The bible itself condems Jesus

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="Lonelynight"]

Did Jesus had long hair? He could be bold for all we knoiw.

And this letter was written to the Churches at Corinth, so it was probably uncommon for a man to have long hair back than there.

luke1889

Jesus has always been portrayed with long hair. There is no good reason to assume otherwise.

The thread has come an awful long way since then. I suggest reading.

Though if the quote has already been established as out of context, than my presence is rather unnecessary. >_>

EDIT: I see someone made the same point I made earlier on page seven. I think that post is incorrect. The style looks to be medieval, long after the Roman empire, taken from an illuminated manuscript. I also have hunch that it's Matthew, not Jesus... could be wrong.

This argument falls apart. This iconography:

doesn't start until the 5th-6th century. In actual early Christian Art, Jesus looked like this:

Amazing how you can go through all the trouble of finding one quote from the Bible to help your point, and then you make the absolutely blunderous fallacy of trying to tie in iconography as theology.

Then again, you probably just got the quote from Penn & Teller.

>_>

PannicAtack

He looks a lot more feminine in the second one as well, which would have been more than likely the *fashion* at the time as well. Nice find.

I don't care about what stupid arguement it's come to since, fact is, that statement you made is absolutely wrong, and the TC's initial argument laughable. >_>

Though if the quote has already been established as out of context, than my presence is rather unnecessary. >_>

EDIT: I see someone made the same point I made earlier on page seven. I think that post is incorrect. The style looks to be medieval, long after the Roman empire, taken from an illuminated manuscript. I also have hunch that it's Matthew, not Jesus... could be wrong.

PannicAtack

Yes, I know, the statement I made was indeed incorrect and I have corrected myself since then.

Isn't it peculiar that the bible would clearly state:

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" I Corinthians 11:14

Yet the rest of the book goes on to pretty much put Jesus on a pedestal and say he is a savior, and all that crap? Also, the book of Corinthians is in the New Testament, so for all the "christians" who only follow the NT, you've got quite a dillema on your hands. Worship the long-haired savior, or take these words in THE NT as a golden guideline, which would actually force you to agree that Jesus was a shameful person for having his hair long. So which will you choose? You can't have both.

Uh oh...looks like you're going to have to discard the NT as well as the OT...now you've got no bible left! Or you can keep the NT, but have to accept Jesus was not perfect, as his long hair brought shame unto him, and can no longer look up to him...but of course if you no longer looked up to Jesus, why keep the NT around either, since the NT pretty much IS Jesus.

Yikes, I would hate to be in this pickle.

Deity_Slapper

It would be like saying women can't go with their heads uncovered because Corinthians said so.

Perspective, perspective, perspective.

Everything had a purpose. Everything had a reason. If you don't understand it, ask someone before jumping to an uneducated conclusion.

Corinthians was obviously wrong or there was a second meaning and you've taken it out of context. I really don't think a pure christian would condem someone for their looks he obviously must have been a devout christian but he slipped in some of his personal views anyway.

Well that's my 2 cents.

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

Isn't it peculiar that the bible would clearly state:

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" I Corinthians 11:14

Yet the rest of the book goes on to pretty much put Jesus on a pedestal and say he is a savior, and all that crap? Also, the book of Corinthians is in the New Testament, so for all the "christians" who only follow the NT, you've got quite a dillema on your hands. Worship the long-haired savior, or take these words in THE NT as a golden guideline, which would actually force you to agree that Jesus was a shameful person for having his hair long. So which will you choose? You can't have both.

Uh oh...looks like you're going to have to discard the NT as well as the OT...now you've got no bible left! Or you can keep the NT, but have to accept Jesus was not perfect, as his long hair brought shame unto him, and can no longer look up to him...but of course if you no longer looked up to Jesus, why keep the NT around either, since the NT pretty much IS Jesus.

Yikes, I would hate to be in this pickle.

Dreams-Visions

It would be like saying women can't go with their heads uncovered because Corinthians said so.

Perspective, perspective, perspective.

Everything had a purpose. Everything had a reason. If you don't understand it, ask someone before jumping to an uneducated conclusion.

You're late to the party. And it's a fundamentally different party to the one it started as.

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

Isn't it peculiar that the bible would clearly state:

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" I Corinthians 11:14

Yet the rest of the book goes on to pretty much put Jesus on a pedestal and say he is a savior, and all that crap? Also, the book of Corinthians is in the New Testament, so for all the "christians" who only follow the NT, you've got quite a dillema on your hands. Worship the long-haired savior, or take these words in THE NT as a golden guideline, which would actually force you to agree that Jesus was a shameful person for having his hair long. So which will you choose? You can't have both.

