Why do weak people always turn to God?

[MySoS]

Originally posted by: rasholianmon

Originally posted by: MySoS

Originally posted by: rasholianmon

Originally posted by: MySoS

It was a years ago, a boy was stung 100 times by wasp his parents being JW refused medical treatment. Everyone knows JW views on medicine.

do they? I'm not certain if you have your facts straight. could you post the details of said incident?

in the meantime, here's some official word on JW's views of medical treatment: No Blood

It is just something I remember, but I can't find it on google.

However JW have allowed children to die by refusing blood tranfusions. Very sad.

they have not allowed children to die....

the person who makes that stand, whether a child (by means of his parents' consent) or an adult, is taking a personal stand on the issue of no blood. this is pre-arranged by signed documents that each party agrees to PRIOR to injury, surgery, or any medical procedure... so they know the risks involved.

the sad thing is, blood is considered unclean and biblically should not be shared or eaten or anything between humans (see Acts 15:20 in your Bible), yet so many people in this world, even those who "claim" to be Christian continue to use blood instead of educating themselves on transfusion alternatives and other alternative bloodless medical procedures that are every patient's right to know about and choose.

A child usually has no say if they did they wouldn't understand the fact that they will die without the transfusion. Even infants have died because JW parents have refused blood transfusions.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Originally posted by: rasholianmon

Originally posted by: MySoS

Originally posted by: rasholianmon

Originally posted by: MySoS

It was a years ago, a boy was stung 100 times by wasp his parents being JW refused medical treatment. Everyone knows JW views on medicine.

do they? I'm not certain if you have your facts straight. could you post the details of said incident?

in the meantime, here's some official word on JW's views of medical treatment: No Blood

It is just something I remember, but I can't find it on google.

However JW have allowed children to die by refusing blood tranfusions. Very sad.

they have not allowed children to die....

the person who makes that stand, whether a child (by means of his parents' consent) or an adult, is taking a personal stand on the issue of no blood. this is pre-arranged by signed documents that each party agrees to PRIOR to injury, surgery, or any medical procedure... so they know the risks involved.

the sad thing is, blood is considered unclean and biblically should not be shared or eaten or anything between humans (see Acts 15:20 in your Bible), yet so many people in this world, even those who "claim" to be Christian continue to use blood instead of educating themselves on transfusion alternatives and other alternative bloodless medical procedures that are every patient's right to know about and choose.
In that manner, they are unknowingly (and some knowingly, by refusing to listen to or heed the warnings) sinning against God, the creator who can himself give and restore life.


Read and Understand the real issues about Blood

Let's take a look at Acts 15:20 :

"But that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood."

It is widely recognized that a doctrine or belief cannot be based upon an only Scripture, as this would be the case if blood transfusions were the issue here named. Acts 15:20 is not referring to blood transfusions at all, but to eating or drinking blood, based upon Lev. 3:17 :

"This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor blood."

You may notice that out of four items named in the Scripture you are referring to, three concern eating: things polluted by idols (meats sacrificed to idols, see ICor. 10:18-28), things strangled and blood. The Bible says to abstain from them-- not eat them at all. Some people fry blood until it solidifies and eat it. Others, even more grossly, drink blood. This is what God forbids. It has to do with eating and subsequently passing it through the digestive system. Transfusion is an entirely different matter which the Bible doesn't specifically mention. In those days the medical technology was not available to perform blood transfusions. This medical practice isn't any more sin than having an operation, a root canal in your mouth, etc.

 

[rasholianmon]

Originally posted by: MySoS

Originally posted by: rasholianmon

Originally posted by: MySoS

Originally posted by: rasholianmon

Originally posted by: MySoS

It was a years ago, a boy was stung 100 times by wasp his parents being JW refused medical treatment. Everyone knows JW views on medicine.

do they? I'm not certain if you have your facts straight. could you post the details of said incident?

in the meantime, here's some official word on JW's views of medical treatment: No Blood

It is just something I remember, but I can't find it on google.

However JW have allowed children to die by refusing blood tranfusions. Very sad.

they have not allowed children to die....

the person who makes that stand, whether a child (by means of his parents' consent) or an adult, is taking a personal stand on the issue of no blood. this is pre-arranged by signed documents that each party agrees to PRIOR to injury, surgery, or any medical procedure... so they know the risks involved.

the sad thing is, blood is considered unclean and biblically should not be shared or eaten or anything between humans (see Acts 15:20 in your Bible), yet so many people in this world, even those who "claim" to be Christian continue to use blood instead of educating themselves on transfusion alternatives and other alternative bloodless medical procedures that are every patient's right to know about and choose.

