Is it okay to make fun of religion? (4 Viewers)

[Seven]

Well, that's just shocking coming out of you.

I'm sorry, but it's filled with flaws.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[rounder]

Razielist, what did atheism done? Do the words Stalin and Lenin ring a bell?

You see, I will not blame atheism for the actions of these atheists who by the way weren't exactly philanthropists in case you're wondering. Instead, I hold firm my belief that the '-isms' is not the problem here.

 

[Nenz]

You are really quite special, I have to give you that.

[QUOTE/]

Nobel prize for worst come back.

I'm giving up on you all its really pretty sad Juve Rev I recommend you do too. You can't talk to people who won't listen or budge. In conclusion I do, whether it shows or not respect your choices to not believe or follow a religion. But i can't for one second respect your decisions to walk around and shove your beliefs in everyones face like you think they'll listen to you. I did. And it wasn't too worth while I don't feel like i've learned anything.
At least some atheists put forward good points but you all seem to rest on sweeping statements like religion causes all wars and persecution and its simply a superstition.
Do yourselves a favor and open your mind to other peoples ideas, that includes religious ones. That's if you're all as rational as you claim to be.

 

[Seven]

Martin, Razielist,

Nenna is that guy who's on steroids. Let him be.

 

[rounder]

He's mad at you for suggesting that Mary was forced into pregnancy because you're not allowed to make fun of or criticize religion no matter how ridiculous it is.

Not quite.

You remember the other day when you were saying you would gladly have your set of beliefs being made fun of my someone with a little knowledge, but would be extremely irritated if it was some dimwit who had no idea what he was talking about?

Kinda how I feel.

I'm sorry, but it's filled with flaws.

Please do enlighten us.

 

[Martin]

You are really quite special, I have to give you that.

[QUOTE/]

Nobel prize for worst come back.

I'm giving up on you all its really pretty sad Juve Rev I recommend you do too. You can't talk to people who won't listen or budge. In conclusion I do, whether it shows or not respect your choices to not believe or follow a religion. But i can't for one second respect your decisions to walk around and shove your beliefs in everyones face like you think they'll listen to you. I did. And it wasn't too worth while I don't feel like i've learned anything.
At least some atheists put forward good points but you all seem to rest on sweeping statements like religion causes all wars and persecution and its simply a superstition.
Do yourselves a favor and open your mind to other peoples ideas, that includes religious ones. That's if you're all as rational as you claim to be.

How am I shoving my beliefs on you? I started this forum, you chose to come here. I started this thread, you chose to open it. I made posts, you chose to read them. And now you're blaming me for pushing my opinion on you? That's rich.

 

[Raz]

Razielist, what did atheism done? Do the words Stalin and Lenin ring a bell?

You see, I will not blame atheism for the actions of these atheists who by the way weren't exactly philanthropists in case you're wondering. Instead, I hold firm my belief that the '-isms' is not the problem here.

What is atheism got to do with it? Did Stalin or Lenin went all out against those who believe? Did atheism says that imaginary powers will heal you if you believe enough? Did atheism says submit and dont question anything, just fallow?

And could you answer the Mary question, im genuinely interested.

 

[Seven]

"The external and internal evidence tests do not prove the Bible's inspiration, but do reveal that the objective evidence is consistent with and supports the Bible's claims to be a divine book (because any book from God that claims to be inerrant should be reliable and consistent with itself)."

This is not true. If the Bible tells us about the Hittites and later we learn that there indeed were Hittites in that period, it has nothing to do with the possible divinity of the Bible. A lot of books would pass this criterion.

 

[rounder]

"The external and internal evidence tests do not prove the Bible's inspiration, but do reveal that the objective evidence is consistent with and supports the Bible's claims to be a divine book (because any book from God that claims to be inerrant should be reliable and consistent with itself)."

This is not true. If the Bible tells us about the Hittites and later we learn that there indeed were Hittites in that period, it has nothing to do with the possible divinity of the Bible. A lot of books would pass this criterion.

We're not talking about the divinity of the Bible. We're talking about the historical reliability, that's what's in question now, isn't it?

 

[king Ale]

How am I shoving my beliefs on you? I started this forum, you chose to come here. I started this thread, you chose to open it. I made posts, you chose to read them. And now you're blaming me for pushing my opinion on you? That's rich.

Loved it Martin

 

[Raz]

We're not talking about the divinity of the Bible. We're talking about the historical reliability, that's what's in question now, isn't it?

