Why Don't You Believe?

paradoxical:

NeoSteph:

''something that you and Faith seem to lack''

I would say it was focused at both of you

It most certainly was.
My words are so often misinterpreted, I try to be clear in what I mean...I really thought I was that time though! >.<

What did I misinterpret? You stated that me and Spill_no_sick have no respect. Yet, you publically insult us, which pretty much shows that you don't have that much of a respect for people either.
Just because I replied it doesn't mean I decided that you were attacking me personally. What did you want? A reply from a joined Faith&spill_no_sick name?

By the way, I still respect him. Even though he sweared at me and all, I think he has certain qualities worthy of respect. I will go far in fighting for my opinion, but that doesn't mean I don't respect my oponents. And I doubt you will find a post where I randomly swear at people or something (well, unless they scream something like "die 80". I respect spill_no_sick, even though I might not agree with him, and even though he doesn't respect me.

Faith:

paradoxical:

NeoSteph:

''something that you and Faith seem to lack''

I would say it was focused at both of you

It most certainly was.
My words are so often misinterpreted, I try to be clear in what I mean...I really thought I was that time though! >.<

What did I misinterpret? You stated that me and Spill_no_sick have no respect. Yet, you publically insult us, which pretty much shows that you don't have that much of a respect for people either.
Just because I replied it doesn't mean I decided that you were attacking me personally. What did you want? A reply from a joined Faith&spill_no_sick name?

By the way, I still respect him. Even though he sweared at me and all, I think he has certain qualities worthy of respect. I will go far in fighting for my opinion, but that doesn't mean I don't respect my oponents. And I doubt you will find a post where I randomly swear at people or something (well, unless they scream something like "die 80". I respect spill_no_sick, even though I might not agree with him, and even though he doesn't respect me.

I stated that you have no respect for one another's opinions.
And Nick swears at everyone.

The problem here is that everything anyone says regarding your opinion, you take as a personal attack. Just because he disagrees doesn't mean you have to pick everything he says apart line for line. He doesn't pick your words apart like that.
And he's just as bad about it, because he's hostile back. And he's a mod, he should be able to deal with that. He knows better.

Don't even TRY to tell me that I don't have respect for people. Especially not in relation to this forum and the people here.


What you take as an insult was meant only as an observation. The only reason I can see for your response is that it's a bit more true than you would like it to be. I could be wrong there, feel free to correct me.

I'm not trying to criticize, I certainly don't feel I have a right to that.
I apologize if you were offended, but this is a debate forum. If what I said was so offensive that you need to attack me for it, maybe you really need to look at this all a little more objectively and realize that we aren't out to get you, we just disagree.
Hostility is not necessary for civil debate, not from anyone.

Look, can we all just like..get over it?

Apparently not. Even if we move forward...I have a feeling this will be back.

paradoxical:

I stated that you have no respect for one another's opinions.
And Nick swears at everyone.

The problem here is that everything anyone says regarding your opinion, you take as a personal attack. Just because he disagrees doesn't mean you have to pick everything he says apart line for line. He doesn't pick your words apart like that.
And he's just as bad about it, because he's hostile back. And he's a mod, he should be able to deal with that. He knows better.

Don't even TRY to tell me that I don't have respect for people. Especially not in relation to this forum and the people here.


What you take as an insult was meant only as an observation. The only reason I can see for your response is that it's a bit more true than you would like it to be. I could be wrong there, feel free to correct me.

I'm not trying to criticize, I certainly don't feel I have a right to that.
I apologize if you were offended, but this is a debate forum. If what I said was so offensive that you need to attack me for it, maybe you really need to look at this all a little more objectively and realize that we aren't out to get you, we just disagree.
Hostility is not necessary for civil debate, not from anyone.

You know, I kinda find this funny. You tell me not to even TRY to tell you that you don't respect people. Nonetheless, you openly tell me that I don't have any respect for other people's opinion although that to me is extremely offending. Why do you have more rights than me?
Nick swears at everyone. I like quoting people. And I always take everything personally. Ask anyone. That's how I'm made, that's a part of my nature, and that is unfixable inside of me. Any observation you make will be taken personally by me. If you don't like that, you can ask me to leave the forum or stay away from discussing anything here. If you ask well enough, I might satisfy your request.
Just because Nick doesn't pick my words apart line for line, it doesn't mean he has no right to. People have different ways of proving their points. If I see someone contradicting themselves, I will point that out, because it is just one of the ways to prove a point.
If you considered my reply an attack, that would only mean that your post was an attack 'cuz the only thing I did was redirecting your own words to you.

