|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 11, 2019 18:43:14 GMT
With the American Civil War the Illuminati accomplished two things. 1) It replaced gold and silver currency with paper currency. 2) It replaced involuntary servitude with voluntary servitude. I always knew the Illuminati were the good guys. Yes, from your perspective, they certainly are the good guys. |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 11, 2019 21:21:20 GMT
A lot of the anti-religion crowd like to ignore the fact that the bible is an excellent moral basis. The bible is all about helping the little guy and improving the lives of the poor. It promotes socialism.
Read the bible and you almost have morality sorted.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 11, 2019 21:38:18 GMT
Yes, from your perspective, they certainly are the good guys. Only back in the day when they leaned towards socialism (remember, Lincoln was the only Western leader Marx praised and wrote fan letters to!). Now they've sold out to big money capitalism and Wall Street. The bastards! If only we could bring back Weishaupt! He was the man. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 11, 2019 22:12:30 GMT
I always knew the Illuminati were the good guys. Yes, from your perspective, they certainly are the good guys. I just looked up the Illuminati definition in the Urban Dictionary and it is hilarious. Goes on for pages and pages, each page sillier and funnier than the last. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Feb 11, 2019 23:54:36 GMT
A lot of the anti-religion crowd like to ignore the fact that the bible is an excellent moral basis. The bible is all about helping the little guy and improving the lives of the poor. It promotes socialism. Read the bible and you almost have morality sorted. Most of the anti-religion crowed here are not only atheists but hardline brainwashed leftists. They reject and hate the God of the bible because of their fallen corrupted nature. This not only causes them to rebel against God, but against biblical moral precepts and instead adopt and vigorously defend antithetical views and in doing so wage a personal war against God. This is why you get so many idiots like Goz, Graham, Bryce, Karl Aksel etc who spend half their lives hating on and whining about the bible, mostly about stuff they don’t even have a firm grasp of. Yet defend and support weird and immoral things like abortion, homosexuality, Islam, transgenderism and feminism etc. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 12, 2019 0:17:15 GMT
A lot of the anti-religion crowd like to ignore the fact that the bible is an excellent moral basis. The bible is all about helping the little guy and improving the lives of the poor. It promotes socialism. Read the bible and you almost have morality sorted. The bible is a TERRIBLE moral basis, and anyone who believes it is a source of morals has no moral basis at all. That's why people like Cody embraces it; he's an inherently immoral person. A lot of Christians simply pretend that it is more, no matter what horrible things it endorses (like slavery). |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 12, 2019 0:38:12 GMT
A lot of the anti-religion crowd like to ignore the fact that the bible is an excellent moral basis. The bible is all about helping the little guy and improving the lives of the poor. It promotes socialism. Read the bible and you almost have morality sorted. Most of the anti-religion crowed here are not only atheists but hardline brainwashed leftists. They reject and hate the God of the bible because of their fallen corrupted nature. This not only causes them to rebel against God, but against biblical moral precepts and instead adopt and vigorously defend antithetical views and in doing so wage a personal war against God. This is why you get so many idiots like Goz, Graham, Bryce, Karl Aksel etc who spend half their lives hating on and whining about the bible, mostly about stuff they don’t even have a firm grasp of. Yet defend and support weird and immoral things like abortion, homosexuality, Islam, transgenderism and feminism etc. Me: liberal, inclusive and tolerant. You: hypocritical judging and exclusive. … and allegedly you follow the precept of Christ's love? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2019 0:53:52 GMT
hypocritical judging and exclusive. … and allegedly you follow the precept of Christ's love? Cody is one of those christians for whom christianity is a club to beat other people with. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 12, 2019 1:03:40 GMT
hypocritical judging and exclusive. … and allegedly you follow the precept of Christ's love? Cody is one of those christians for whom christianity is a club to beat other people with. Pretty please stop that other stupid thread with Vegas... it is his level and not yours, and the very brief amusement stopped yesterday . . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2019 1:09:32 GMT
Cody is one of those christians for whom christianity is a club to beat other people with. Pretty please stop that other stupid thread with Vegas... it is his level and not yours, and the very brief amusement stopped yesterday . . Yes ma'am. I just thought it was funny spanking him, especially given how much it obviously upsets him.  |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 13, 2019 17:10:14 GMT
A lot of the anti-religion crowd like to ignore the fact that the bible is an excellent moral basis. The bible is all about helping the little guy and improving the lives of the poor. It promotes socialism. Read the bible and you almost have morality sorted. The bible is a TERRIBLE moral basis, and anyone who believes it is a source of morals has no moral basis at all. That's why people like Cody embraces it; he's an inherently immoral person. A lot of Christians simply pretend that it is more, no matter what horrible things it endorses (like slavery). ok why's it so bad? |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 13, 2019 18:06:51 GMT
The bible is a TERRIBLE moral basis, and anyone who believes it is a source of morals has no moral basis at all. That's why people like Cody embraces it; he's an inherently immoral person. A lot of Christians simply pretend that it is more, no matter what horrible things it endorses (like slavery). ok why's it so bad? Let's start with genocide portrayed as a good thing. And then we can stop there, too. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 13, 2019 19:06:22 GMT
