yes i meant Idols.
and on the latter point, adultry is a "sin" and it wouldnt be adultry, as God wasn't married, so you could say it was rape, well it's not, Mary wanted the Child, and was honoured.
why do we blank out the word god?
- Thread starter helpimcrap
- Start date
yes i meant Idols.
and on the latter point, adultry is a "sin" and it wouldnt be adultry, as God wasn't married, so you could say it was rape, well it's not, Mary wanted the Child, and was honoured.
I thought we were talking about can or can't, not do or don't.
(I know it says do in the thread title but the discussion has evolved(unintentional pun
))If mine is an assumption then so is that of the bible, and all religious scriptures, texts and followers
Mine is just as valid.
Nor is it false. If it is false, prove it.
I won't waste my time as it's complex and long winded, but a lot IS explained in the debate i posted from what Lennox says, regardless of how much you think Dawkins is a fool.
I have coursework to do, so do not have time to post loads, but i will when I have more time.
anyway like I already said if you really want a debate IM me, clearly your not that intrested and just want belittle me, or you would have done so.
So what you actually are saying is that your god raped a girl and impregnated her?
That is much better than adultery isn't it?
I'm getting ready for work, I don't have time to read through long debates, so I was concentrating on what you were saying. Are you so open to persuasion from anyone on a religious tint than you're willing to believe whatever they say, rather than come up with your own beliefs?
I said you'd call it rape, knowing what your like, but it was not.
if you want the answers read the part of scripture concerned!
they are my own beleifs. I could say the same to you, how just becasue Darwin says something you believe it? or any other scientist.
![[PTG]shogun](/styles/overclockers/avatars/2.png){kind=avatar}
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 147
- Location
- running from 8igdave
\keep thing of life of brian 
the stoneing lol
anyway:
i suppose it depends on the definition of god/God.
God implies Christianity so God dam i can see the offence.
but god dam or even as one word (goddam) is (according to my definition) not referring to Christianity as God is A god not THE god, god as a name and god as an definition.
there are plenty of other gods in religions.
I personally believe that the theory from the book chariot of the gods is more likely than a god, and i think the idea of the aliens (theroy from charitot of the gods, it makes sence but is a load of crap good read) being these gods is unlikely.
I do use goddam and jesus christ often occasionly round some of my friends who are reliigious , he doesn't care, he jokes about how he has allready forgiven me
.
to quote volitare though " I do not agree with what you say but shall give my life to defend your right to say it" (or variation of) and even with my anti-religous views i still went to one of my best friends baptisms to support him, he and his parents are well aware of my views.
Yes i do agree that political correctness has gone mad, particularly in the aspect of the play a while which caused protests back, but this immigration and the rest of that topic is besides the point.
Yes i do watch my mouth when i am with my friends parents and limit religious comments, i do this in the same way as i keep youthful expressions away from my nan.
sorry for a slight rant like thing, religious topics i have strong views about.
and for future reference i have felt like punching a vicar and i do believe (untill a better theroy or contradictory proof comes along) that we are descended from primates / ancestors of primates.
EDIT:
Darwin didn't just say something, the idea was around in the public before hand he took it, refined it and brought evidence. which can be noted around round us today such as the black and golden panther. Did you believe half the things taught to you in school? I didn't partly because i knew the tearchers where wrong (dave can back me up here ) and partly because i like explainion and proof. also life is never that simple.
When a better explanation comes along science will move. look at Hippocrates and Galen.
If we consider it a court of law evidence no matter what the interpretation is wotrh more than an eye witness.
the stoneing lolanyway:
i suppose it depends on the definition of god/God.
God implies Christianity so God dam i can see the offence.
but god dam or even as one word (goddam) is (according to my definition) not referring to Christianity as God is A god not THE god, god as a name and god as an definition.
there are plenty of other gods in religions.
I personally believe that the theory from the book chariot of the gods is more likely than a god, and i think the idea of the aliens (theroy from charitot of the gods, it makes sence but is a load of crap
good read) being these gods is unlikely.I do use goddam and jesus christ often occasionly round some of my friends who are reliigious , he doesn't care, he jokes about how he has allready forgiven me
.to quote volitare though " I do not agree with what you say but shall give my life to defend your right to say it" (or variation of) and even with my anti-religous views i still went to one of my best friends baptisms to support him, he and his parents are well aware of my views.