Uh oh...looks like you're going to have to discard the NT as well as the OT...now you've got no bible left! Or you can keep the NT, but have to accept Jesus was not perfect, as his long hair brought shame unto him, and can no longer look up to him...but of course if you no longer looked up to Jesus, why keep the NT around either, since the NT pretty much IS Jesus.

Yikes, I would hate to be in this pickle.

Funky_Llama

It would be like saying women can't go with their heads uncovered because Corinthians said so.

Perspective, perspective, perspective.

Everything had a purpose. Everything had a reason. If you don't understand it, ask someone before jumping to an uneducated conclusion.

You're late to the party. And it's a fundamentally different party to the one it started as.

Corinthians was obviously wrong or there was a second meaning and you've taken it out of context. I really don't think a pure christian would condem someone for their looks he obviously must have been a devout christian but he slipped in some of his personal views anyway.

Well that's my 2 cents.

markop2003

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]I don't care about what stupid arguement it's come to since, fact is, that statement you made is absolutely wrong, and the TC's initial argument laughable. >_>

Though if the quote has already been established as out of context, than my presence is rather unnecessary. >_>

EDIT: I see someone made the same point I made earlier on page seven. I think that post is incorrect. The style looks to be medieval, long after the Roman empire, taken from an illuminated manuscript. I also have hunch that it's Matthew, not Jesus... could be wrong.

luke1889

Yes, I know, the statement I made was indeed incorrect and I have corrected myself since then.

Isn't it peculiar that the bible would clearly state:

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" I Corinthians 11:14

Yet the rest of the book goes on to pretty much put Jesus on a pedestal and say he is a savior, and all that crap? Also, the book of Corinthians is in the New Testament, so for all the "christians" who only follow the NT, you've got quite a dillema on your hands. Worship the long-haired savior, or take these words in THE NT as a golden guideline, which would actually force you to agree that Jesus was a shameful person for having his hair long. So which will you choose? You can't have both.

Uh oh...looks like you're going to have to discard the NT as well as the OT...now you've got no bible left! Or you can keep the NT, but have to accept Jesus was not perfect, as his long hair brought shame unto him, and can no longer look up to him...but of course if you no longer looked up to Jesus, why keep the NT around either, since the NT pretty much IS Jesus.

Yikes, I would hate to be in this pickle.

Deity_Slapper

Wow, your entire post is fail. No where in the bible does it say Jesus had long hair.

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

Isn't it peculiar that the bible would clearly state:

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" I Corinthians 11:14

Yet the rest of the book goes on to pretty much put Jesus on a pedestal and say he is a savior, and all that crap? Also, the book of Corinthians is in the New Testament, so for all the "christians" who only follow the NT, you've got quite a dillema on your hands. Worship the long-haired savior, or take these words in THE NT as a golden guideline, which would actually force you to agree that Jesus was a shameful person for having his hair long. So which will you choose? You can't have both.

Uh oh...looks like you're going to have to discard the NT as well as the OT...now you've got no bible left! Or you can keep the NT, but have to accept Jesus was not perfect, as his long hair brought shame unto him, and can no longer look up to him...but of course if you no longer looked up to Jesus, why keep the NT around either, since the NT pretty much IS Jesus.

Yikes, I would hate to be in this pickle.

SAURON221

Wow, your entire post is fail. No where in the bible does it say Jesus had long hair.

it's sad, really.

[QUOTE="freek666"]Is your life so unfulfilling that you feel compelled to make these threads over and over again? What satisfaction can be gained from it all?Deity_Slapper

Is your life so unfulfilling that you have to ask someone else if their life is so unfulfilling? My life is great by the way. Don't get mad. You can avoid topics you're not interested in, rather than saying silly things such as this.

Why on earth would a thread like this lead to evidence of an unfulfilling life? That's quite an empty hypothesis you've got there.

Your life is unfulfilling because you constantly post on the gamespot message board about things to knock christianity. Topic after topic after topic... and it's usually very nit picky things. Not only that, but you have the cute little user name to match: Diety Slapper. Like it's your sole mission in life to try to prove christianity wrong on an internet forum to a bunch of strangers. It's pretty pathetic.

You obviously had to research what you are trying to say, look up bible quotes, then actually come here and post. You take big chunks out of your day to come to gamespot to post about how you found something new about how christianity is wrong. If you are an athiest, then why in the hell do you care so much about christianity? That's whats pathetic and sad. If I didn't hate your views and overall point of view so much, then I would actually feel sorry for you.