Faith:

paradoxical:

I stated that you have no respect for one another's opinions.
And Nick swears at everyone.

The problem here is that everything anyone says regarding your opinion, you take as a personal attack. Just because he disagrees doesn't mean you have to pick everything he says apart line for line. He doesn't pick your words apart like that.
And he's just as bad about it, because he's hostile back. And he's a mod, he should be able to deal with that. He knows better.

Don't even TRY to tell me that I don't have respect for people. Especially not in relation to this forum and the people here.


What you take as an insult was meant only as an observation. The only reason I can see for your response is that it's a bit more true than you would like it to be. I could be wrong there, feel free to correct me.

I'm not trying to criticize, I certainly don't feel I have a right to that.
I apologize if you were offended, but this is a debate forum. If what I said was so offensive that you need to attack me for it, maybe you really need to look at this all a little more objectively and realize that we aren't out to get you, we just disagree.
Hostility is not necessary for civil debate, not from anyone.

You know, I kinda find this funny. You tell me not to even TRY to tell you that you don't respect people. Nonetheless, you openly tell me that I don't have any respect for other people's opinion although that to me is extremely offending. Why do you have more rights than me?
Nick swears at everyone. I like quoting people. And I always take everything personally. Ask anyone. That's how I'm made, that's a part of my nature, and that is unfixable inside of me. Any observation you make will be taken personally by me. If you don't like that, you can ask me to leave the forum or stay away from discussing anything here. If you ask well enough, I might satisfy your request.
Just because Nick doesn't pick my words apart line for line, it doesn't mean he has no right to. People have different ways of proving their points. If I see someone contradicting themselves, I will point that out, because it is just one of the ways to prove a point.
If you considered my reply an attack, that would only mean that your post was an attack 'cuz the only thing I did was redirecting your own words to you.

Okay. Rephrasing for what feels like the thousandth time. Even though this is pointless and going nowhere. For the sake of doing the English language some justice, perhaps, because in my hands it seems so abused.
When I say you and Nick don't really respect each other, this I say because I have seen the way the two of you interact with one another. And I have seen the way both of you interact with others that you clearly do respect. Furthermore, in saying that you and Nick do not respect each other's opinions, I am not implying application of that statement to any other activity between people and opinions anywhere EVER. It's a specific event. Please, I beg you, do not take it otherwise. It was not meant that way.
I'm not out to offend you. Mostly, I try not to offend anyone. I've been on the recieving end of personal insults. Especially in the case of forums and more so even, debates, it is unnecessary and unfair.
It is exceedingly difficult for me to properly communicate exact meaning across the internet. If not confined to written language, perhaps it could be more easily percieved that what I said before, what I'm saying now is said with the utmost gentleness. And perhaps it is offensive because you can't know how I mean something without knowing me very well.
I would never ask you to leave this place, it is one more thing that I have no right to, and one that not having I do not resent. That would be asking quite an intelligent mind to leave a place created for such people. With the sort of unintelligible babble found here somedays, that would be most regrettable.
It has been an honor, Faith. But this is certainly nothing that needs further discussion.
I hope that I have, for once, been able to communicate exactly what I meant. And I hope you understand the gravity with which I say them, and that you remember this the next time I offend you (which I undoubtedly will; regardless of my best intentions).

Well, if all of the above said is true than I indeed misinterpreted what you said and I am sorry.
(not for the sake of proving you wrong, but just for referrence) When I read "And respect the differences of opinion that make us individuals. Something that you and Faith seem to lack" I took it as if you were saying that we generally don't respect other people's opinions and that to me would be an offencive disrespectful comment. Therefore, I perceived it as an insult and now I see that I was wrong, and I appologize for that. Me and spill_no_sick (I don't feel I have the right to call him by his first name) have obviously gone way too far with all that shit, but the only thing I can say is - shit happens.
I bring my appology both to paradoxical and spill_no_sick, for what it's worth.

Case closed (hopefully )

Very glad that's been resolved.

