Dictators pollute US Universities

Can we take a bunch of those jokers out back and shoot 'em?

RexRed wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

RexRed wrote:

If they want a "cold war" they have one God dammit....

Well, that's one commandment broken today.

Jesus said the word "damn"...

You're either contending that your boy Hey-Zeus spoke English before the language existed, or you're attempting to claim that "damn" is a word in Aramaic--either way, you're a liar.

Of course, you are also inferentially saying you are "christ-like," but that sort of egoism from the religious lunatic fringe is never a surprise.

No, i'm pointing out that your boy Hey-Zeus never said "damn." I don't, in fact, even consider that there is plausible evidence that he existed. However, if he did, he may have said something which can be translated as damn, but he certainly did not say "damn." Of course, you're source documents are suspect, as well. This sort of carelessness, and inaccuracy, are common among bible-thumpers, and underline their credulity while destroying their credibility.

Setanta wrote:

RexRed wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

RexRed wrote:

If they want a "cold war" they have one God dammit....

Well, that's one commandment broken today.

Jesus said the word "damn"...

You're either contending that your boy Hey-Zeus spoke English before the language existed, or you're attempting to claim that "damn" is a word in Aramaic--either way, you're a liar.

Of course, you are also inferentially saying you are "christ-like," but that sort of egoism from the religious lunatic fringe is never a surprise.

I am all of those things other than a liar...

Let me rephrase that, the translated Bible says Jesus said, "damned"...

Now are you Set claiming to be a better translator than the scholars of King James?

Mr 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I respect your doubt but point out that your doubts seem to be a form of faith in itself...

RexRed wrote:

Setanta wrote:

RexRed wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

RexRed wrote:

If they want a "cold war" they have one God dammit....

Well, that's one commandment broken today.

Jesus said the word "damn"...

You're either contending that your boy Hey-Zeus spoke English before the language existed, or you're attempting to claim that "damn" is a word in Aramaic--either way, you're a liar.

Of course, you are also inferentially saying you are "christ-like," but that sort of egoism from the religious lunatic fringe is never a surprise.

I am all of those things other than a liar...

Let me rephrase that, the translated Bible says Jesus said, "damned"...

Now are you Set claiming to be a better translator than the scholars of King James?

Mr 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

The error of course isn't saying 'damn' but saying 'god damnit,' which takes the lord's name in vain. But you knew that.

Cycloptichorn

RexRed wrote:

I respect your doubt but point out that your doubts seem to be a form of faith in itself...

Yes, it is convenient for the imaginary friend crowd to trot out tortured logic of the sort which would underpin such an assertion.

Doubt is not only not faith, doubt is antithetical to faith. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Doubt can arise from the absence of evidence, and is a healthy anodyne to faith.

In company with the aggressive, religious "agnostics," theists attempt ot assert that the absence of belief is a form of belief. This is not necessarily so, and is certainly not axiomatically so. If someone says to me that it is an historical fact that your boy Hey-Zeus existes, my response is "I don't think so." If they say to me that there is good historical evidence (HA!), i say: "I don't believe that." Faith is belief without evidence--my "doubt" is the absence of belief--that's a whole 'nuther animal . . .

If God is doing the damning then it is not in vain...

Worry, doubt and fear are forms of negative "believing" as opposed to confidence, trust and faith which are positive believing.. though still each respectively relative forms of believing.

Believing (both positive and negative) equals receiving...

RexRed wrote:

If God is doing the damning then it is not in vain...

What a piece of work you are! Face it, RexRed, despite all of your backtracking and evasions, the lord knows that you took his name in vain. It is not for us to condemn you -- you have condemned yourself by your own words.

RexRed wrote:

Worry, doubt and fear are forms of negative "believing" as opposed to confidence, trust and faith which are positive believing.. though still each respectively relative forms of believing.

I am not worried that you are obsessed with an imaginary friend superstition. I have no doubt that you are obsessed with an imaginary friend superstition. I do not fear your or your obsessive imaginary friend supersition. Rejecting someone else's belief does not itself constitute a belief. I understand that the bible-thumpers need desparately (due to their worry, doubt and fear) to assert that this is so--but it is not.

Quote:

Believing (both positive and negative) equals receiving...

I often wonder if you were not on the receiving end of serious cranial trauma while still an infant.

Set, there are both positive and negative believing.

Both are forms of believing.

RexReed said

Quote:

Set, there are both positive and negative believing.

Both are forms of believing.

So, a fellow sitting beside you in the park mentions that on the previous morning he felt "the presence of Jesus next to him" as he drove to work. Would your response to this be positive believing or negative believing?

Two minutes later, he adds that he sensed Jesus was wearing a propeller hat which the speaker had had as a kid and which always brought him comfort. Would your response be positive believing or negative believing?

He then confides that he also senses that his postman has been touched by Satan and that his own wife had been unfaithful. Would your response be positive believing or negative believing?

We don't know what motivates him. He may be fearful or he may be in calm exultation. He's a fellow talking to you.

So?

You avoided my questions.

You avoided my questions.

God is the judge of if our believing is positive or negative...

blatham wrote:

Quote:

You avoided my questions.

RexReed said:

Quote:

God is the judge of if our believing is positive or negative...

Well, you were doing some of that there judging yourself with Setanta. You pointed to a postive belief and a negative belief, as you define them. A tad presumptuous, doing god's judging?

But there's more.

How do you know 'god is the judge of if our believing is positive or negative'? There's a passage in your Bible which has God speaking of a "negative belief"? Further, that He's the one who has exclusive judge-rights on the matter? You'll provide the scriptural passages?

It remains somewhat unclear how, in the future, you might go about identifying any negative or positive beliefs. God does the picking. Does he then leave a note on the belief's metaphorical forehead for you to read? "This one's a P...signed, god."