Forum Garden and take Frodo whatsisface with him. Maybe then we'll get some more intelligent threads to take their place and add to the already exisiting ones that have survived his interfering ?

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 12, 2015 2:55 am

We do not throw people off the site, Gill. Not without an interminable series of ignored formal warnings, none of which has this chap warranted or received. Unless he gets it into his head to threaten legal action against the owner, of course - that's been known in the past.

I have never seen this one go into anyone else's threads, he starts his own and stays inside them. Were he not here, his threads wouldn't start and nobody would discuss his opening posts. No "existing thread" has ever been changed by his presence, as far as I'm aware.

To "get some more intelligent threads to take their place", one needs to start them. But we're not going to get conversational visitors registering out of the blue if all they see are words like God Damned Fool or Jerk bandied around by ill-tempered monomaniacs who have no interest in the site to start with.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 12, 2015 3:08 am

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1482588 wrote: I hear you on the ancients but would point out that the literal reading of those myths is fairly recent. Only in the last what, 100 years or so.

That's so incorrect it's hard to know why you should think it.

Augustine was an allegorist but if you look at his account of the flood, Chapter 16 of The City of God, it's blatant that he saw it as an historical event literally described, and that he accepts root and branch what Genesis says of its cause. His use of allegory doesn't imply "this is a made-up story to talk about X and Y", he says these events actually happened at God's command in order to display this or that universal truth to subsequent generations. Which would be, if you think about it and it were true, the act of an even more monstrous God than you're suggesting already.

The same applies to any of the Church Fathers. By all means bring us a passage by one which shows that he thinks Genesis is anything but literal truth.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Sun Jul 12, 2015 3:51 am

spot;1482600 wrote: We do not throw people off the site, Gill. Not without an interminable series of ignored formal warnings, none of which has this chap warranted or received. Unless he gets it into his head to threaten legal action against the owner, of course - that's been known in the past.

I have never seen this one go into anyone else's threads, he starts his own and stays inside them. Were he not here, his threads wouldn't start and nobody would discuss his opening posts. No "existing thread" has ever been changed by his presence, as far as I'm aware.

To "get some more intelligent threads to take their place", one needs to start them. But we're not going to get conversational visitors registering out of the blue if all they see are words like God Damned Fool or Jerk bandied around by ill-tempered monomaniacs who have no interest in the site to start with.

Actually Mr. spot, I did not mention anything about 'throwing him off the site', I merely suggested that he should leave and possibly take Frodobaggins thingy with him. I have not studied all the threads so I will have to accept what you say about GCB only starting threads for his own purpose and staying with them. I do not think I am one of those who say 'God Damned Fool' of 'Jerk', the latter being possibly a favourite saying by Americans. I take it that when you say 'monomaniacs who have no interest in the site to start with' you are referring to somebody other than me ! At least I hope that is the case ?

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 12, 2015 4:50 am

Yes, Gill. The quoted phrases and epithets are things our visitor threw at me and I, in turn, referenced in order to criticize them.

Nobody could call you an ill-tempered monomaniac, your topics are always varied.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Sun Jul 12, 2015 4:53 am

Thank you kind sir ! I do my best, but sometimes I make a mistake somewhere along the line, I think it is something to do with age !