God does NOT exist! (Part 2)

Well it isn't as I demonstrated earlier in this thread.

 

Right you believe the bible to be a 100% correct good for you, that doesn't answer how you know the flooding mentioned by the Babylonians is the same as that mention in the bible, so once again since you failed to answer (this seems to be a habit of yours):

 

How do you determine they are talking about the same flood.

 

Case in point Grahame, Sheffield has been more than once before, take for example flood of Sheffield in 1864 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sheffield_Flood, and the recent flooding, given news articles of both of them, are we assume they are both the same flood as you have done with the Bible Flood story and that of the Babylonians? No of course you wouldn't.

 

So again how do you know they are talking about the same flood.

 

There was a flood for goodness sake. And the Bible recorded it. What more do you want. I am getting tired of you and your bullying. Just go away please and learn to accept defeat.

 

.

There was a flood for goodness sake. And the Bible recorded it. What more do you want. I am getting tired of you and your bullying. Just go away please and learn to accept defeat.

 

.

 

What more do I want? I want you to answer a question about what you raised:

 

How do you determine they are talking about the same flood.

 

Case in point Grahame, Sheffield has been more than once before, take for example flood of Sheffield in 1864 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sheffield_Flood, and the recent flooding, given news articles of both of them, are we assume they are both the same flood as you have done with the Bible Flood story and that of the Babylonians? No of course you wouldn't.

 

So again how do you know they are talking about the same flood.

 

Or put simply since you seem unable to fathom anything over a paragraph long:

 

How do you know the bible and the Babylonians are talking about the same flood, and not two separate events.

Also while I am at:

 

I want you to name at least 1 of all the atheists that voted against abolition.

I also want a source from antiquity that shows Herod issues a census.

 

But since I know you can't provide any of these as there isn't any, and you are to hard headed to admit when you are wrong. I guess it would be asking for too much

Also while I am at:

 

I want you to name at least 1 of all the atheists that voted against abolition.

I also want a source from antiquity that shows Herod issues a census.

 

But since I know you can't provide any of these as there isn't any, and you are to hard headed to admit when you are wrong. I guess it would be asking for too much

 

Yhvh ordained slavery in the Bible. Therefore, criticism of slavery is criticism of Yhvh, which is blasphemy, and may even be atheism!

 

That’s the basic argument xtians used against abolitionists before the American Civil War. The “Abolitionism is atheism” claim gained prominence among the clergy—particularly in New England—in the 1830s. For example, Episcopal clergyman Calvin Colton collected anti-abolition arguments in an 1839 book, 'Abolition, a Sedition'.

 

R.H. Rivers, professor of moral philosophy at Wesleyan College, Alabama, claimed in an 1860 book, Elements of Moral Philosophy, that his god established slavery. He wrote: “We maintain that God’s law is always right, and that whatever God established is right, not because he established it, but we maintain that God established it because he saw that it is right.” Rivers declared, “no one should place conscience above God, or above his law . . . [man does not have a] higher law in his moral nature which is above God’s revealed law.”

 

Bishop Stephen Elliott of Georgia claimed in an 1862 sermon that the American Revolution had laid down principles contrary to biblical revelation:

 

Carried away by our opposition to monarchy and an established Church, we declared war against all authority and against all form. The reason of man was exalted to an impious degree and in the face not only of experience, but of the revealed word of God, all men were declared equal, and man was pronounced capable of self-government.

 

Elliott demanded a theocracy because “subordination rules supreme in heaven and must rule supreme on earth.” He claimed Boston was the source of “every accursed heresy” from false clergy and that Southern clergy had “never corrupted the gospel of Christ” by claiming a “higher law.” He helped write an 1862 pastoral letter for the General Council of the Confederate Protestant Episcopal Church that described abolitionism as a “hateful infidel pestilence.”

 

One prominent Southern Methodist, August B. Longstreet of Georgia, called abolitionism “one of the most frightful, disgusting monsters that ever reared its head among a Christian people.” Another Methodist, Whitefoord Smith, told the General Assembly in South Carolina that abolitionists abandoned Christianity for a “higher law” that succumbed to “the doctrines of devils.” In 1861, the North Carolina Christian Advocate blamed the impending war on “‘the demon spirit of abolitionism.’ Southern Methodists had ‘tested it fully, and found it to be heartless, inhuman and Christless.’”