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

[QUOTE="freek666"]Is your life so unfulfilling that you feel compelled to make these threads over and over again? What satisfaction can be gained from it all?The_Mac_Daddy

Is your life so unfulfilling that you have to ask someone else if their life is so unfulfilling? My life is great by the way. Don't get mad. You can avoid topics you're not interested in, rather than saying silly things such as this.

Why on earth would a thread like this lead to evidence of an unfulfilling life? That's quite an empty hypothesis you've got there.

Your life is unfulfilling because you constantly post on the gamespot message board about things to knock christianity. Topic after topic after topic... and it's usually very nit picky things. Not only that, but you have the cute little user name to match: Diety Slapper. Like it's your sole mission in life to try to prove christianity wrong on an internet forum to a bunch of strangers. It's pretty pathetic.

You obviously had to research what you are trying to say, look up bible quotes, then actually come here and post. You take big chunks out of your day to come to gamespot to post about how you found something new about how christianity is wrong. If you are an athiest, then why in the hell do you care so much about christianity? That's whats pathetic and sad. If I didn't hate your views and overall point of view so much, then I would actually feel sorry for you.

Who are you to tell him that his life is unfulfilling? For all you know, he finds the discourse interesting and fulfilling. And usually nitpicking would be pointless, but given the number of idiots proclaiming that the Bible is 100% true and the word of God... well, even one, tiny, nitpicky flaw would destroy that belief. You assert that it's his sole mission in life to disprove Christianity. You fail to justify this claim, and you make the assumption that it would be a bad thing, which, given how dangerous Christianity is, it is not.

As for why he cares so much about Christianity... I can't speak for him on this one, but there are good reasons to care, and no doubt he shares some of them: Christianity is dangerous, and causes closed-minded irrationality. It's been the cause of plenty of wars and hostility throughout the centuries, and so a world without religion would be a better world. (you might disagree with that, but that's irrelevant because he'd still have a reason, he'd just be mistaken.) Oh, and this next bit's great; you're happy to go on about how he shouldn't care about Christianity, and then you say that you hate his views and overall point of view? Congratulations, you're a hypocrite. Your claim that it's pathetic and sad is so subjective and lacking in proof that it really doesn't deserve a respone. Now, either find something of substance to say, or don't say anything at all.

Everyone just ignore this.

Funky Llama and Diety Slapper are probably the same idiot.

This argument is ridiculous. Even athiests are attacking him, lol.

[QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"][QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

[QUOTE="freek666"]Is your life so unfulfilling that you feel compelled to make these threads over and over again? What satisfaction can be gained from it all?Funky_Llama

Is your life so unfulfilling that you have to ask someone else if their life is so unfulfilling? My life is great by the way. Don't get mad. You can avoid topics you're not interested in, rather than saying silly things such as this.

Why on earth would a thread like this lead to evidence of an unfulfilling life? That's quite an empty hypothesis you've got there.

Your life is unfulfilling because you constantly post on the gamespot message board about things to knock christianity. Topic after topic after topic... and it's usually very nit picky things. Not only that, but you have the cute little user name to match: Diety Slapper. Like it's your sole mission in life to try to prove christianity wrong on an internet forum to a bunch of strangers. It's pretty pathetic.

You obviously had to research what you are trying to say, look up bible quotes, then actually come here and post. You take big chunks out of your day to come to gamespot to post about how you found something new about how christianity is wrong. If you are an athiest, then why in the hell do you care so much about christianity? That's whats pathetic and sad. If I didn't hate your views and overall point of view so much, then I would actually feel sorry for you.

Who are you to tell him that his life is unfulfilling? For all you know, he finds the discourse interesting and fulfilling. And usually nitpicking would be pointless, but given the number of idiots proclaiming that the Bible is 100% true and the word of God... well, even one, tiny, nitpicky flaw would destroy that belief. You assert that it's his sole mission in life to disprove Christianity. You fail to justify this claim, and you make the assumption that it would be a bad thing, which, given how dangerous Christianity is, it is not.

As for why he cares so much about Christianity... I can't speak for him on this one, but there are good reasons to care, and no doubt he shares some of them: Christianity is dangerous, and causes closed-minded irrationality. It's been the cause of plenty of wars and hostility throughout the centuries, and so a world without religion would be a better world. (you might disagree with that, but that's irrelevant because he'd still have a reason, he'd just be mistaken.) Oh, and this next bit's great; you're happy to go on about how he shouldn't care about Christianity, and then you say that you hate his views and overall point of view? Congratulations, you're a hypocrite. Your claim that it's pathetic and sad is so subjective and lacking in proof that it really doesn't deserve a respone. Now, either find something of substance to say, or don't say anything at all.

