Christians told to treat atheists and agnostics with "deep esteem"

[moroboshi]

Originally Posted by Russ B

Stoning to death is barbaric, God is not.

.

Wel... if you believe what is written in the bible, and I assume from what you have said here that you do... then 'god' committed the greatest mass genocide in history and saved only a man called noah and few hundred thousand animals on the world's largest and most impossible boat.

What is one to take from a message like that? Do as is written in an ancient book which by your own admission is from a time with very different 'moral' values, or die a horrible death?

There are a great many things I find distasteful about religion, but one which never ceases to amaze me are the incredible shifting standards of it's advocates. If the bible is all about loving your neighbour (just as long as he or she isn't gay presumably), then why is this particular flavour of 'god' such a psychopath? Which 'moral' messages should be adhered to, and which are now just out of date nonsense? Surely you must see the hypocrisy?

[Russ B]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

A barbaric one, when he was aware of other punishments which were not barbaric and could have been applied.

A lesser punishment would I feel detract from the message of it being an 'abonination'.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So why do you think that homosexual practice is a sin? What other passages have led you to that belief?

Why would all my beliefs purely come from the bible? To answer your question I feel that gay sex is a totally uneccessary and dangerous act. If that's what people want to do then fine, I'm not going to speak out against them.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Think the last time you said something homophobic was on the old forum and it turned out to be a misunderstanding didn't it?

No, it was ignorance on my part for which I apologised and I'm glad to have moved on from the attitude I once had.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Like I said, being a moral and decent bloke, if I were in your god's place I'd not need my son to be beaten and killed for me to do something.

I think a Creator God would have a better understanding of the world than some bloke from England.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Tosh, I've been discussing the practices of thousands of years ago seperately with those of todays.

Remind me, who brought up the subject of Leviticus?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

You're the one who is choosing to continue certain beliefs and practices from those times to the present day.

Are they not applicable today?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by moroboshi

Wel... if you believe what is written in the bible, and I assume from what you have said here that you do... then 'god' committed the greatest mass genocide in history and saved only a man called noah and few hundred thousand animals on the world's largest and most impossible boat.

What is one to take from a message like that? Do as is written in an ancient book which by your own admission is from a time with very different 'moral' values, or die a horrible death?

There are a great many things I find distasteful about religion, but one which never ceases to amaze me are the incredible shifting standards of it's advocates. If the bible is all about loving your neighbour (just as long as he or she isn't gay presumably), then why is this particular flavour of 'god' such a psychopath? Which 'moral' messages should be adhered to, and which are now just out of date nonsense? Surely you must see the hypocrisy?

Couple of points
1. You forgot Noah's family.
2. Gay neighbours is fine, and you can love them, even if they're practicing homosexuals, just remind them to repent

[Russ B]

Originally Posted by moroboshi

Wel... if you believe what is written in the bible, and I assume from what you have said here that you do... then 'god' committed the greatest mass genocide in history and saved only a man called noah and few hundred thousand animals on the world's largest and most impossible boat.

Tell me, do you know *why* God did the flood thing?

Originally Posted by moroboshi

There are a great many things I find distasteful about religion, but one which never ceases to amaze me are the incredible shifting standards of it's advocates. If the bible is all about loving your neighbour (just as long as he or she isn't gay presumably), then why is this particular flavour of 'god' such a psychopath? Which 'moral' messages should be adhered to, and which are now just out of date nonsense? Surely you must see the hypocrisy?

There is none. If you are genuinely interested in biblical matters (and I suspect you're not) then reading a bible along with a bible study manual will answer a lot of your questions and put right a lot of your misconceptions (and boy do you have many).

What you seem to be unaware of is the laws as written in the Old Testament no longer apply to us. As an example this is why we do not demand the death of gays (apart from the lunatic "God hates fags" gang).

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ B

A lesser punishment would I feel detract from the message of it being an 'abonination'.

So it's no longer an abomination and therefore should go unpunished?

