How foolish.

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
Dominus ma in dictore astent in dictorum

Is this some more foolishness? I have no idea what you are saying.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I did not mean to start a food fight.

P.S.
The topic is about the foolish atheist.

Oh OK I thought the topic was becoming the foodish atheist, which might be more productive. Sorry.

PS last night we had a scallop salad in arugula, with walnut oil/lemon juice and celery and other veggy bits, and some more of that good asiago bread and olive oil and a sip or 2 of white wine with more strawberries after. This could be in violation of any number of religions. The night before we had home made corn bread pizza -- hot Italian sausage, sun dried tomatoes, moz and parm cheese, olives, a few slices of bell pepper, some oregano and red pepper, and a little salad on the side. A bit of red vino, too.

God wants us to be happy.

Originally posted by JS357
Oh OK I thought the topic was becoming the foodish atheist, which might be more productive. Sorry.

PS last night we had a scallop salad in arugula, with walnut oil/lemon juice and celery and other veggy bits, and some more of that good asiago bread and olive oil and a sip or 2 of white wine with more strawberries after. This could be in violation of any num ...[text shortened]... red pepper, and a little salad on the side. A bit of red vino, too.

God wants us to be happy.

Are you trying to make me hungry again? I do feel like getting up and
getting an ice cream sandwich out of the freezer. Yes, that is exactly
what I am going to do.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Are you trying to make me hungry again? I do feel like getting up and
getting an ice cream sandwich out of the freezer. Yes, that is exactly
what I am going to do.

This is lame , even for the general forum 😛

Originally posted by karoly aczel
This is lame , even for the general forum 😛

Why, are you jealous? I bet you would like an ice cream sandwich too.

I'm getting me another ice cream sandwich and then I'm going to bed.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I'm getting me another ice cream sandwich and then I'm going to bed.

I'm going to permeate here awhile and then see if the stars are out ...

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Can scientists explain what happened before the ' Big Bang ' ? No, scientists deflect that question by stating that, by definition, Time started on the dot, along with the Big Bang. So there is no such thing as ' before ' the Big Bang. We Hindus believe that by definition, God is ' Swayambhu ' or self creator. Any objection ?

not quite true, difference between standard model and cutting edge cosmology.

However we can't currently say what happened if anything before the big bang,
or even if there is a before the big bang, although most cosmologists think there was.

And yes I have a problem with a 'self creating' god as a solution to a self creating universe.

It is just as, if not more logically flawed.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If your beliefs are wrong then you are likely to make faulty decisions based on those beliefs.

But my beliefs are not wrong. This makes the rest of your argument moot.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Speaking of which you still haven't responded further to my pointing out your bible instructs
women to be forced to marry their rapists.

Having objected to this and asking me to quote chapter and verse (which I did) you then
utterly failed to say any more on the matter.

I must have missed where you said what book, chapter and verse. I didn't read any more on the matter, I thought you declined to answer. Point me to the thread please.

Originally posted by JS357
Oh OK I thought the topic was becoming the foodish atheist, which might be more productive. Sorry.

PS last night we had a scallop salad in arugula, with walnut oil/lemon juice and celery and other veggy bits, and some more of that good asiago bread and olive oil and a sip or 2 of white wine with more strawberries after. This could be in violation of any num ...[text shortened]... red pepper, and a little salad on the side. A bit of red vino, too.

God wants us to be happy.

Agreed, we were given dominion over the earth to enjoy its bounty.

Originally posted by Suzianne
But my beliefs are not wrong. This makes the rest of your argument moot.

No it doesn't, anyone can just declare their beliefs to be right and use them to justify anything
they like.

You need to be able to justify (to an objectively high standard) your beliefs.

So I say, prove your right.

You can't claim to only be relying on faith that your beliefs are true, and claim certainty that they are.

If you are sure however try stating some of your 'true' beliefs so we can see if they stand up to scrutiny.

If they are right this should be no problem.


And you are still ignoring my question.

"I would not worship him, for if he exists he's an evil tyrant, and I have no time for those.

Speaking of which you still haven't responded further to my pointing out your bible instructs
women to be forced to marry their rapists.

Having objected to this and asking me to quote chapter and verse (which I did) you then
utterly failed to say any more on the matter."

EDIT: apologies saw your later post after posting this, see post below.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I must have missed where you said what book, chapter and verse. I didn't read any more on the matter, I thought you declined to answer. Point me to the thread please.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=141932&page=9


Originally posted by Suzianne
Oh really.

Could you supply the Book, Chapter and Verse of this "passage"?


Yes indeedy.
have done several times.

Deuteronomy 22:28~29



King James Version (KJV)

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.



New International Version (NIV)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,

29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.




English Standard Version (ESV)

28 "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,

29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.




New King James Version (NKJV)

28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out,

29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.




New American Standard Bible (NASB)

28 “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,

29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.




Hope to have been some help.




oh and just for reference here is what RJHinds said about this.


Originally posted by googlefudge
The bible doesn't prove anything.

You say it's in the bible, the bible is true.
I say how do you know the bible is true,
you say because the bible says so, or I just know it...

thus the bible is true because the bible says it is true.

This is circular.

You know That neither I, nor anyone else not already in your religion,
and not even all ...[text shortened]... ve to accept that this is abominable and that not everything in the bible can be true or just.


In those days this was a way of punishing the man and making him
responsible for the woman and any child that would result.
The Holy Bible proves itself to be true by telling the end from the
beginning. No other book has done this. Everything that archeologist
have been able to investigate have proven to agree with the accounts
recorded in the Holy Bible. Noah's boat has been discovered in the
mountains where the Holy Bible said it came to rest. The places that
are mentioned in the Holy Bible that was once thought to have been
mythical places have been discovered. The Holy Bible speaks of
real people and places that have been verified, not made up places
like fairy tales. The Shroud of Turin appears to be the burial cloth of
Christ because it has all the evidence of a tortured and crucified man
whose legs were not broken to ensure death like is normally the way
the Romans did it, but with a large blood stain at the side consistent
with a spear described in the Holy BIble. There were also blood stains
around his head consistent with the crown of thorns that was pressed
on the head of Jesus and evidence of the whipping to his back. There
is so much evidence that proves the Holy Bible that it would take a
book to completely list them all. I think men have already attempted
to list some of them in books. Search it out.

Apparently it is a punishment for the rapist to make him marry the woman he raped....

Originally posted by googlefudge
No it doesn't, anyone can just declare their beliefs to be right and use them to justify anything
they like.

You need to be able to justify (to an objectively high standard) your beliefs.

So I say, prove your right.

You can't claim to only be relying on faith that your beliefs are true, and claim certainty that they are.

If you are sure how ...[text shortened]... ter and verse (which I did) you then
utterly failed to say any more on the matter."[/i]

But I have nothing to prove to you, nor do I feel a need to prove anything.

Justification? Your argument is justification? I'm not justifying anything, and I do NOT "need to be able to justify [my] beliefs", to you, nor to anyone. God will judge me, and that fact makes me laugh at being "judged" by you.

I merely stated a fact, that my beliefs are not wrong. You can choose to believe this or not, as it suits you. But I'm not about to minimize my beliefs by subjecting them to your unbelief, or to lay them out for your ridicule.

Go find a fundamentalist if you want a laugh, there are plenty of them here.

Originally posted by googlefudge
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=141932&page=9

Thanks, let me digest this awhile. I am admittedly not familiar with Deuteronomy. Since I am not Jewish, the Mosaic laws have little import to me, and with the New Testament, these laws have been superseded anyway, in favor of another covenant.