I say his sole purpose on here is to try to disprove christianity because it's pretty obvious. Look at his post history, look at his name. Christianity is not dangerous or a religion for closed-minded people.. it's actually pretty close minded for you to think that.

And the part about me being a hypocrite? That doesn't even make sense. First of all, he shouldn't care so much about trying to bash christianity... considering he's an athiest. He should go on to live his happy little fufilling athiest life, instead of trying to bash religion. And I said I hate his overall point of view.. not just towards christianity, but in general. So how does that make me a hypocrite again?

But hey, thanks for your opinion, it was almost worthwhile..

Everyone just ignore this.

Funky Llama and Diety Slapper are probably the same idiot.

This argument is ridiculous. Even athiests are attacking him, lol.

InterpolWilco

Heh, I thought I was the only one who got that impression.

Everyone just ignore this.

Funky Llama and Diety Slapper are probably the same idiot.

This argument is ridiculous. Even athiests are attacking him, lol.

InterpolWilco

:roll: I can assure you that I am not Deity Slapper. Just because we agree on a lot of things doesn't make us the same person.

And how is it that I am an idiot? I think the assumption you are making is that I agree with Deity Slapper's original argument, which I do not; it was taken out of context and therefore complete rubbish. Just because in these later arguments I agree with a lot of his points does not mean I agree with his original argument.

[QUOTE="InterpolWilco"]

Everyone just ignore this.

Funky Llama and Diety Slapper are probably the same idiot.

This argument is ridiculous. Even athiests are attacking him, lol.

AirGuitarist87

Heh, I thought I was the only one who got that impression.

[QUOTE="InterpolWilco"]

Everyone just ignore this.

Funky Llama and Diety Slapper are probably the same idiot.

This argument is ridiculous. Even athiests are attacking him, lol.

AirGuitarist87

Heh, I thought I was the only one who got that impression.

So, you're saying that, even though you have absolutely no evidence and our prose styles are different, I set up Deity Slapper as an alt account months ago for the purposes, I assume, of backing him up, even though 1) I have questioned his arguments here and disagree with his original point and 2) I have not had any contact with him until a few days ago?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"][QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

[QUOTE="freek666"]Is your life so unfulfilling that you feel compelled to make these threads over and over again? What satisfaction can be gained from it all?The_Mac_Daddy

Is your life so unfulfilling that you have to ask someone else if their life is so unfulfilling? My life is great by the way. Don't get mad. You can avoid topics you're not interested in, rather than saying silly things such as this.

Why on earth would a thread like this lead to evidence of an unfulfilling life? That's quite an empty hypothesis you've got there.

Your life is unfulfilling because you constantly post on the gamespot message board about things to knock christianity. Topic after topic after topic... and it's usually very nit picky things. Not only that, but you have the cute little user name to match: Diety Slapper. Like it's your sole mission in life to try to prove christianity wrong on an internet forum to a bunch of strangers. It's pretty pathetic.

You obviously had to research what you are trying to say, look up bible quotes, then actually come here and post. You take big chunks out of your day to come to gamespot to post about how you found something new about how christianity is wrong. If you are an athiest, then why in the hell do you care so much about christianity? That's whats pathetic and sad. If I didn't hate your views and overall point of view so much, then I would actually feel sorry for you.

Who are you to tell him that his life is unfulfilling? For all you know, he finds the discourse interesting and fulfilling. And usually nitpicking would be pointless, but given the number of idiots proclaiming that the Bible is 100% true and the word of God... well, even one, tiny, nitpicky flaw would destroy that belief. You assert that it's his sole mission in life to disprove Christianity. You fail to justify this claim, and you make the assumption that it would be a bad thing, which, given how dangerous Christianity is, it is not.

As for why he cares so much about Christianity... I can't speak for him on this one, but there are good reasons to care, and no doubt he shares some of them: Christianity is dangerous, and causes closed-minded irrationality. It's been the cause of plenty of wars and hostility throughout the centuries, and so a world without religion would be a better world. (you might disagree with that, but that's irrelevant because he'd still have a reason, he'd just be mistaken.) Oh, and this next bit's great; you're happy to go on about how he shouldn't care about Christianity, and then you say that you hate his views and overall point of view? Congratulations, you're a hypocrite. Your claim that it's pathetic and sad is so subjective and lacking in proof that it really doesn't deserve a respone. Now, either find something of substance to say, or don't say anything at all.