I dont think it is. I think in question is the miracle part, which is the divinity of the book.

And im the dimwit who cant understand...

 

[rounder]

What is atheism got to do with it? Did Stalin or Lenin went all out against those who believe? Did atheism says that imaginary powers will heal you if you believe enough? Did atheism says submit and dont question anything, just fallow?

And could you answer the Mary question, im genuinely interested.

Did Jesus tell anyone to murder, rape, or torture? Thanks for proving my point.

Oh, you mean the intelligent Mary question? I almost completely forgot about that, how stupid of me.

You are asking whether God stripped Mary of her freewill? Sure, He did, I'd say he has the right to that to his objects of creation when He knows it will result in a dramatic moral transformation for the benefit of humanity.

 

[rounder]

I dont think it is. I think in question is the miracle part, which is the divinity of the book.

And im the dimwit who cant understand...

Seven said that the Bible cannot be considered as a legitmate historical document, that it's historically unreliable. From the historicity of the Bible stems the possibility of these divine miracles that have happened. That was the argument, dumbass.

 

[Seven]

We're not talking about the divinity of the Bible. We're talking about the historical reliability, that's what's in question now, isn't it?

Yes, it's the same reasoning.

If some facts in the Bible are historically accurate, that does in fact make the Bible look more accurate. Unfortunately only few of these facts have been proven. If 95% of the Bible was proven true, then maybe someone could say it would be likely that the Jesus returning from the grave was historical fact too. But it's more like 5%. So if anything this is an argument against the Bible.

 

[Raz]

Did Jesus tell anyone to murder, rape, or torture? Thanks for proving my point.

Oh, you mean the intelligent Mary question? I almost completely forgot about that, how stupid of me.

You are asking whether God stripped Mary of her freewill? Sure, He did, I'd say he has the right to that to his objects of creation when He knows it will result in a dramatic moral transformation for the benefit of humanity.

Yes, but didnt he said believe and you will be healed, just as the those two did and killed their daughter? Didnt Jesus accepts everything what was in the old testament, then rape is out of qestion, because it is not condemed there very much, murder eather.

Interesting so god can strip our free will any day now? Just a puppeteer in a puppet show is he?

 

[rounder]

Yes, it's the same reasoning.

If some facts in the Bible are historically accurate, that does in fact make the Bible look more accurate. Unfortunately only few of these facts have been proven. If 95% of the Bible was proven true, then maybe someone could say it would be likely that the Jesus returning from the grave was historical fact too. But it's more like 5%. So if anything this is an argument against the Bible.

What if it was impossible to prove that 95% of the Bible is accurate? It's not exactly a trivial task. Are you suggesting this directly implies the Bible is historically inaccurate?

The point I'm trying to make here is that since we cannot completely dismiss Bible's historicity, how can we dismiss Jesus' resurrection?

 

[rounder]

Yes, but didnt he said believe and you will be healed, just as the those two did and killed their daughter? Didnt Jesus accepts everything what was in the old testament, then rape is out of qestion, because it is not condemed there very much, murder eather.

Interesting so god can strip our free will any day now? Just a puppeteer in a puppet show is he?

I think that story symbolizes the importance of having faith in God. I don't quite understand what you say after that.

Yes, we are all but servants to an Almighty creator. It really does some serious damage to our ego reading that sentence? Doesn't it?

 

[Martin]

What if it was impossible to prove that 95% of the Bible is accurate? It's not exactly a trivial task. Are you suggesting this directly implies the Bible is historically inaccurate?

The point I'm trying to make here is that since we cannot completely dismiss Bible's historicity, how can we dismiss Jesus' resurrection?

So now all you have to do to spread a lie without people knowing is to write a book where some things are true and they will just believe the rest? Do you really think this is a good argument?

 

[Seven]

What if it was impossible to prove that 95% of the Bible is accurate? It's not exactly a trivial task. Are you suggesting this directly implies the Bible is historically inaccurate?

The point I'm trying to make here is that since we cannot completely dismiss Bible's historicity, how can we dismiss Jesus' resurrection?

It implies you can't say it's historically accurate. Which means you can't use the Bible as a means to prove Jesus's miracles.

You're going to have to find another document. One that is 100% historically correct. Unfortunately no such thing exists, so we cannot say that the resurrection was fact.

 

[Seven]

So now all you have to do to spread a lie without people knowing is to write a book where some things are true and they will just believe the rest? Do you really think this is a good argument?

It's the same argument over and over again.