A child usually has no say if they did they wouldn't understand the fact that they will die without the transfusion. Even infants have died because JW parents have refused blood transfusions.

their rights belong to their parents, and that right to refuse blood is just that... it's a right. it's the same right a loved one has to not resuscitate someone on life support. Yet what you do not realize is THAT EVERY OTHER AVENUE OR ALTERNATIVE SHOULD BE EXPLORED, DISCUSSED, AND OFFERED FIRST. No JW parent is going to just walk in and say "pull the plug". And the medical community itself at large has agreed that bloodless medical treatment is safer and much better overall for preservation of human life. It just so happens that using human blood is easier, but it is a command of God that has not changed. You take blood, you sin, you lose God's favor. No negotiations.

 

[rasholianmon]

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight

Originally posted by: rasholianmon

Originally posted by: MySoS

Originally posted by: rasholianmon

Originally posted by: MySoS

It was a years ago, a boy was stung 100 times by wasp his parents being JW refused medical treatment. Everyone knows JW views on medicine.

do they? I'm not certain if you have your facts straight. could you post the details of said incident?

in the meantime, here's some official word on JW's views of medical treatment: No Blood

It is just something I remember, but I can't find it on google.

However JW have allowed children to die by refusing blood tranfusions. Very sad.

they have not allowed children to die....

the person who makes that stand, whether a child (by means of his parents' consent) or an adult, is taking a personal stand on the issue of no blood. this is pre-arranged by signed documents that each party agrees to PRIOR to injury, surgery, or any medical procedure... so they know the risks involved.

the sad thing is, blood is considered unclean and biblically should not be shared or eaten or anything between humans (see Acts 15:20 in your Bible), yet so many people in this world, even those who "claim" to be Christian continue to use blood instead of educating themselves on transfusion alternatives and other alternative bloodless medical procedures that are every patient's right to know about and choose.
In that manner, they are unknowingly (and some knowingly, by refusing to listen to or heed the warnings) sinning against God, the creator who can himself give and restore life.


Read and Understand the real issues about Blood

Let's take a look at Acts 15:20 :

"But that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood."

It is widely recognized that a doctrine or belief cannot be based upon an only Scripture, as this would be the case if blood transfusions were the issue here named. Acts 15:20 is not referring to blood transfusions at all, but to eating or drinking blood, based upon Lev. 3:17 :

"This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor blood."

You may notice that out of four items named in the Scripture you are referring to, three concern eating: things polluted by idols (meats sacrificed to idols, see ICor. 10:18-28), things strangled and blood. The Bible says to abstain from them-- not eat them at all. Some people fry blood until it solidifies and eat it. Others, even more grossly, drink blood. This is what God forbids. It has to do with eating and subsequently passing it through the digestive system. Transfusion is an entirely different matter which the Bible doesn't specifically mention. In those days the medical technology was not available to perform blood transfusions. This medical practice isn't any more sin than having an operation, a root canal in your mouth, etc.

since you won't read the article I linked, I'll post an excerpt to answer that:

Scientists now know that the Jewish Law code promoted good health. It required, for example, that excrement be deposited outside the camp and covered and that people not eat meat that carried a high risk of disease. (Leviticus 11:4-8, 13; 17:15; Deuteronomy 23:12, 13) While the law about blood had health aspects, much more was involved. Blood had a symbolic meaning. It stood for life provided by the Creator. By treating blood as special, the people showed dependence on him for life. Yes, the chief reason why they were not to take in blood was, not that it was unhealthy, but that it had special meaning to God.

The Law repeatedly stated the Creator's ban on taking in blood to sustain life. "You must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground like water. Do not eat it, so that it may go well with you and your children after you, because you will be doing what is right."?Deuteronomy 12:23-25, NIV; 15:23; Leviticus 7:26, 27; Ezekiel 33:25.#

Contrary to how some today reason, God's law on blood was not to be ignored just because an emergency arose. During a wartime crisis, some Israelite soldiers killed animals and "fell to eating along with the blood." In view of the emergency, was it permissible for them to sustain their lives with blood? No. Their commander pointed out that their course was still a grave wrong. (1 Samuel 14:31-35) Hence, precious as life is, our Life-Giver never said that his standards could be ignored in an emergency.

Would the Biblical prohibition on blood cover medical uses, such as transfusions, which certainly were not known in the days of Noah, Moses, or the apostles?