I say his sole purpose on here is to try to disprove christianity because it's pretty obvious. Look at his post history, look at his name. Christianity is not dangerous or a religion for closed-minded people.. it's actually pretty close minded for you to think that.

And the part about me being a hypocrite? That doesn't even make sense. First of all, he shouldn't care so much about trying to bash christianity... considering he's an athiest. He should go on to live his happy little fufilling athiest life, instead of trying to bash religion. And I said I hate his overall point of view.. not just towards christianity, but in general. So how does that make me a hypocrite again?

But hey, thanks for your opinion, it was almost worthwhile..

"...not dangerous or a religion for closed-minded people.. it's actually pretty close minded for you to think that." Really? How? It's just that when people are willing to claim that Noah's Ark actually existed, I start to worry. You're a hypocrite because you have a go at him for caring about other people's beliefs (Christianity), and then say that you hate his beliefs, so clearly you care about other people's beliefs, despite having said condemned DS for doing just that.

What's Paul's definition of "long"? Is "long" considered the size of most oif your sausages? Then 2 inches in length would be enough?

What if long meant hair that reached your upper back, meaning you'd really have to let yourself go if you haven't groomed or bathed?

How about we all interpret this in our own little way that benefits us personally like we've always done, and get on with our lives.Dexter-Morgan

I don't think anyone could benefit from this mess.:?

But Samson got his power from his long hair?cool_baller

[QUOTE="sonicare"]You're really grasping for straws with the thing on the long hair.LJS9502_basic

I didn't take anything out of context. I originally posted the whole sentence. All you did was post a later passage that basically back-peddled on an earlier stance. Embarrassingly, all it showed me was that whoever wrote that passage tried to be firm yet flimsy at the same time. That's cool, for a human I guess, but does god want his "word" (which the bible represents) to look so wishy-washy?

Bottom line is, that passage was crystal clear, and there's really not too many ways it could be interpereted.

I have seen no proof presented by you...only opinion.

LJS9502_basic

You do the same thing. :roll:

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

No, but if that individual were the Son of God, I think it's reasonable to suggest that someone would.

LJS9502_basic

I'll tell you what I don't get. I don't get why if they didn't make any records of how he looked because they thought his "kingdom" was coming soon, then why would they ever waste time recording the other stuff? Why record anything, if the kingdom is coming soon? (Whatever that means.)

Can you PROVE that a supernatural being of any kind could not cause natural selection? LJS9502_basic

Can you prove that he did?

It's beyond the realm of man's understanding. LJS9502_basic

Can you prove that too? Seems to be something that may be possible one day, no? Or are you not as open minded as you act? (Psst! Your post is an absolute statement, by the way...you know, one of things you say you never make... Yikes!)

Provide scientific proof that a god or godlike individual couldn not cause natural selection.

LJS9502_basic

How about you provide proof that he did, or would even want to...damn, what's with these requests all the time to prove negatives? "Prove the didnt's, the dont's; prove the lack of something, or the absence of"...are you serious LJ? How can I prove that there's NOT an apple on my desk? If it's just not there, it's just not there. What do you want us to say about it? You're asking for an explanation for nothing, essentially. :roll:

The last thread I saw DS make was about Adam and Eve's belly buttons in paintings. This one is about Jesus having long hair. Wow. :|Cube_of_MooN

It wasn't about those things, it was about the churchs' mess-ups regarding critcial points of realism within those things. Run along now...you've tried to be funny and it didn't work.

Jeez...this is as painful as debating DS. LJS9502_basic

Of course losing and not being able to admit it is painful! :lol:

I love the way that the theists in these threads, and mainly LJ, are all like "well this might have happened and that might have happened" and then upon these very uncertain terms, try to state "divine truth".

Sheesh, if you don't know, don't make out that you do. That's what baffles me about religion and faith. Why state as truth things you do not know to be true? :|

luke1889

Once again, bullseye.

What don't YOU get? I said man can't understand what he doesn't know. Period.LJS9502_basic

Then you don't KNOW...anything you've ever claimed about god. Cause you're just a man.

You can't understand god, or all the things you've claimed about him, because you don't know him. and if you try to say that you do, because of personal experiences (that you never want to share), then may I remind you that you also always claim that god is supernatural, on top of also claiming that man can't understand the supernatural. Therefore, as a man, it's impossible for you to know god or anything about him, since he is beyond your plane of existence, and everything you've ever said about god is now void.

