Now tell me this isn't evil. (1 Viewer)

[greekgun]

Ive read most of it, and i regret it - its a complete waste of memory.

 

[Iron]

But HOW?!
It's hardly something best read from cover to cover

 

[Iron]

I've read all of the NT, and most of the important books of the OT.

arHA

 

[Iron]

Imo most people claim to have read most of the bible, but what they mean is not this thing

 

[Kwayera]

But HOW?!
It's hardly something best read from cover to cover

You don't - I pick it up and choose a book at random at a time. Half the reason I haven't read the whole thing yet is because it's both mostly boring and extremely horrifying

 

[derekch]

Lol I find it hard to believe that you guys have read it.
I certainly havent read much of the OT, beyond the greatest hits and getting a jist of the controversial bits

I get you. The OT was the more boring part of the bible. The new testament was exciting because we get to see Jesus. I prefer reading the new testament because Jesus taught more love than to hate and condemn where the OT is filled with such. That being said, I did read the OT. Most of the controversial bits in the old testament was due to the tradition and practice that was applied to the people at that period of time, so that why we don't see modern Christians applying the rules of the OT (which of course was never meant for our generation).

EDIT: Then again, if a christian who doesn't really understand how the scriptures work, they will just look at a verse and jump at a conclusion like "a huh! The bible says that, and so that is final!" Of course that's stupid because they didn't see some verses like this: "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27),

Also "But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:12)

Omg, ive been eating prawns (its a shellfish)... its an abomination! of course the word abomination has been widely misused.

 

[tommykins]

itt:theists find it hard to believe agnostics have read the bible and are unable to see their interpretations of it.

ps. i havent read the bible :]

And it will save your life if you read it properly.

once you get into yr 12 you'll learn something called 'Theory of Relativity' - try to apply it to every day life.

'properly' is a relative term.

 

[byrnekei]

so ur saying that if someone doesnt have emotions and feelings they r not human? that is a truly disgusting line of view, if a disabled person doesnt have the mental capabilities to have emotions then u dont consider them human? wat about someone who is braindead, or in a vegetative? they have both a brain and a heartbeat, they r also r incapable of emotions and feelings, yet they r still human. ur argument is inherently flawed and illogical

 

[Kwayera]

so ur saying that if someone doesnt have emotions and feelings they r not human? that is a truly disgusting line of view, if a disabled person doesnt have the mental capabilities to have emotions then u dont consider them human? wat about someone who is braindead, or in a vegetative? they have both a brain and a heartbeat, they r also r incapable of emotions and feelings, yet they r still human. ur argument is inherently flawed and illogical

Not necessarily. There's a school of thought that humanity comes with sentience, or consciousness; a "braindead" person or indeed a foetus may be a member of Homo sapiens sapiens, but that doesn't make them "human".

 

[Iron]

vote kwayera to incinerate the mentally disabled

 

[Kwayera]

It's why I'm not against humane euthanasia of the irrecovably braindead. *shrug*

 

[Iron]

But mine brain ist fine-unt-dandy mine fuhrer?
JEW

 

[moll.]

so ur saying that if someone doesnt have emotions and feelings they r not human? that is a truly disgusting line of view, if a disabled person doesnt have the mental capabilities to have emotions then u dont consider them human? wat about someone who is braindead, or in a vegetative? they have both a brain and a heartbeat, they r also r incapable of emotions and feelings, yet they r still human. ur argument is inherently flawed and illogical

No it isn't.
We need some method of distinguishing ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom. What is it that makes our 'humanity'?
A lot of people logically say that it is our emotions and ability to empathise.
Others (mostly theists) say that it is the existance of something non-temperal within our person, such as a soul.
Still others say it is simply our ability for higher consciousness and intellect.
None of these is inherently wrong, nor inherently right.

 

[moll.]

And it will save your life if you read it properly.

No it won't. We'll still die, whether we read the Bible or not.
It won't even save our afterlife. It'll just make it more comfortable.

 

[Guesss]

I think that the stepfather should be excommunicated, better still tortured!!

I mean afterall not onli did he mess up this 9 yo girls life but he got theh whole family excommunicated.

To the point... i am against most abortions with exception to this case and those similar.

Its not her fault she got raped therefore y should she have 2 suffer... seriously she's only a baby herself, how would she be capable of caring for one baby let alone twins.

Ohh and u'd think the church would be standing by this poor unfortunate girl and her family, i mean seriously who does this guy think he is excommunicating the girl n her family.... God will judge us wen we die...not just some person who is no better than anyone else on this forum!

 

[Smile_Time351]

From a physical point of view, the only thing separating human beings from the animal kingdom is their ability to empathise, a faculty we in fact share with one other species, the bonobo, a primate that does have the capacity for altruism. There is no other separating difference, tell me that there's an omni-benevolent god that blessed us with a soul, I don't care, you might as well tell me the sky is red (I'm just as inclined to believe it), thus it is this fact that should be the distinguishing factor when determining the legality (or otherwise) of abortions. As a fetus does not possess this crititcal mental faculty, they are not, for lack of a better term "human". I would thus like to put to this forum that life begins at birth, and thus abortions should be legal.

Furthermore, I find it infuriating that these no-life good-for-nothing wankers have the temerity to try and run someone else's life when they are totally unaware of the implications of their judgments. If someone holds a belief, and it is against the belief of that person to abort a baby, that's fine- as long as they don't push that belief on to someone else! The fact is- as previously mentioned- a consenting mother has every right to do whatever she wishes WITH HER BODY!

 

[Kwayera]

From a physical point of view, the only thing separating human beings from the animal kingdom is their ability to empathise, a faculty we in fact share with one other species, the bonobo, a primate that does have the capacity for altruism.

Tchah. That's not strictly true. Many intelligent animals display true (not reciprocal) altriusm, including a few other primates, some cetaceans, and others.

One might argue that the true separating factor is self-awareness, or sentience, but that too is shared with other animals.

 

[moll.]

A few other things which we may or may not share with the animals:
Opposable thumbs.
Imagination.
Complex communacition ability.

 

[Kwayera]

A few other things which we may or may not share with the animals:
Opposable thumbs.
Imagination.
Complex communacition ability.

Frogs.
Caledonian crows.
Cetaceans.

 

[moll.]

Crows have an imagination?
I'm calling bullshit.