While modern therapy employing blood did not exist back then, medicinal use of blood is not modern. For some 2,000 years, in Egypt and elsewhere, human "blood was regarded as the sovereign remedy for leprosy." A physician revealed the therapy given to King Esar-haddon's son when the nation of Assyria was on the leading edge of technology: "[The prince] is doing much better; the king, my lord, can be happy. Starting with the 22nd day I give (him) blood to drink, he will drink (it) for 3 days. For 3 more days I shall give (him blood) for internal application." Esar-haddon had dealings with the Israelites. Yet, because the Israelites had God's Law, they would never drink blood as medicine.

Was blood used as medicine in Roman times? The naturalist Pliny (a contemporary of the apostles) and the second-century physician Aretaeus report that human blood was a treatment for epilepsy. Tertullian later wrote: "Consider those who with greedy thirst, at a show in the arena, take the fresh blood of wicked criminals . . . and carry it off to heal their epilepsy." He contrasted them with Christians, who "do not even have the blood of animals at [their] meals . . . At the trials of Christians you offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that [it] is unlawful for them." So, early Christians would risk death rather than take in blood.

"Blood in its more everyday form did not . . . go out of fashion as an ingredient in medicine and magic," reports the book Flesh and Blood. "In 1483, for example, Louis XI of France was dying. 'Every day he grew worse, and the medicines profited him nothing, though of a strange character; for he vehemently hoped to recover by the human blood which he took and swallowed from certain children.'"

What of transfusing blood? Experiments with this began near the start of the 16th century. Thomas Bartholin (1616-80), professor of anatomy at the University of Copenhagen, objected: 'Those who drag in the use of human blood for internal remedies of diseases appear to misuse it and to sin gravely. Cannibals are condemned. Why do we not abhor those who stain their gullet with human blood? Similar is the receiving of alien blood from a cut vein, either through the mouth or by instruments of transfusion. The authors of this operation are held in terror by the divine law, by which the eating of blood is prohibited.'

Hence, thinking people in past centuries realized that the Biblical law applied to taking blood into the veins just as it did to taking it into the mouth. Bartholin concluded: "Either manner of taking [blood] accords with one and the same purpose, that by this blood a sick body be nourished or restored."

This overview may help you to understand the nonnegotiable religious stand that Jehovah's Witnesses take. They highly value life, and they seek good medical care. But they are determined not to violate God's standard, which has been consistent: Those who respect life as a gift from the Creator do not try to sustain life by taking in blood.

Still, for years claims have been made that blood saves lives. Doctors can relate cases in which someone had acute blood loss but was transfused and then improved rapidly. So you may wonder, 'How wise or unwise is this medically?' Medical evidence is offered to support blood therapy. Thus, you owe it to yourself to get the facts in order to make an informed choice about blood."

next time, read before you post... it'll save you a lot of grief, my friend...
Source Article

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Originally posted by: rasholianmon

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight

Originally posted by: rasholianmon

Originally posted by: MySoS

Originally posted by: rasholianmon

Originally posted by: MySoS

It was a years ago, a boy was stung 100 times by wasp his parents being JW refused medical treatment. Everyone knows JW views on medicine.

do they? I'm not certain if you have your facts straight. could you post the details of said incident?

in the meantime, here's some official word on JW's views of medical treatment: No Blood

It is just something I remember, but I can't find it on google.

However JW have allowed children to die by refusing blood tranfusions. Very sad.

they have not allowed children to die....

the person who makes that stand, whether a child (by means of his parents' consent) or an adult, is taking a personal stand on the issue of no blood. this is pre-arranged by signed documents that each party agrees to PRIOR to injury, surgery, or any medical procedure... so they know the risks involved.

the sad thing is, blood is considered unclean and biblically should not be shared or eaten or anything between humans (see Acts 15:20 in your Bible), yet so many people in this world, even those who "claim" to be Christian continue to use blood instead of educating themselves on transfusion alternatives and other alternative bloodless medical procedures that are every patient's right to know about and choose.
In that manner, they are unknowingly (and some knowingly, by refusing to listen to or heed the warnings) sinning against God, the creator who can himself give and restore life.


Read and Understand the real issues about Blood

Let's take a look at Acts 15:20 :

"But that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood."

It is widely recognized that a doctrine or belief cannot be based upon an only Scripture, as this would be the case if blood transfusions were the issue here named. Acts 15:20 is not referring to blood transfusions at all, but to eating or drinking blood, based upon Lev. 3:17 :

"This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor blood."