Anything in the bible is void too, because it was written by men who do not understand the supernatural. You're actually discrediting christianity with this very belief, because all pieces of infromation that we have about "god" came from the experiences or minds of MEN. And if men can't understand the supernatural, then every thing that man ever wrote about god is void. Congratulations, you've destroyed your own belief system. That's epic.

[QUOTE="Cube_of_MooN"]The last thread I saw DS make was about Adam and Eve's belly buttons in paintings. This one is about Jesus having long hair. Wow. :|kingdre

Don't forget his thread about God turning him into a potato. Was that him? I think so... That was a few months ago.

:lol: That was awesome. You know you loved it.

You can't think the arguments put up by the two dudes were compelling? I was a bit disappointed that you had joined them. Though we never agree I regard you as one of our better users here.LJS9502_basic

Uh oh! Now you're one of us Luke! Oh for shame! :lol:

Look at this guy, jeez...how condescending can you get, LJ?

[QUOTE="FatMan1945"]I have read through this entire thread, and people like DS and Funky are the exact reason why I tend to hate most atheists. They think they are better than everyone else and think that believers are "close-minded". Can't we all just agree that both atheists and theists do not know everything and both evolution and creationism have holes. The amount of hypocrisy that atheists spew out is sickening. They act as though Religion is nothing but evil and it is really getting on my last nerves. The sad part is that the most open-minded, not to mention friendliest people I have ever met were Christians, and some of the worst were extreme Atheists similar to DS. Can't we all just live together without insulting each others beliefs :?.
Funky_Llama

So, you manage to spew the usual 'tolerance' crap, while simultaneously going on about hating atheists, and then you accuse other people of hypocrisy, which is a hypocrisy in itself? I despair, I really do.

:lol:

You know Llama, for only a teenager, you're pretty swift with the whole ownage deal.

FatMan, you have no clue. Religion IS evil. Check it's history, and body count. :? I should know it's evil, I was a part of it. I saw evil. Go ahead and tell me I didn't...please, act like you know better. I'm not closed-minded, I've been on both sides, and I'm here to report that organized religions are a scam to take your money as well as your freedom of thought...because when you can control a man's thoughts, you control his actions...if you control a man's actions, he's become predictable...if a man is predictable, he's putty in your hands. It's the way the rich, elite, power-hungry vultures in this world make a living.

And the part about me being a hypocrite? That doesn't even make sense. First of all, he shouldn't care so much about trying to bash christianity... considering he's an athiest. The_Mac_Daddy

Then you shouldn't care about bashing atheists, if you're a christian. That's how you're a hypocrite. You're doing what you're complaining about.

And I said I hate his overall point of view.. not just towards christianity, but in general.

The_Mac_Daddy

And here is why you jump into the thread and bash me. Just cause you don't like me at all... :roll: Well go cry about it or something, get it out of your system. You basically just admitted you'll disagree with me based on our clashing personalities.

And let me tell you guys one more thing about me...

I don't even care if I'm wrong. In fact, I like it. It's what makes me a human. I wouldn't want to be perfect, because then my life would be predictable, and thus, robotic. It must suck to be a perfect little robot, like some of you guys. I would hate that. I might even commit suicide.

But the point of these posts I make is to make people think a little, and generate a discussion that can branch off into infinite different things. I enjoy the interaction. I like to see how many different points of view there can be on just one subject. It's interesting to me.

That's why I never understand these posts by you people who are so angry about what I do. I mean, even if you were in the right, why get mad? If you're so sure you're right and I'm wrong, you would just laugh about it and move on. The anger just shows me that I struck an nerve, and although I don't mind when I do, I didn't even try to. You guys are so obsessed with perfection, and "flaws", and "fallacies"...and you know what, it's ridiculous. No one is perfect. This whole community is up on some imaginary throne. I'm here to have fun and to generate discussion more than anything. It's usually religion I bring up, because well, I know that's what gets the most attention, to be honest. I just like creating a thread that lots of people get involved with.

I'm an atheist who is a former christian, so I know both sides. The majority of my family members are christians. You think I hate them? Of course not. I don't hate any of you people...I've said this before...I just can't stand the religion and what it has done. That's all. The believers are just innocent victims, in my opinion, and I've said that before too. I guess you guys didn't see it, or forgot. Well, I hope you see it this time.

What's Paul's definition of "long"? Is "long" considered the size of most of your sausages? Then 2 inches in length would be enough?