Why would all my beliefs purely come from the bible? To answer your question I feel that gay sex is a totally uneccessary and dangerous act. If that's what people want to do then fine, I'm not going to speak out against them.

How is it dangerous any more than anal sex between men and women, or vaginal sex? It's not even unnatural as it occurs frequently throughout nature.

I think a Creator God would have a better understanding of the world than some bloke from England.

Don't get high and mighty with me Welshie, you don't even have a proper country
I'm just happy that this "bloke from England" has a better understanding of morals and right from wrong than your god.

Remind me, who brought up the subject of Leviticus?

I did in #284 in response to your posts. I even mentioned the OT/NT cut off, and pointed out how you no longer apply the rules about milk and meat, but still apply the "homosexual acts are a sin" rules.
So thank you for reminding us of an example of how you are taking aspects of society from thousands of years ago and trying to apply it to modern days.

Are they not applicable today?

Wouldn't it be out of context to apply them today?
After all, they're from "different" times.
So which is it Russ?
Cherry picking, all, or nothing, with regards to the OT and the laws within.
How about the NT?
That was 2000 years ago, aren't you taking things out of context if you try to apply the NT to modern times?

Originally Posted by Russ B

Tell me, do you know *why* God did the flood thing?

He didn't feel loved.
He made a mistake.
He's a psychopath.
He didn't like how humans were using their freedom of choice as they chose not to worship him.
He's a genocidal tyrant.
He didn't, it was a story absorbed into early Hebrew scripture during their time as slaves in Mesopotamia from their mythology because it suited their needs.

Take your pick.

[moroboshi]

Originally Posted by Russ B

Tell me, do you know *why* God did the flood thing?
.

No idea, but I can't imagine there ever being a reason to kill virtually every living creature on an entire planet. Not even Tony Blair or George Bush could aspire to those heights, even with the voice of the 'lord' talking in the heads.

By the way, do you believe anything in the old testament actually happened?

[Russ B]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So it's no longer an abomination and therefore should go unpunished?

It's a sin and should be dealt with like any other. No better or worse.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

How is it dangerous any more than anal sex between men and women, or vaginal sex? It's not even unnatural as it occurs frequently throughout nature.

I'm not going in to the graphic details but there's a reason lubrications is almost always required.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Don't get high and mighty with me Welshie, you don't even have a proper country
I'm just happy that this "bloke from England" has a better understanding of morals and right from wrong than your god.

Sit down Saesneg, it was my God who gave you your morals.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I did in #284 in response to your posts. I even mentioned the OT/NT cut off, and pointed out how you no longer apply the rules about milk and meat, but still apply the "homosexual acts are a sin" rules.
So thank you for reminding us of an example of how you are taking aspects of society from thousands of years ago and trying to apply it to modern days.

I know you're not really that stupid. I no longer 'apply the rules about milk and meat' because we are told we're no longer subject to OT testament law.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Wouldn't it be out of context to apply them today?
After all, they're from "different" times.
So which is it Russ?
Cherry picking, all, or nothing, with regards to the OT and the laws within.
How about the NT?
That was 2000 years ago, aren't you taking things out of context if you try to apply the NT to modern times?

Cherry picking? What the hell are you on about now? The NT was, if you will, an update on God's Law. Times changed as the Saviour had come and the requirements were different. It is written in the NT that we are no longer subject to the laws of the OT - you knew that, right?

The NT can be applied to modern times easily, the difference being you deliberately take matters out of context to continue your rubbishing of my views! It's not all that difficult to see.

---------- Post added at 23:10 ---------- Previous post was at 23:08 ----------

Originally Posted by moroboshi

No idea, but I can't imagine there ever being a reason to kill virtually every living creature on an entire planet. Not even Tony Blair or George Bush could aspire to those heights, even with the voice of the 'lord' talking in the heads.

I tell you what, how about you go and research your points before you try to use them to criticise the bible. It helps to have a little knowledge on a subject matter before you discuss it.

Originally Posted by moroboshi

By the way, do you believe anything in the old testament actually happened?