You may notice that out of four items named in the Scripture you are referring to, three concern eating: things polluted by idols (meats sacrificed to idols, see ICor. 10:18-28), things strangled and blood. The Bible says to abstain from them-- not eat them at all. Some people fry blood until it solidifies and eat it. Others, even more grossly, drink blood. This is what God forbids. It has to do with eating and subsequently passing it through the digestive system. Transfusion is an entirely different matter which the Bible doesn't specifically mention. In those days the medical technology was not available to perform blood transfusions. This medical practice isn't any more sin than having an operation, a root canal in your mouth, etc.

since you won't read the article I linked, I'll post an excerpt to answer that:

Scientists now know that the Jewish Law code promoted good health. It required, for example, that excrement be deposited outside the camp and covered and that people not eat meat that carried a high risk of disease. (Leviticus 11:4-8, 13; 17:15; Deuteronomy 23:12, 13) While the law about blood had health aspects, much more was involved. Blood had a symbolic meaning. It stood for life provided by the Creator. By treating blood as special, the people showed dependence on him for life. Yes, the chief reason why they were not to take in blood was, not that it was unhealthy, but that it had special meaning to God.

The Law repeatedly stated the Creator's ban on taking in blood to sustain life. "You must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground like water. Do not eat it, so that it may go well with you and your children after you, because you will be doing what is right."?Deuteronomy 12:23-25, NIV; 15:23; Leviticus 7:26, 27; Ezekiel 33:25.#

Contrary to how some today reason, God's law on blood was not to be ignored just because an emergency arose. During a wartime crisis, some Israelite soldiers killed animals and "fell to eating along with the blood." In view of the emergency, was it permissible for them to sustain their lives with blood? No. Their commander pointed out that their course was still a grave wrong. (1 Samuel 14:31-35) Hence, precious as life is, our Life-Giver never said that his standards could be ignored in an emergency.

Would the Biblical prohibition on blood cover medical uses, such as transfusions, which certainly were not known in the days of Noah, Moses, or the apostles?

While modern therapy employing blood did not exist back then, medicinal use of blood is not modern. For some 2,000 years, in Egypt and elsewhere, human "blood was regarded as the sovereign remedy for leprosy." A physician revealed the therapy given to King Esar-haddon's son when the nation of Assyria was on the leading edge of technology: "[The prince] is doing much better; the king, my lord, can be happy. Starting with the 22nd day I give (him) blood to drink, he will drink (it) for 3 days. For 3 more days I shall give (him blood) for internal application." Esar-haddon had dealings with the Israelites. Yet, because the Israelites had God's Law, they would never drink blood as medicine.

Was blood used as medicine in Roman times? The naturalist Pliny (a contemporary of the apostles) and the second-century physician Aretaeus report that human blood was a treatment for epilepsy. Tertullian later wrote: "Consider those who with greedy thirst, at a show in the arena, take the fresh blood of wicked criminals . . . and carry it off to heal their epilepsy." He contrasted them with Christians, who "do not even have the blood of animals at [their] meals . . . At the trials of Christians you offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that [it] is unlawful for them." So, early Christians would risk death rather than take in blood.

"Blood in its more everyday form did not . . . go out of fashion as an ingredient in medicine and magic," reports the book Flesh and Blood. "In 1483, for example, Louis XI of France was dying. 'Every day he grew worse, and the medicines profited him nothing, though of a strange character; for he vehemently hoped to recover by the human blood which he took and swallowed from certain children.'"

What of transfusing blood? Experiments with this began near the start of the 16th century. Thomas Bartholin (1616-80), professor of anatomy at the University of Copenhagen, objected: 'Those who drag in the use of human blood for internal remedies of diseases appear to misuse it and to sin gravely. Cannibals are condemned. Why do we not abhor those who stain their gullet with human blood? Similar is the receiving of alien blood from a cut vein, either through the mouth or by instruments of transfusion. The authors of this operation are held in terror by the divine law, by which the eating of blood is prohibited.'

Hence, thinking people in past centuries realized that the Biblical law applied to taking blood into the veins just as it did to taking it into the mouth. Bartholin concluded: "Either manner of taking [blood] accords with one and the same purpose, that by this blood a sick body be nourished or restored."

This overview may help you to understand the nonnegotiable religious stand that Jehovah's Witnesses take. They highly value life, and they seek good medical care. But they are determined not to violate God's standard, which has been consistent: Those who respect life as a gift from the Creator do not try to sustain life by taking in blood.