Youareinsecure

Seriously, what has Jesus ever done to you for you to talk so much smack and disrespect about someone that may or may not exist. What does it concern you on other peoples beliefs to debate a questionable existence for hours on the Internet instead of doing some thing productive? Perhaps you should move to another theater of debate, perhaps politics? At least you can actually have facts you can use to disprove someones credibility and authenticity so that i can make a real effect in our world.Montaya

You really do take this debate thing too seriously. It's enjoyable, and it gets the mind going. What's wrong with that? Besides, I - or any other atheist - might get lucky and turn someone else into an atheist. And then we have being doing something productive.

[QUOTE="Youareinsecure"]

What's Paul's definition of "long"? Is "long" considered the size of most of your sausages? Then 2 inches in length would be enough?

Cube_of_MooN

It's funny that his username is "Youareinsecure", when only an insecure person would be obsessed with penile length. He must be small, I guess.

[QUOTE="Cube_of_MooN"][QUOTE="Youareinsecure"]

What's Paul's definition of "long"? Is "long" considered the size of most of your sausages? Then 2 inches in length would be enough?

Deity_Slapper

It's funny that his username is "Youareinsecure", when only an insecure person would be obsessed with penile length. He must be small, I guess.

Yup. The amount of time one spends going on about wang size is inversely proportional to the size of one's wang.

I have no idea if this has already been mentioned or not... since I have no desire to sift through hundreds of replies, most of which are petty bickering. But if not, here it is - what we consider to be 'long hair' may not be what the writers of the Bible considered to be 'long hair.' Bearing in mind that there wasn't exactly a widely available hair-styling service back in those days, it's logical to assume that most people living in that time, both male and female, would have hair that we would consider quite long.

One must not forget that 'long' is a subjective term, and that this verse was obviously written in a specific societal context. So even if Jesus is openly described or painted with hair that we consider long, it may well be that his hair was of only average length by the standards of the day.

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"][QUOTE="Cube_of_MooN"][QUOTE="Youareinsecure"]

What's Paul's definition of "long"? Is "long" considered the size of most of your sausages? Then 2 inches in length would be enough?

Funky_Llama

It's funny that his username is "Youareinsecure", when only an insecure person would be obsessed with penile length. He must be small, I guess.

Yup. The amount of time one spends going on about wang size is inversely proportional to the size of one's wang.

Hey Llama, people were saying that you are me. I didn't know that you were me. Why didn't you tell me?

I have no idea if this has already been mentioned or not... since I have no desire to sift through hundreds of replies, most of which are petty bickering. But if not, here it is - what we consider to be 'long hair' may not be what the writers of the Bible considered to be 'long hair.' Bearing in mind that there wasn't exactly a widely available hair-styling service back in those days, it's logical to assume that most people living in that time, both male and female, would have hair that we would consider quite long.

One must not forget that 'long' is a subjective term, and that this verse was obviously written in a specific societal context. So even if Jesus is openly described or painted with hair that we consider long, it may well be that his hair was of only average length by the standards of the day.

pianist

I hate to tell you, but we already established that the quote was out of context. Seventeen long and tortuous pages later, I'm not even sure what's being discussed.

I have no idea if this has already been mentioned or not... since I have no desire to sift through hundreds of replies, most of which are petty bickering. But if not, here it is - what we consider to be 'long hair' may not be what the writers of the Bible considered to be 'long hair.' Bearing in mind that there wasn't exactly a widely available hair-styling service back in those days, it's logical to assume that most people living in that time, both male and female, would have hair that we would consider quite long.

One must not forget that 'long' is a subjective term, and that this verse was obviously written in a specific societal context. So even if Jesus is openly described or painted with hair that we consider long, it may well be that his hair was of only average length by the standards of the day.

pianist

Definately a possibility, but I sure got the whole community in an uproar didn't I? :lol:

[QUOTE="Youareinsecure"]

What's Paul's definition of "long"? Is "long" considered the size of most of your sausages? Then 2 inches in length would be enough?

Cube_of_MooN

You make me angry, I don't know why, but you do....

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"][QUOTE="Cube_of_MooN"][QUOTE="Youareinsecure"]

What's Paul's definition of "long"? Is "long" considered the size of most of your sausages? Then 2 inches in length would be enough?

Deity_Slapper

It's funny that his username is "Youareinsecure", when only an insecure person would be obsessed with penile length. He must be small, I guess.

Yup. The amount of time one spends going on about wang size is inversely proportional to the size of one's wang.

Hey Llama, people were saying that you are me. I didn't know that you were me. Why didn't you tell me?

