Re: Double Standard

On May 17, 11:07 pm, Shane <remar...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 17 May 2007 19:02:36 -0700, Robert1958 wrote:

On May 17, 8:36 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2007-05-17, Robert1958 <dragon_heart1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 17, 5:30 am, hhyaps...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On May 14, 9:16 pm, Robert1958 <dragon_heart1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

I agree with you that the Bible is baloney as far as a historical
textbook, but if the Bible is 100% fiction, it would have to be the
work of a fiction writer whose creativity exceeds George Lucas,
Tolkien, Homer, and Spielberg combined.

It's dreadfully boring actually. There seems to be no consistent theme
which binds it together. It's like it was written by dozens of people,
all with different goals, inspirations and beliefs, scattered over
centuries.

Dreadfully boring? No, sir, your aristocratic boorishness is boring.
How's the air up on that high horse of yours? And no other book on
this planet records in detail the history of a one race i.e. the Jews
like this book does.

Well as far as style is concerned that is possibly true, but as far as
content goes your statement is demonstrably false, as the work of Sima
Qian ably demonstrates. It could also easily be said that Qians work was
much better laid out, and more of a coherent whole, than the bible.

http://www.answers.com/topic/records-of-the-grand-historian

Oh, by the way, since that last sentence in your
paragraph does, in fact, describe the Bible (and yes, I realize you
were using dry irony) I think that makes it a far superior read than
any pigtripe the average evolutionist could concoct.

And yet here you are reading stuff concocted by evolution
proponents--Mark is not, by your own definition, an evolutinist--when
you could be reading the bible. Go figure.

You know , that's a good point, actually. What's gotten into me? The
problem with the Bible is it isn't interactive. If I could debate with
it's authors like you just to find out how full of dubious bull***
they are, just as I have with you, I'd be debunking Genesis with the
same vehemence, so don't feel picked on.

Most of you have never studied it in depth, can't name off 20 books
in it, and you make these broad- brush claims that the whole thing
is crap. But the Bible also contains timeless wisdom as far as just
philosophical principles.

So do lots of books.

And your point would be.......? Just because the Boy Scout Manual has
nuggets of wisdom, it's superior?

No, he was merely countering you implied point that the bible was
superior because it had them.

I wasn't implying it was superior, only that it wasn't 100% balderdash
as many here seem to think.

What contention could anyone have with the loving your enemy,

Lots of people (Christians included) think we should send troops over to
kill our enemies before they get the opportunity to do so to us.

Of course, Heaven forbid (sorry, couldn't resist that) an enemy should
reach our shores, kill such as you, and deprive the world of your far-
reaching wisdom.

Wow, look at those goal posts move.Thats quite a skill you have there.

Thanks, coming from you, I'm sure that's a compliment. But my
apologies. I thought you agreed with them.

feeding the hungry, visiting the sick, caring for the poor and
providing for them?

Lots of people (Christians included) think that poverty is a choice,
a personal failing, and that they shouldn't be forced to pay for them.

Tell that to someone who is disabled, physically or mentally, as a
result of fighting those dreadful enemies you fear, and is forced to
live on a pension for the rest of their lives.

Whoosh, Why don't you get you bible believing person, who also thinks
poverty is a choice, to tell them.

Okay, forgive my obtuseness, Once again, I thought you were in league
with them. My bad.(and I'm not being sarcastic for once)





Whether Jesus was who he claimed to be is irrelevant to me. I'm
impressed with him from the standpoint that he gave a damn about his
fellow man and wanted to make a difference, and he had the guts to
stand up and defy the established religious order of that day i.e. the
priests, saducees, and pharisees.I don't care what you know, I want to
know that you care. I keep hearing this claim that Christ was a
delusional nut. Okay, so what if he was? Is it a crime to be mentally
ill? I know the classic kneejerk response to Christs compassion is all
the contradictions in the Bible as far as God's genocidal Robo-Cop
hissy fits in the Old Testament compared to the "kinder, gentler"
Daddy God of the NT, and no rational explanation exists for that. In
fact, I slam fundies on the head for that inconsistency a lot harder
than you, I assure you.

I somehow doubt that.