Still, for years claims have been made that blood saves lives. Doctors can relate cases in which someone had acute blood loss but was transfused and then improved rapidly. So you may wonder, 'How wise or unwise is this medically?' Medical evidence is offered to support blood therapy. Thus, you owe it to yourself to get the facts in order to make an informed choice about blood."

next time, read before you post... it'll save you a lot of grief, my friend...
Source Article

I read the post. And I still don't understand. It still only talks about eating blood. I think you must understand my point. You argue the merits of blood transfusions which is fine. I was just letting you know the context of Acts 15:20.

 

[bandana163]

Even though the OP has a point, starting a thread like this will most likely (almost always) turn into people trying to force their opinions on others and some extremists voicing their immense stupidity.

IMO, having more faith in an idealistic figure created by other human beings than in yourself makes life pointless. Not visiting history classes at school and turning a blind eye on the facts isn't very smart, either. Debating over things no one can have a clue about (like the supposedly existing afterlife) is devoid of any meaning as well.
Just my two cents.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight

Originally posted by: MySoS
Get real. Look at the Middle East, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Northern Ireland, and countless others all conflicts who roots are religion. Religion is a plague that has swept the world for too long. You know at first I wasn't going to show my true opinion on religion but after reading this read I just can't help my self any more.

Call me intolerant I don't care, but I for one support banning religious teaching to children. It should be illegal for a child to go to church, temple, mosque. The spread of religion needs to be stopped, and this should be the first step with the children.

Its the people in power who start wars. I can tell they don't do it for religion or do it for god; they do it for power. They can give a fsck for religion. If it can be a tool to incite war, then so be it. If they can't use religion to start a war, then they will use something else.

Bingo. You are exactly right, CaptainGoodnight. No person who truly believed in God would ever start a war for any reason. He may rightly defend himself from those who have already attacked him, but he would never actually start or incite the war.

To not know that, MySOS, simply demonstrates that you are yet another idiot who would ban a book he had never read. And every good thing can be used for evil. Fire can burn down houses and take lives, would you ban all fire too, even though it also saves lives by heating people's homes in the winter? :roll:

Regardless, as I posted earlier, the OP was discussing individual faith, NOT organized religion. They are two very different things. I'm not a very big fan of organized religion myself, but I'm not such a petty, immature person that I would seek to force people from their beliefs simply because it doesn't meet my tyrannical views of what the world should be like. You show what evil person you are, MySoS, when you proclaim you would tear children from the parents if you could. I, for one, am glad in the knowledge that you will never have such power.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Vaerilis
Even though the OP has a point, starting a thread like this will most likely (almost always) turn into people trying to force their opinions on others and some extremists voicing their immense stupidity.

IMO, having more faith in an idealistic figure created by other human beings than in yourself makes life pointless. Not visiting history classes at school and turning a blind eye on the facts isn't very smart, either. Debating over things no one can have a clue about (like the supposedly existing afterlife) is devoid of any meaning as well.
Just my two cents.

Lemme guess, the OP's trollish insults on people with faith (which is > 90% of the world population btw) is entirely justified ("he has a point"), but when those people with faith seek to defend themselves against his unfounded insults, they are "trying to force their opinions on others"? :roll::roll::roll:

If you weren't such a hyprocrite, you probably wouldn't have such a crisis of faith.

 

[PlatinumGold]

my 3 cents now that the thread is pretty much dead.


there are several arguments against christianity.

1. look at the "christians"

2. look at what "christians" have done (Inquisition, Crusades etc).

3. look at how many different belief systems there are.

4. Belief in "god" is a crutch.

those criticisms have a legitimate place and christians would be wise to take note of them.

my response is somewhat of a copout.

1, 2 and 4 are primarily because the people responsible for those acts weren't christians. that they were using gods name in vain.

3. different belief systems to me is neither an argument for or against god. If the existence of superior supreme being is postulated than it only makes sense that all who come in contact with this vastly superior being have different experiences and interpretations, eg. 5 blind men and the elephant. . . .


Here is what i believe.

a revelation to god is rare. very few people ever attain it. most people get sidetracked onto the idea that they have to SHOW that they have achieved this ideal. and often only work at the symptoms and never get to the cause.

the church is an organization that claims to be able to distinguish between "christians" and "nonchristians". that's nonsense. they have it backwards. you don't get to god because you performs acts or go thru a series of rituals etc. God reveals. we encounter this supreme being and that encounter changes who we are.

at some point in history, this encounter took on social status and as such, many attempted to duplicate it or immitate it because of the status it bestowed on the person.