Heh... sorry about that. I should have mentioned it. Very careless of you/me. :roll:

You'd think they'd take a hint from the fact that we're both online at the same time.

[QUOTE="pianist"]

I have no idea if this has already been mentioned or not... since I have no desire to sift through hundreds of replies, most of which are petty bickering. But if not, here it is - what we consider to be 'long hair' may not be what the writers of the Bible considered to be 'long hair.' Bearing in mind that there wasn't exactly a widely available hair-styling service back in those days, it's logical to assume that most people living in that time, both male and female, would have hair that we would consider quite long.

One must not forget that 'long' is a subjective term, and that this verse was obviously written in a specific societal context. So even if Jesus is openly described or painted with hair that we consider long, it may well be that his hair was of only average length by the standards of the day.

Funky_Llama

I hate to tell you, but we already established that the quote was out of context. Seventeen long and tortuous pages later, I'm not even sure what's being discussed.

That's the problem with coming late to these parties. I don't know why the topic would still be raging on, though, if this simple point had already been established, since it obviously lays the matter to rest.

But I don't doubt that this, like all religion threads, probably has nothing to do with the original point any more. They all seem to lose their way after the first few pages.

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

Hey Llama, people were saying that you are me. I didn't know that you were me. Why didn't you tell me?

Funky_Llama

Heh... sorry about that. I should have mentioned it. Very careless of you/me. :roll:

You'd think they'd take a hint from the fact that we're both online at the same time.

Cause I'm using the desktop and you're using the laptop?

But I don't doubt that this, like all religion threads, probably has nothing to do with the original point any more. They all seem to lose their way after the first few pages.

pianist

That's the point, pianist. Screw the topic, I just wanna plant some damn seeds.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

Hey Llama, people were saying that you are me. I didn't know that you were me. Why didn't you tell me?

Deity_Slapper

Heh... sorry about that. I should have mentioned it. Very careless of you/me. :roll:

You'd think they'd take a hint from the fact that we're both online at the same time.

Cause I'm using the desktop and you're using the laptop?

Touche. You do make some excellent points, me. I'm so glad that I set you up as an alt account to back up the points I make, and then failed to do so for about four months.

Definately a possibility, but I sure got the whole community in an uproar didn't I? :lol:

Deity_Slapper

It's not difficult to get the whole community in an uproar.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="pianist"]

I have no idea if this has already been mentioned or not... since I have no desire to sift through hundreds of replies, most of which are petty bickering. But if not, here it is - what we consider to be 'long hair' may not be what the writers of the Bible considered to be 'long hair.' Bearing in mind that there wasn't exactly a widely available hair-styling service back in those days, it's logical to assume that most people living in that time, both male and female, would have hair that we would consider quite long.

One must not forget that 'long' is a subjective term, and that this verse was obviously written in a specific societal context. So even if Jesus is openly described or painted with hair that we consider long, it may well be that his hair was of only average length by the standards of the day.

pianist

I hate to tell you, but we already established that the quote was out of context. Seventeen long and tortuous pages later, I'm not even sure what's being discussed.

That's the problem with coming late to these parties. I don't know why the topic would still be raging on, though, if this simple point had already been established, since it obviously lays the matter to rest.

But I don't doubt that this, like all religion threads, probably has nothing to do with the original point any more. They all seem to lose their way after the first few pages.

Yes, I know... they become a complete mess before long.

[QUOTE="Cube_of_MooN"][QUOTE="Youareinsecure"]

What's Paul's definition of "long"? Is "long" considered the size of most of your sausages? Then 2 inches in length would be enough?

Dexter-Morgan

You make me angry, I don't know why, but you do....

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

Hey Llama, people were saying that you are me. I didn't know that you were me. Why didn't you tell me?

Funky_Llama

Heh... sorry about that. I should have mentioned it. Very careless of you/me. :roll:

You'd think they'd take a hint from the fact that we're both online at the same time.

Cause I'm using the desktop and you're using the laptop?

Touche. You do make some excellent points, me. I'm so glad that I set you up as an alt account to back up the points I make, and then failed to do so for about four months.

I'm...I mean, you're such a loser if you have to make an alt account and then quote yourself over 50 times in one thread. Don't you have a real life?

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

Definately a possibility, but I sure got the whole community in an uproar didn't I? :lol:

pianist

It's not difficult to get the whole community in an uproar.

Heh... yes, they are easily agitated. Also, are you a professional pianist?

It's not difficult to get the whole community in an uproar. pianist

I've noticed. :lol:

I'm almost scared at how easy it is, actually. Like why is everyone on edge all the time? :?