The bible is a TERRIBLE moral basis, and anyone who believes it is a source of morals has no moral basis at all. That's why people like Cody embraces it; he's an inherently immoral person. A lot of Christians simply pretend that it is more, no matter what horrible things it endorses (like slavery). ok why's it so bad? Is it moral to own another human being as property?  |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 13, 2019 19:09:06 GMT
Is it moral to own another human being as property? when did the bible ever condone such a thing? |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 13, 2019 19:11:25 GMT
Let's start with genocide portrayed as a good thing. And then we can stop there, too. That's a misreading of the text Here's a good take down of that idea. "First, the Israelites were commanded to “drive out” or “dispossess” the Canaanites, but this assumes Canaanites would be alive—not killed—if driven out. Second, the “utterly destroy” or “leave alive nothing that breathes” language is hyperbolic in Scripture’s war texts as in other ancient Near Eastern war texts. It typically stands alongside mention of many survivors—like when sports teams use the language of “totally slaughtering” their opponents. The land has “rest from war” (Joshua 21:44), yet Joshua says nations still remain in Israel’s midst (23:12); Judges 1-2 regularly repeats “they could not drive them out.” " See - religionnews.com/2015/01/12/god-command-genocide-bible/ |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 13, 2019 19:51:14 GMT
Let's start with genocide portrayed as a good thing. And then we can stop there, too. That's a misreading of the text Here's a good take down of that idea. "First, the Israelites were commanded to “drive out” or “dispossess” the Canaanites, but this assumes Canaanites would be alive—not killed—if driven out. Second, the “utterly destroy” or “leave alive nothing that breathes” language is hyperbolic in Scripture’s war texts as in other ancient Near Eastern war texts. It typically stands alongside mention of many survivors—like when sports teams use the language of “totally slaughtering” their opponents. The land has “rest from war” (Joshua 21:44), yet Joshua says nations still remain in Israel’s midst (23:12); Judges 1-2 regularly repeats “they could not drive them out.” " See - religionnews.com/2015/01/12/god-command-genocide-bible/So then: was the Flood, and the genocide that supposedly entailed, a good thing after all? Or, if not, are we to imagine your deity deliberately doing a bad thing? Special pleading will be flagged. |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 13, 2019 20:00:56 GMT
That's a misreading of the text Here's a good take down of that idea. "First, the Israelites were commanded to “drive out” or “dispossess” the Canaanites, but this assumes Canaanites would be alive—not killed—if driven out. Second, the “utterly destroy” or “leave alive nothing that breathes” language is hyperbolic in Scripture’s war texts as in other ancient Near Eastern war texts. It typically stands alongside mention of many survivors—like when sports teams use the language of “totally slaughtering” their opponents. The land has “rest from war” (Joshua 21:44), yet Joshua says nations still remain in Israel’s midst (23:12); Judges 1-2 regularly repeats “they could not drive them out.” " See - religionnews.com/2015/01/12/god-command-genocide-bible/So then: was the Flood, and the genocide that supposedly entailed, a good thing after all? Or, if not, are we to imagine your deity deliberately doing a bad thing? Special pleading will be flagged. what sort of prostituted definition of genocide are you using? |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 13, 2019 20:19:21 GMT
So then: was the Flood, and the genocide that supposedly entailed, a good thing after all? Or, if not, are we to imagine your deity deliberately doing a bad thing? Special pleading will be flagged. what sort of prostituted definition of genocide are you using? This: Genocidenoun the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group. synonyms: racial killing, massacre, wholesale slaughter, mass slaughter, wholesale killing, indiscriminate killing "Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings; such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind" ( United Nations Resolution 1946) What definition would you place on widespread killing of entire peoples in Genesis? And you didn't answer the first question. Was the Flood, and the genocide that it supposedly entailed, a good thing after all? Or, if not, are we to imagine your deity deliberately doing a bad thing? Should I hold my breath? |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 13, 2019 20:24:46 GMT
what sort of prostituted definition of genocide are you using? This genocideDictionary result for genocide /ˈdʒɛnəsʌɪd/Submit noun the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group. synonyms: racial killing, massacre, wholesale slaughter, mass slaughter, wholesale killing, indiscriminate killing "Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings; such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind" ( United Nations Resolution 1946) What definition would you place on widespread killing of entire peoples in Genesis? And you didn't answer the first question. thats a terrible definition the cambridge definition and the United Nations definition is better. dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/genocide |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 13, 2019 20:31:13 GMT
This genocideDictionary result for genocide /ˈdʒɛnəsʌɪd/Submit noun the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group. synonyms: racial killing, massacre, wholesale slaughter, mass slaughter, wholesale killing, indiscriminate killing "Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings; such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind" ( United Nations Resolution 1946) What definition would you place on widespread killing of entire peoples in Genesis? And you didn't answer the first question. thats a terrible definition the cambridge definition and the United Nations definition is better. dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/genocideThat's OK; you can see the UN definition above. OED still has "The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group" which is good enough for me. en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/genocide And you still have the principal question to answer. Was the Flood, and the genocide that it supposedly entailed, a good thing after all? Or, if not, are we to imagine your deity deliberately doing a bad thing? Is there a problem? |
|