 

[oog]

Originally posted by: Vic
Also, I would point out that Paul did not say that money is the root of all evil. That is a common misquotation. He said that "the love of money is the root of all evil". (1 Timothy 6:10)

if he said "the love of money is the root of all evil", isn't it true that he also said "... money is the root of all evil"? 🙂

 

[MySoS]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight

Originally posted by: MySoS
Get real. Look at the Middle East, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Northern Ireland, and countless others all conflicts who roots are religion. Religion is a plague that has swept the world for too long. You know at first I wasn't going to show my true opinion on religion but after reading this read I just can't help my self any more.

Call me intolerant I don't care, but I for one support banning religious teaching to children. It should be illegal for a child to go to church, temple, mosque. The spread of religion needs to be stopped, and this should be the first step with the children.

Its the people in power who start wars. I can tell they don't do it for religion or do it for god; they do it for power. They can give a fsck for religion. If it can be a tool to incite war, then so be it. If they can't use religion to start a war, then they will use something else.

Bingo. You are exactly right, CaptainGoodnight. No person who truly believed in God would ever start a war for any reason. He may rightly defend himself from those who have already attacked him, but he would never actually start or incite the war.

To not know that, MySOS, simply demonstrates that you are yet another idiot who would ban a book he had never read. And every good thing can be used for evil. Fire can burn down houses and take lives, would you ban all fire too, even though it also saves lives by heating people's homes in the winter? :roll:

Regardless, as I posted earlier, the OP was discussing individual faith, NOT organized religion. They are two very different things. I'm not a very big fan of organized religion myself, but I'm not such a petty, immature person that I would seek to force people from their beliefs simply because it doesn't meet my tyrannical views of what the world should be like. You show what evil person you are, MySoS, when you proclaim you would tear children from the parents if you could. I, for one, am glad in the knowledge that you will never have such power.

Evil because I want to rid of the world of a disease, hardly.
And yes Xtianity, Islam, Judaism, ect are all diseases.

I have read many parts of the bible, I link I gave has the bible. I just read the bible with some athiest side notes.

This is the bible with some side notes, and I read this all the time. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: oog

Originally posted by: Vic
Also, I would point out that Paul did not say that money is the root of all evil. That is a common misquotation. He said that "the love of money is the root of all evil". (1 Timothy 6:10)

if he said "the love of money is the root of all evil", isn't it true that he also said "... money is the root of all evil"? 🙂

But money is not the root of all evil. Quite the contrary, it's one of the best things that we as humans ever invented. Because without it we would not have an effective and fair medium of exchange, and war would be even more frequent.
No, it is the love of money. A common god that was worshipped in ancient times was called mammon, and was the worship of acquiring wealth simply for the sake of being rich while making others poor. Still a common god today IMO.

And faith is not a disease, nor is reading the heavily biased skeptics' annotated bible considered actually reading the Bible. You may wish to burn history for your own selfish teenage angst, but I outgrew that long ago.
And what you want is evil because it is absolutely no different than what you accuse the religious fundies of doing, O hyprocrite. You want to force people into believing what you want them to believe, whether they wish it or not, simply because you believe that for them to believe anything else is "evil". Whether you see it or not, you are no different than "them".

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Originally posted by: MySoS

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight

Originally posted by: MySoS
Get real. Look at the Middle East, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Northern Ireland, and countless others all conflicts who roots are religion. Religion is a plague that has swept the world for too long. You know at first I wasn't going to show my true opinion on religion but after reading this read I just can't help my self any more.

Call me intolerant I don't care, but I for one support banning religious teaching to children. It should be illegal for a child to go to church, temple, mosque. The spread of religion needs to be stopped, and this should be the first step with the children.

Its the people in power who start wars. I can tell they don't do it for religion or do it for god; they do it for power. They can give a fsck for religion. If it can be a tool to incite war, then so be it. If they can't use religion to start a war, then they will use something else.

Bingo. You are exactly right, CaptainGoodnight. No person who truly believed in God would ever start a war for any reason. He may rightly defend himself from those who have already attacked him, but he would never actually start or incite the war.

To not know that, MySOS, simply demonstrates that you are yet another idiot who would ban a book he had never read. And every good thing can be used for evil. Fire can burn down houses and take lives, would you ban all fire too, even though it also saves lives by heating people's homes in the winter? :roll:

Regardless, as I posted earlier, the OP was discussing individual faith, NOT organized religion. They are two very different things. I'm not a very big fan of organized religion myself, but I'm not such a petty, immature person that I would seek to force people from their beliefs simply because it doesn't meet my tyrannical views of what the world should be like. You show what evil person you are, MySoS, when you proclaim you would tear children from the parents if you could. I, for one, am glad in the knowledge that you will never have such power.