I really don't believe in God. One of the Ten Commandments was, Thou Shalt not Kill. But then God is responsible for around 2,233,451 deaths. What's up with that? And then he tells people to do all those other things, like rape, Human Sacrifice, prostitution, and slavery.
http://www.evilbible.com/ <--- that explains alot

I_am_the_waiting:

I really don't believe in God. One of the Ten Commandments was, Thou Shalt not Kill. But then God is responsible for around 2,233,451 deaths. What's up with that? And then he tells people to do all those other things, like rape, Human Sacrifice, prostitution, and slavery.
http://www.evilbible.com/ <--- that explains alot

Ive been to that site its fuckin' stupid.
God made people.
People kill.
So we're all evil.
Why blame your [not you in specific cause you dont believe] creator if your the one who did it.
Lookin' for other people to blame?
Cant handle your life?
God made people not robots.
Do not ignore the Old Testament what is that?

This is directed at spill_no_sick. And hey, before you get the wrong impression, I'm not trying to start another bashing session. I just want to take part in a debate.

I haven’t exactly been participating in this thread but I started reading it today.

However, I do have a question for you:

A couple of years ago, when I was still a hardcore Christian (I was non-denominational, currently though I’m comfortably agnostic) I read the book of Job. Yes, God did allow Satan to test Job. He let Satan completely ruin Job’s life for a very good deal of time. Can I ask why the fuck God would do that, as a test, when God is omniscient anyway?

God, being all seeing, all knowing, as well as within everyone and everything at the same time, would not need to “test” Job, because he would already know if he was good or bad both currently and potentially. To take it one step further, because God is omniscient, he would also know about Job’s future, and whether or not he would be fundamentally “good” or “evil” at the time of his death. To take it a second step further God would know if Job’s soul would be good or evil at the time of the coming of the messiah (ie. Jesus) and (if you believe in the revelations of john) he would also know how good or evil Job’s soul was on the coming of judgement day.

That’s how I was taught, I don’t know if you believe in the omniscience of God, but I think that is implied in his very existence.

Oh and another question: If you believe that after Jesus came the teachings of the Old Testament were overruled, then why are you drawing on the book of Job?

You twit, the thing that nine inch nails was drawing on from the book of mark, about the rich man not being aloud into heaven (I believe the phrasing was something like: “it is easier to fit a camel through the eye of a needle than get a rich man in heaven”), was not old testament material. Get your facts straight.

To BLURofaDEADPAST,

I wouldn’t bother asking them awkward questions. Unless theyre completely fundamentalist or completely stupid theyre just going to say something like “you have to consider the bible in its social context” or “theories such as the big bang and evolution are probably true, but that dosnt mean that god didn’t have a hand in them. Evolution would be like the undercoat, and humanity as it is today is like the finished portrait.” Which imo are both pretty good points.

Your better off just calling them arrogant and stupid, bringing up the teapot thing that was mentioned earlier and then storming out.

Oh and btw Faith that thing you said about only 20% of the population being completely homo or hetero sexual is probably true. I’ve heard it somewhere else as well.

I was dragged also to church for 18 years till i was old enough not to go anymore forcefully. I never agreed with being dragged as I don't think it had the desired affect my parents wanted. It had the opposite. I think it's sad that what you say is right about homos and other religions. I can understand why other religions find it hard to grasp why people brought up in a christian household arn't christians themselves. but I believe in a higher power maybe not necessarily God but, I am a practising solo witch and i believe there is something evila nd good but not necessarily what christians think.

Antifaith: (I won't quote your message 'cuz it's huge, we all see it above )

About Job...well, I kinda thought that God didn't actually do the whole thing for "testing" him, I though it was more like They were trying to make him realize his mistakes and accept the punishment...or something like that. I really don't know though.
I believe God is all-knowing, but as you all know, I don't believe in religion. Therefore I would not believe the books that describe something about what God did, what God thinks, what God wants. God rarely shares Their thoughts and desires with us, really.

Christianity may believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent God, but that doesn't mean there's no free will. That is, the choices we make as individuals define whether we are good or evil. Furthermore, most sects of Christianity don't define humans as being inherently good or evil, just imperfect. God allowed Satan to test Job as a test of his faith, not to determine whether he was good or evil. That test of an individual was also a test of the strength of humanity as a whole in some ways too.

I think your missing my point.

If God is omniscient, then he would already know the strength of Job's faith. So why does he need to test it?