Yes i do agree that political correctness has gone mad, particularly in the aspect of the play a while which caused protests back, but this immigration and the rest of that topic is besides the point.
Yes i do watch my mouth when i am with my friends parents and limit religious comments, i do this in the same way as i keep youthful expressions away from my nan.
sorry for a slight rant like thing, religious topics i have strong views about.
and for future reference i have felt like punching a vicar and i do believe (untill a better theroy or contradictory proof comes along) that we are descended from primates / ancestors of primates.
EDIT:
Darwin didn't just say something, the idea was around in the public before hand he took it, refined it and brought evidence. which can be noted around round us today such as the black and golden panther. Did you believe half the things taught to you in school? I didn't partly because i knew the tearchers where wrong (dave can back me up here
) and partly because i like explainion and proof. also life is never that simple. When a better explanation comes along science will move. look at Hippocrates and Galen.
If we consider it a court of law evidence no matter what the interpretation is wotrh more than an eye witness.
Last edited:
Except God/god/gods don't exist, so it doesn't matter
And yet shooting a Scotsman within 100 paces of York City walls with a longbow is legal.
Idiotic laws like these are rightly ignored
And also overrules by more modern laws "no killing" freedom of speech etc.
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 147
- Location
- running from 8igdave
excuse me for playing devlis advocate here (excuse the pun, is that blaspheme or something too?) but an opion can not be proved or disproved because it has no physical relavence or is relative to other factors.
so it is neither false or correct
[PTG]shogun;10814416 said:\keep thing of life of brian
anyway:
i suppose it depends on the definition of god/God.
God implies Christianity so God dam i can see the offence.
but god dam or even as one word (goddam) is (according to my definition) not referring to Christianity as God is A god not THE god, god as a name and god as an definition.
there are plenty of other gods in religions.
God isn't the name of the christian God, it is a description, God doesn't strictly have a "name" it's like a title, Mr. or Sir. or Dr.etc...
plus from a christian point of view there is only ONE God, (hence theism), so either all the other God's do not exist, or the God that other religions worship, is infact the same God worshipped in a different way.
[PTG]shogun;10814416 said:EDIT:
Darwin didn't just say something, the idea was around in the public before hand he took it, refined it and brought evidence. which can be noted around round us today such as the black and golden panther. Did you believe half the things taught to you in school? I didn't partly because i knew the tearchers where wrong (dave can back me up here
When a better explanation comes along science will move. look at Hippocrates and Galen.
If we consider it a court of law evidence no matter what the interpretation is wotrh more than an eye witness.
my parents/pastor etc.. didnt just say something either, the Idea had been around since forever. Various people have just reinforced it, and explained it more fully, since the begining.
Er no, the slang words for procreation and ladybits are much more offensive. And even certain 'soft' swearwords which we can say, even on here are actually imo worse. For example..... 'Oh bugger' quite acceptable eveywhere and said by so many people, but 98% never think of the real meaning.....
~S
i find that "bugger" offensive, and do i find "bloody" ofensive, "Bloody" meaning "on the blood of the virgin mary"
but i do not find crude words for body parts offensive, as that's all they are, crude words for body parts, i find them rude, and not something you'd say, but offensive, no.
Last edited:
rape implies sexual activity (as does adultry), which there was none of, hence the virgin mary.
God controlls the rules of science and therefore can make someone pregnant without having sex with them.
Fair enough, however I thought 'Bloody' was a corruption of 'By your Lady', a religious exclamation from the Middle Ages not "on the blood of the virgin mary"??
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 3,871
Hey yantorsen, would you like to prove that please?
Hello
well I can quote sripture which is evidance enough for me, although I doubt that will be good enough for you.
and I cannot see any other reasonable explanation as to how the rules of science and the world are determined.
and clearly God did not have sexual intercourse with Mary, so therefore he did not rape her as Gilly seems to like to think.
Hello
well I can quote sripture which is evidance enough for me.
Well I read Chariot of the Gods By Eric von Danniken, should I believe that?
/leaves thread in amazement......