This is the bible with some side notes, and I read this all the time. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

I can't even comprehend why you would use such a source. If I was an athesist I would be embrassed to cite it. There are FAR better sources for understanding the bible from all points of view.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Originally posted by: MySoS
Evil because I want to rid of the world of a disease, hardly.
And yes Xtianity, Islam, Judaism, ect are all diseases.

How does that make you any different from other religions then? All religions claim to have some inside scoop on "The Truth". Your "Truth" is god does not exist. Don't try to convert me.

Edit: Just wondering, how would you rid the world of this disease?

 

[Machine350]

How can the love of God shine through you when you call those who don't believe, idiots? Were you not an idiot before believing?
Jhn 13:35 By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

🙂 Just a word of encouragement for the brothers in the room.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Topic Title: Why do weak people always turn to God?
Topic Summary: Seems that in times of need...man looks to the skies...

Just ask the 50.9% of the Country that voted W in back in November, that's a lot of people to get an answer from.

more like 30% or less.. since like half of voters dont vote.

 

[MySoS]

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight

Originally posted by: MySoS

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight

Originally posted by: MySoS
Get real. Look at the Middle East, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Northern Ireland, and countless others all conflicts who roots are religion. Religion is a plague that has swept the world for too long. You know at first I wasn't going to show my true opinion on religion but after reading this read I just can't help my self any more.

Call me intolerant I don't care, but I for one support banning religious teaching to children. It should be illegal for a child to go to church, temple, mosque. The spread of religion needs to be stopped, and this should be the first step with the children.

Its the people in power who start wars. I can tell they don't do it for religion or do it for god; they do it for power. They can give a fsck for religion. If it can be a tool to incite war, then so be it. If they can't use religion to start a war, then they will use something else.

Bingo. You are exactly right, CaptainGoodnight. No person who truly believed in God would ever start a war for any reason. He may rightly defend himself from those who have already attacked him, but he would never actually start or incite the war.

To not know that, MySOS, simply demonstrates that you are yet another idiot who would ban a book he had never read. And every good thing can be used for evil. Fire can burn down houses and take lives, would you ban all fire too, even though it also saves lives by heating people's homes in the winter? :roll:

Regardless, as I posted earlier, the OP was discussing individual faith, NOT organized religion. They are two very different things. I'm not a very big fan of organized religion myself, but I'm not such a petty, immature person that I would seek to force people from their beliefs simply because it doesn't meet my tyrannical views of what the world should be like. You show what evil person you are, MySoS, when you proclaim you would tear children from the parents if you could. I, for one, am glad in the knowledge that you will never have such power.

This is the bible with some side notes, and I read this all the time. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

I can't even comprehend why you would use such a source. If I was an athesist I would be embrassed to cite it. There are FAR better sources for understanding the bible from all points of view.

What is wrong with the site I posted, you assume it is biased and flawed because it an athiest site. I find it funny how christians often call this site an Anti-Christian hate site for no reason. You might not have said it, but a lot of christians I know do when I show it to them. Sad really.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight

Originally posted by: MySoS
Evil because I want to rid of the world of a disease, hardly.
And yes Xtianity, Islam, Judaism, ect are all diseases.

How does that make you any different from other religions then? All religions claim to have some inside scoop on "The Truth". Your "Truth" is god does not exist. Don't try to convert me.

:thumbsup:

 

[ebene]

Originally posted by: Jero

Originally posted by: MySoS
Really god is a bunch of crap. There is no god, and people need to wake up and see that.

must resist calling you an idiot.....

I'll do that for you....

MySoS, you're an idiot.

 

[MySoS]

Originally posted by: ebene

Originally posted by: Jero

Originally posted by: MySoS
Really god is a bunch of crap. There is no god, and people need to wake up and see that.

must resist calling you an idiot.....

I'll do that for you....

MySoS, you're an idiot.

No an idiot is someone who think the Big Insidious Book of Lies and Errors (aka the BIBLE) is accurate.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: MySoS

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight

Originally posted by: MySoS

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight

Originally posted by: MySoS
Get real. Look at the Middle East, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Northern Ireland, and countless others all conflicts who roots are religion. Religion is a plague that has swept the world for too long. You know at first I wasn't going to show my true opinion on religion but after reading this read I just can't help my self any more.