 

One of the most widely reprinted demands for secession was a November 29, 1860, sermon at the First Presbyterian Church in New Orleans, Louisiana, when the Reverend Benjamin Morgan Palmer declared it a duty to defend slavery. He criticized abolitionist ideas, then:

 

Last of all, in this great struggle, we defend the cause of God and Religion. The Abolition spirit is undeniably atheistic. The demon which erected its throne upon the guillotine in the days of Robespierre and Marat, which abolished the Sabbath and worshipped reason in the person of a harlot, yet survives to work other horrors, of which those of the French Revolution are but the type. Among a people so generally religious as the American, a disguise must be worn; but it is the same old threadbare disguise of the advocacy of human rights. From a thousand Jacobin Clubs here, as in France, the decree has gone forth which strikes at God by striking at all subordination and law. . . . This spirit of atheism, which knows no God who tolerates evil, no Bible which sanctions law, and no conscience that can be bound by oaths and covenants, has selected us for its victims, and slavery for its issue. Its banner-cry rings out already upon the air: “liberty, equality, fraternity,” which simply interpreted, means bondage, confiscation, and massacre. With its tricolor waving in the breeze—it waits to inaugurate its reign of terror. To the South the high position is assigned of defending, before all nations, the cause of all religions and of all truths. In this trust, we are resisting the power which wars against constitutions and laws and compacts, against Sabbaths and sanctuaries, against the family, the state, and the church, which blasphemously invades the prerogatives of God, and rebukes the Most High for the errors of his administration. . . .

 

In the 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist,” James Henry Hammond—a U.S. representative, a U.S. senator, and South Carolina governor—offered standard Bible-based defenses of slavery. He blamed abolitionism on:

 

a transcendental religion . . . a religion too pure and elevated for the Bible; which seeks to erect among men a higher standard of morals than the Almighty has revealed, or our Saviour preached; and which is probably destined to do more to impede the extension of God’s kingdom on earth than all the infidels who have ever lived. Error is error.

 

Hammond concluded:

 

And to sum up all, if pleasure is correctly defined to be the absence of pain—which, so far as the great body of mankind is concerned, is undoubtedly its true definition—I believe our slaves are the happiest three millions of human beings on whom the sun shines. Into their Eden is coming Satan in the disguise of an abolitionist.

 

Although xtians were among the critics of slavery, so were many deists or Unitarians;atheists in xtian eyes, such as Benjamin Franklin, Tom Paine, and John Adams. Nineteenth-century abolitionists like Abraham Lincoln and Robert Ingersoll were also considered to be atheists.

 

This all seems to be at odds with Grahame's assertion here: 13-05-2009,

 

13:36 #1588

Grahame

Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2005

Total Posts: 11,522

plekhanov is telling lies. Slaves or more properly servants in the Bible were free to go after six years; they were cared for and given shelter and food in return for work. They became part of the family and often chose to stay with the family even when they were free to go.

 

Compare that to Roman and Egyptian slaves and it is a different story altogether. Remember when the Egyptians held the Israelites they would not let them go, giving rise to the well known song, "Let My People Go." Not only that but if someone in the Bible ill-treated a slave it was the master who was punished. Bible slaves were well looked after and protected and their lifestyle can in no way be compared to modern slavery which Christians stopped while it was the non-Christian atheists who argued to keep people in enslavement.

 

I am disgusted by the constant perverting of the truth, the insults to the Bible and Christianity and their defence of a drug taking promiscuous lifestyle and that is why I am out of here.

 

That the opposition to abolition was scripturally justified has repeatedly been pointed out to Grahame. The anti-abolitionist movement may ultimately have been rooted in greed, indifference and convenience, but the bible was used to support it, and righteous, god-fearing xtians felt justified in keeping slaves and defending slavery.