Thank you for suggesting that I'm a liar, sir. I could say that I
doubt you had bi-pedal parents, but why stoop to your level?

Too late.

You're right. I did stoop to your level. Damn, Mark, any light in
these sewers?

But committing intellectual suicide isn't
confined to religion, my friend. My response to your question as to
how anyone could believe in the nonsense in the conned book Bible is
how could educated people buy into communism, an atheistic phenomanae
whose atrocities are incomprehensible, and Naziism, which rose up in
a nation that had the most educated population on Earth at the time?

So... your answer to why people believe in silly things is that people
believe in almost anything, given the chance?

Follow the flow of the conversation,

Oh the irony.

Physician, heal thyself.

sir. I was making the point that
religion isn't the only belief system that causes well-educated people
to believe in fairy tales.

The Nazis developed practical jet propulsion and rocketry first, yet
they followed a madman.

The two were actually closely related.

Actually they weren't. The engineering principles and physics
governing a jet engine as opposed to a rocket engine are totally
dissimilar. The only comparison is aerodynamics and the fact that they
both exhaust a reaction mass (oh, excuse me, I forgot, you're an
evolutionist. That means something blows out the ass end!)

Try to follow the conversation, it's not rocket science. :) The
suggestion was that the concentration on developing jet propulsion and
rocketry was because the madman was in charge and leading the nation to
a point where those things wouled be incredibly useful. I don't think
the development of furry toys and comfy chairs advanced very much in
Germany in the same period.

Then why didn't well-educated men like you in America develop them
first during WW 2 when they would be incredibly useful, or were you
busy designing those high tech comfy chairs and furry toys?

You think education prevents gullibility, irrational thinking, and
buying into a con game? You slept through the 20th Century if you
believe that.

I'm not sure what your point is. You seem to be arguing that Christianity,
while absurd, might be less harmful than other beliefs, and therefore should
be tolerated?

Tolerate Christianity? Heavens no, of course not.

So what is you point then?

My point is that I would never stoop to such an unethical practice as
"soundbiting" and taking a text out of context. And you guys accuse
the Creationists of duplicity?

Let's burn the
constitution and especially that pesky Bill of Rights allowing Freedom
of Religion. The next time a Mother Teresa rises up, she should be
shot on sight.

A lot of her former patients, of the few who survived, would probably
fight to be the one to pull the trigger. You have this rather
spectacular ability to choose the most inappropriate examples to
demonstrate you points.

It's all a matter of perspective. I'm sure the thousands that were
saved through her efforts would block the bullets.

We should have never tolerated all those Christian
relief organizations that traveled to New Orleans to give of their
time, without pay, to help the hurricane victims. After all, they were
just getting in the way of that flood of atheistic relief
organizations that went down there in droves, right? Let's never
tolerate again the rising of a democratic nation founded primarily by
presbyterians and episcopalians who gave erudite mental giants such as
yourself the freedom to spew your aristocratic boorish vomitus.

As you point was unclear he asked for clarification, and got more
hyperboic nonsense. And you complain about the reception you have gotten
here. Perhaps if you dispensed with the hyperbole and just said what you
meant, people would be less inclined to poke you with a sticck just to
watch you jump.- Hide quoted text -

Is it my fault that you and your compatriots are thick and obtuse as
posts, and you aren't deep enough to understand hyperbole.(Actually, I
think you do get it, but your disingenuous arrogance and hubris won't
allow you to admit it)If I debate Plato and Socrates with Rednecks,
and all I get from them is monosyllabic grunts, does that mean I'm
obligated to "dumb down" to their level, as you apparently want me to
do with you? Tell you what, Mark, you tell me what part of my
hyperbole you don't get, confuses you, whatever, and I'll do my best
to explain on your terms. As far as the reception Ive gotten here,
it's because you're a bunch of arrogant, snobbish unethical liars who
can't answer simple questions, and you won't admit that you can't. I'd
have far more respect for you if you'd drop the fronts and just admit
you don't know. As far as poking a stick at me to watch me jump,
thanks for corroborating my belief that believers-in-evolution and /or
proponents/advocates for evolution here (happy now) are sadistic
phoney bastards who resort to boorish aristocratic attacks because
it's easier than thinking..
- Show quoted text -


.