Call me intolerant I don't care, but I for one support banning religious teaching to children. It should be illegal for a child to go to church, temple, mosque. The spread of religion needs to be stopped, and this should be the first step with the children.

Its the people in power who start wars. I can tell they don't do it for religion or do it for god; they do it for power. They can give a fsck for religion. If it can be a tool to incite war, then so be it. If they can't use religion to start a war, then they will use something else.

Bingo. You are exactly right, CaptainGoodnight. No person who truly believed in God would ever start a war for any reason. He may rightly defend himself from those who have already attacked him, but he would never actually start or incite the war.

To not know that, MySOS, simply demonstrates that you are yet another idiot who would ban a book he had never read. And every good thing can be used for evil. Fire can burn down houses and take lives, would you ban all fire too, even though it also saves lives by heating people's homes in the winter? :roll:

Regardless, as I posted earlier, the OP was discussing individual faith, NOT organized religion. They are two very different things. I'm not a very big fan of organized religion myself, but I'm not such a petty, immature person that I would seek to force people from their beliefs simply because it doesn't meet my tyrannical views of what the world should be like. You show what evil person you are, MySoS, when you proclaim you would tear children from the parents if you could. I, for one, am glad in the knowledge that you will never have such power.

This is the bible with some side notes, and I read this all the time. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

I can't even comprehend why you would use such a source. If I was an athesist I would be embrassed to cite it. There are FAR better sources for understanding the bible from all points of view.

What is wrong with the site I posted, you assume it is biased and flawed because it an athiest site. I find it funny how christians often call this site an Anti-Christian hate site for no reason. You might not have said it, but a lot of christians I know do when I show it to them. Sad really.

he needs info from an apologist site🙂

 

[Attrox]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: oog

Originally posted by: Vic
Also, I would point out that Paul did not say that money is the root of all evil. That is a common misquotation. He said that "the love of money is the root of all evil". (1 Timothy 6:10)

if he said "the love of money is the root of all evil", isn't it true that he also said "... money is the root of all evil"? 🙂

But money is not the root of all evil. Quite the contrary, it's one of the best things that we as humans ever invented. Because without it we would not have an effective and fair medium of exchange, and war would be even more frequent.
No, it is the love of money. A common god that was worshipped in ancient times was called mammon, and was the worship of acquiring wealth simply for the sake of being rich while making others poor. Still a common god today IMO.

And faith is not a disease, nor is reading the heavily biased skeptics' annotated bible considered actually reading the Bible. You may wish to burn history for your own selfish teenage angst, but I outgrew that long ago.
And what you want is evil because it is absolutely no different than what you accuse the religious fundies of doing, O hyprocrite. You want to force people into believing what you want them to believe, whether they wish it or not, simply because you believe that for them to believe anything else is "evil". Whether you see it or not, you are no different than "them".

Rather than continue debating, I'll show you a proof that woman is evil.

For a guy, a woman/gf means he has to invest time for her and also his money on her.
We also know that time is money.
From this we have:
woman = time x money
time = money
thus woman = money^2

We also hear the saying that money is the root of all evil ---> money = squareroot(evil)
Therefore:
woman = money^2
= (squareroot(evil))^2
woman = evil

Thus we have a mathematical proof that woman is evil 😀

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MySoS
No an idiot is someone who think the Big Insidious Book of Lies and Errors (aka the BIBLE) is accurate.

From a historical and archeological standpoint (i.e. non religious), the Bible has never been proven inaccurate.

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
he needs info from an apologist site🙂

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ is NOT an apologist site? 😕
It really ain't just a river in Egypt.

Originally posted by: Attrox
Rather than continue debating, I'll show you a proof that woman is evil.

For a guy, a woman/gf means he has to invest time for her and also his money on her.
We also know that time is money.
From this we have:
woman = time x money
time = money
thus woman = money^2

We also hear the saying that money is the root of all evil ---> money = squareroot(evil)
Therefore:
woman = money^2
= (squareroot(evil))^2
woman = evil

Thus we have a mathematical proof that woman is evil 😀

😀

:beer:

 

[Waylay00]

The problem with you atheists who say "I have never seen God perform miracles or whatnot" is that you don't realize those miracles when they happen. He creates those miracles through what he has created - inparticularly, us. Also, you shouldn't take the Bible in a literal sense, or any religious scripture for that matter. The Bible is not Historie, it is Geschichte. Historie is the German word for History, the details of the past. Geschichte is another German word for history. However this one means history - the MEANING of past events. That's the problem with some of you people. You take what the Bible says too literally.

 

Why do smart people always turn to booze?