 

The opposition to slavery comprised a coalition of the enlightened religious and enlightened irreligious. To continue to say otherwise, in the face of overwhelming evidence, is either to brazenly lie, or to be too stubborn/dim to appreciate the truth. Or too insecure to admit to being wrong.

didn't have time to add all the links i wanted to. May add more tomorrow.

 

Also: more of Grahame's lies exposed tomorrow.

 

Night all!

 

The truth of the matter is that you are comparing something akin to the treatment of Japanese prisoners of war who died in their thousands which is like modern day slavery, with the type of lifestyle similar to the life of an Edwardian servant which was enjoyed by those in the Old Testament who were protected by law and were well provided for, they were treated like members of the family and they were cared for in their old age.

 

.

Flamming Jimmy Looks like the thread got closed - so I can't reply to your post.

 

I did read you right and with interest, and wasn't refering to athiesm per se, just a type of rational critical and inflexible thinking, not wanting to thrash it out with you, just making it clear that I did understand where you were coming from with that.

Flamming Jimmy

Is that a typo or are you calling me a liar? (not an accusation an honest enquiry)

 

I did read you right and with interest, and wasn't refering to athiesm per se, just a type of rational critical and inflexible thinking, not wanting to thrash it out with you, just making it clear that I did understand where you were coming from with that.

Oh right, you mean you think it's a bad thing to teach kids to think rationally and critically? Because, IMO, that's one of the greatest things my parents did for me. What's the alternative? teach them to accept whatever they're told by people with any kind of authority? Or just hope that they'll learn to question things by themselves?

 

And secondly, I do not agree that my way of thinking is inflexible, I'm not just gonna let that slip through the net. Thinking with a scientific mind is the absolute opposite of inflexible. You have to change your perceptions of reality to fit in the evidence. Not so scientific minds such as Grahame's do the opposite and change their perception of the evidence to fit in with their version of reality.

 

See just above your post for an example.

Edited May 18, 2009 by flamingjimmy

The truth of the matter is that you are comparing something akin to the treatment of Japanese prisoners of war who died in their thousands which is like modern day slavery, with the type of lifestyle similar to the life of an Edwardian servant which was enjoyed by those in the Old Testament who were protected by law and were well provided for, they were treated like members of the family and they were cared for in their old age.

 

.

The truth of the matter is you are avoiding dealing with the point i've made, again!

 

This is something you do a lot. I'm left wondering whether it's deliberate, in which case you're being dishonest, or unintentional, in which case you don't have the intellect to defend your position.

 

Here again, for the hard of thinking: you claimed that abolition was an exclusively xtian movement and that the opposition to it was exclusively atheist. I have repeatedly demonstrated that there was significant xtian, scriptural-based opposition to abolition.

 

Are we on the same hymn-sheet now? Do you undersand what positions of yours i'm challenging?

Edited May 18, 2009 by EbonyBranch

The truth of the matter is you are avoiding dealing with the point i've made, again!

 

This is something you do a lot. I'm left wondering whether it's deliberate, in which case you're being dishonest, or unintentional, in which case you don't have the intellect to defend your position.

 

Here again, for the hard of thinking: you claimed that abolition was an exclusively xtian movement and that the opposition to it was exclusively atheist. I have repeatedly demonstrated that there was significant xtian, scriptural-based opposition to abolition.

 

Are we on the same hymn-sheet now? Do you undersand what positions of yours i'm challenging?

 

You are talking about the fakes and imposters who were phony and who falsified scripture.

 

.

You are talking about the fakes and imposters who were phony and who falsified scripture.

 

You are in error yet again, Grahame.

 

John Newton, the man who wrote "Amazing Grace" was famously a slave trader whose conversion made a huge difference in the treatment of slaves, and great steps toward the abolition of slavery.

 

was he a phony?

You are in error yet again, Grahame.

 

John Newton, the man who wrote "Amazing Grace" was famously a slave trader whose conversion made a huge difference in the treatment of slaves, and great steps toward the abolition of slavery.

 

was he a phony?

 

So before his conversion he was a slave trader and then when he became a Christian he worked for the welfare of the slaves and their eventual freedom.

 

I would say that is exactly what Christianity is about and if what you say is true then he was a wonderful shining example of Christianity and I thank you for the information.

 

.