I thought Job was this really great bloke who wasnt really too into sin. I dunno, I read it a long time ago so I cant remember if it was punishment or not. I thought the whole thing was basically saying that God is better than you and you need him so be good. It also criticised Job's pride as well.

Oh yeah now I remember why Job was brought up in the first place.

It was said that god allowed satan to test job he could do it to homosexuals (or something like that)

What I dont understand is why homosexuality is seen as wrong? In the bible (as far as I know) it was mentioned once, in Leviticus. And not meaning any disrespect to anyone out there, but most of the things in Leviticus are just plain absurd.

It says (to the best of my memory): Man shall not love another man as he would a woman. God hates that.

But it also said things like if your shoes got mildew on them they had to be ritually burned. There was a whole process about it.

I've also heard that the book of Leviticus comdemns people with eyeproblems. Well there goes a good deal of the worlds population. Down to hell with you, glasses wearers!

So as far as I can tell, having gay sex is wrong because in the most rediculous and outdated book in the bible it says that god hates it? C'mon you've got to be kidding me. And keep in mind the extensive mistranslations and manipulations of biblical wording

Heres something I found that I thought was at least semi-relevant.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/bible-gay.html

I havent had time to read it properly yet

nite all

My personal belief is that religion, no matter what kind it is, is a load of bullocks and its just a form of control. That is, control over people.

It's something that happens with me that if I hear someone preaching about something and they start bringing God and religion into it, I don't take what they are saying seriously and to some extent I can't really take them as a person seriously.

antifaith:

I think your missing my point.

If God is omniscient, then he would already know the strength of Job's faith. So why does he need to test it?

I thought Job was this really great bloke who wasnt really too into sin. I dunno, I read it a long time ago so I cant remember if it was punishment or not. I thought the whole thing was basically saying that God is better than you and you need him so be good. It also criticised Job's pride as well.

Because humans were created with free will.
Basically, God isn't too into the whole meddling thing. He's a fairly passive guy. I mean, his son died a slow, painful, humiliating death and this guy hasn't sought revenge yet. It kinda takes a lot to piss him off. But that doesn't mean he doesn't like to check once in a while to make sure everyone who says they're so cool with him really really are. For their sake more than his, perhaps. That's the thing about being tested. God already knows. As humans, we can't without being tested and finding out from experience. So in a way, God was doing Job a favor. Basically, you aren't so in to the whole sinning thing if you aren't tempted, you'd have to go out of your way to do horrible things. It shows strength of character to the one being tested if, when tempted, they still choose the high road and do what's right.
Wow. It really sounds like God and Satan are on the same side here. I think the Catholic Church didn't realize that when they had that Council of Nicaea to create a uniform Bible.

Okay. The homosexuality issue. Personally, I think that also got added by the Church. I'll tell you why.
Basically, Rome just after the Crucifixion was this crazy pagan place. They were all loose and groovy, slept with whomever they wanted...when I say "whomever" I mean LITERALLY. They had these mad cool gods, like the god of war, the god of drunkenness, the god of...I dunno, hairdos or something.
And basically, Christians and Jews wanted to be seperated from that, so they were all "NO HOMOSEXUALITY LIKE THE ROMANS!!!! GRRRR!"
And it stuck.
Then it was put in the Bible officially.


(A combination of speculation and real history. There really was a council that decided all that stuff, it went on into the early Renaissance. I'm filling in the blanks with what is historically logical)

There's a lot I don't get about religion. Has anyone here actually read the old testament? its scary, there are parts where god encourages people to kill anyone who goes against him and another part where this man was put up as an example of a great man because he let these bandits rape his daughter so they wouldn't do the same to a male guest in his house.
But people say the new testament is much better and makes up for everything in the old, and yeah Jesus is an improvment, but he dies on the cross to save us all...
But jesus is part god, he doesn't have to torture himself to save us, he can do want he wants. And another thing he did it to clense us of ordional sin (adam and eve eating from the forbidden tree) but scienetists have proved that adam and eve couldn't possible ever exist. So now the church says Adam and Eve were a metaphor, but why did Jesus die for a metaphorical sin?
So maybe Jesus died for all our sins, so what does that mean even the ones we haven't commited, doesn't seem to have much faith in his people who were created in his image, does he?

People can believe in a higher power if they want, maybe there is one, I don't know, but the bible is a badly thought out work of fiction and so is the God it was based on.