Yep.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ B

I'm not going in to the graphic details but there's a reason lubrications is almost always required.

Lubrication is available, so as with your argument over tattoos and body piercings, surely that can be applied too?

Sit down Saesneg, it was my God who gave you your morals.

Ah, so he made me more moral than himself?
Ok, that's an interesting view point.
Personally, I think my mate Drop-dead-fred gave you yours.

I know you're not really that stupid. I no longer 'apply the rules about milk and meat' because we are told we're no longer subject to OT testament law.

Do you consider it to be sinful to mix dairy and meat?

Cherry picking? What the hell are you on about now? The NT was, if you will, an update on God's Law. Times changed as the Saviour had come and the requirements were different. It is written in the NT that we are no longer subject to the laws of the OT - you knew that, right?

The NT can be applied to modern times easily, the difference being you deliberately take matters out of context to continue your rubbishing of my views! It's not all that difficult to see.

Actually, I've not referred to any specifics from the NT, so how exactly can I take them out of context? You're the one who said that taking something done thousands of years ago and applying modern views to it was taking it out of context, but now you're saying it's ok if it's done with the NT?
And you claim this isn't cherry picking?

[Russ B]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Lubrication is available, so as with your argument over tattoos and body piercings, surely that can be applied too?

Out of both sets of organs, one of them is being used in a way it was not designed to do. There are clear risks with anal sex which do not exist with vaginal.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Ah, so he made me more moral than himself?
Ok, that's an interesting view point.
Personally, I think my mate Drop-dead-fred gave you yours.

You're entitled to your view, the difference being I won't go blue-in-the-face trying to point out what I think are flaws in the system and taking pointless potshots.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Do you consider it to be sinful to mix dairy and meat?

No I don't, unless a more learned person can demonstrate otherwise.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Actually, I've not referred to any specifics from the NT, so how exactly can I take them out of context? You're the one who said that taking something done thousands of years ago and applying modern views to it was taking it out of context, but now you're saying it's ok if it's done with the NT?
And you claim this isn't cherry picking?

I have no idea what cherry picking is, it sounds a little camp for my liking. In any case was it you who brought the punishment of 2-4000 years ago (ie stoning gays) in to today?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ B

Out of both sets of organs, one of them is being used in a way it was not designed to do. There are clear risks with anal sex which do not exist with vaginal.

Someone best tell the animals then!
What risks? We've mentioned lube, and condoms. So what risks aren't averted by those which don't occur via vaginal intercourse?
I mean, you don't have the risk of pregnancy, so that's one less risk.

You're entitled to your view, the difference being I won't go blue-in-the-face trying to point out what I think are flaws in the system and taking pointless potshots.

How big of you, now I have your permission.
What with you giving me my morals too and all...

No I don't, unless a more learned person can demonstrate otherwise.

So anal sex is a sin, yet I don't recall reading anything in the NT which states it is, only in the OT, but other things which are sinful in the OT are no longer sinful because of the NT?

I have no idea what cherry picking is, it sounds a little camp for my liking. In any case was it you who brought the punishment of 2-4000 years ago (ie stoning gays) in to today?

Nothing wrong with camp, although I rarely associate it with the word "cherry"

You're the one who says on one hand anal sex is a sin, it's mentioned so in the OT (again, not recalling anything in the NT which state's it's a sin, perhaps you can refresh my memory), and we'll bring that sinful bit into modern times, but we will pick and choose, and not choose the punishment that goes with it.

[David F]

What in Gods or Einsteins name has lube and anal sex got to do with the Archbishop saying God has influence on none believers?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

What in Gods or Einsteins name has lube and anal sex got to do with the Archbishop saying God has influence on none believers?

Ask Russ, he introduced me to lube.

[David F]

well from what I can see you are well into anti religious rhetoric and Russ is defending religion its off topic and pointless. I know am not admin mod or anyone important but I personally think it should stop now

[Russ B]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Someone best tell the animals then!
What risks? We've mentioned lube, and condoms. So what risks aren't a