Are there bigger HYPOCRITES on this planet then atheists???

reply to post by milominderbinder

I personally think that it's as simple as they repeat what they are told to repeat.

Think about it...a lot of these people go to a great big building once a week (sometimes more than that) and chant their "beliefs" in unison with quite literally ALL of their friends and family. Thus, any dissent from the "party line" and you run the risk of being somewhat ostracized from everyone you know. That's a powerful tool in getting people to simply disavow thinking for themselves.

Witchcraft, plain and simple. You see it all throughout the occult history. Rituals, hymns, mantras, prayers, sacred tools like cups and scepters, statues and symbols, obeisance to higher forces and cannibalistic rites.

They refuse to see it that way, but the facts are, you can build a rock-solid case out of the modern Christian and Catholic practices having their roots in what they call "witchcraft". The difference, in their minds, is defined purely by who they give their spiritual allegiance to.

The hypocrisy is sickening. Atheists, hypocrites? Certainly - they're only human, after all. But they couldn't hold a candle to the blazing inferno that's called Judaism. And that's the pure and simple truth.

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by rtyfx
You mock because you have nothing more constructive to say.

You could be a true Christian and provide quotes from the Bible to back up your belief that you have the right to judge atheists. Instead you call into question quotes posted by others and claim they're out of context and that we don't understand them. If that is the case then explain them to us quote by quote.

This isn't a competition. It isn't a game to see who gets in the last clever jibe. Discuss the issue like adults, like true Christians would.

edit on 10/15/2012 by rtyfx because: (no reason given)

HA! In borntowatch's defense I would assert that he is discussing it just like a "true christian" would. With a whole of overly generalized blanket statements that cannot be backed up by the religious text which he has not ever read...or at the very best by picking and choosing the passages he wishes to pay attention to and ignoring the one's that conflict with whatever it is he wishes "god said" about things today.

I've never met a christian who has been able to do anything more.

Ha, talk about discussing things like a true atheist, a cut and past menagerie without any proof or explanation of how you come to your comprehension of your understandings explaining what the text states.
You are kidding yourself if you think you understand any of those statements.
Thats quote mining

You picked and chose passages out of context to justify your position.
This is the internet...search...you dont care so why should I bother.

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by borntowatch
I never called atheism a seething pit of hypocrisy

Understand just that one simple point, I just posed a question.

A simple yes, no or maybe would have been sufficient, rather than the hissy fit fest we have here

Really? So you were just looking for a one word answer without any supporting evidence? Why didn't you just specify that it was only a poll then and you were not interested in anybody's rationale?

You know what I think? I think you are just a little irked that I ACTUALLY supplied you with hundreds biblical passages which illustrate just how immensely hypocritical christians are and that this makes you uncomfortable.

How come both you and truejew were BOTH demanding that everyone back up their assertions about christianity w/ "scripture" in this thread...right up until somebody actually did back it up with scripture?? Why were you so eager to cite your own sources when you still thought that a Shinto was a Buddhist...but now state that you just wanted "yes and no" answers?

As soon as the "scripture" disagreed with what you WISHED it stated instead of what it ACTUALLY states you all of a sudden "don't have time to read through all that" and revert to just overly generalized blanket statements like "you don't understand the context" which are wholly and completely unsubstantiated by anything other than your opinion. What gives?

When other people did the same exact thing...you kept demanding to "see the Scripture". Isn't it kind of hypocritical/b] to alternately demand Scripture then refuse to acknowledge it based solely upon what is convenient for you? What's wrong? Are you disappointed that somebody actually took the time to do it and call you out on it?

Another hissy fit
You quote mine scripture out of context, its a
cut and paste job from some fundamentalist atheist rant site and tell me its accurate, you cant be that silly, you cant believe all those one paragraph texts stand alone
Surely?

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Morals come from society...not religion

That's why killing is wrong in the US, and it's also wrong in countries that aren't Christian...

What a nonsense thread...

Morals come from God.

They clearly don't...because if the did, atheists and everyone not following your religion wouldn't have them. Clearly that's not the case, ergo god has NOTHING to do with morals.

I act morally, yet I have about as much belief in god as I have for unicorns and elves


Funny that you mention unicorns.

Unicorns are mentioned in the King James version of the Bible 9 times, in 5 different books, by at least 5 different authors: by Balaam, Moses, David, Isaiah, and even God himself in the book of Job. Without further ado...here are the passages that talk about Holy Unicorns:

Numbers 23:22
“God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.”

Numbers 24:8
“God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.”

Job 39:9
“Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?”

Job 39:10
“Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?”

Psalms 29:6
“He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.”

Psalms 92:10
“But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.”

Deuteronomy 33:17
“His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.”

Psalms 22:21
“Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.”

Isaiah 34:7
“And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.”

Now remember...the KJV Bible represents approximately 62% of the bible's in print in the US and about 82% of the Americans who say they read the bible once per day say they read the KJV. At least...that's according to a survey done by the religious nutters over at "Lifeway" (www.christianpost.com...)...but I suppose even if the numbers are inflated it wouldn't be incorrect to say that the KJV is one of, if not the most, "mainstream" bible in the United States. My point is just that it's not like I had to search high and low for some weirdo group of christian outcasts to find some unicorns in the bible. These are everyday American christians who believe in the literal existence of unicorns in the desert wastelands of the Middle East...They're not an obscure "Unicornitarian" sect or anything. HA!!!
\
So are you telling me an animal with one horn doesn't exist
or
You only understand unicorn in the context of fairys rainbows and horses with horns.

I think that explains a lot about your simple statements on this forum.


A rhinoceros is by definition a unicorn
www.globalanimal.org...

Best you believe in your fairy tails though

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

I personally think that it's as simple as they repeat what they are told to repeat.

Think about it...a lot of these people go to a great big building once a week (sometimes more than that) and chant their "beliefs" in unison with quite literally ALL of their friends and family. Thus, any dissent from the "party line" and you run the risk of being somewhat ostracized from everyone you know. That's a powerful tool in getting people to simply disavow thinking for themselves.

Witchcraft, plain and simple. You see it all throughout the occult history. Rituals, hymns, mantras, prayers, sacred tools like cups and scepters, statues and symbols, obeisance to higher forces and cannibalistic rites.

They refuse to see it that way, but the facts are, you can build a rock-solid case out of the modern Christian and Catholic practices having their roots in what they call "witchcraft". The difference, in their minds, is defined purely by who they give their spiritual allegiance to.

The hypocrisy is sickening. Atheists, hypocrites? Certainly - they're only human, after all. But they couldn't hold a candle to the blazing inferno that's called Judaism. And that's the pure and simple truth.

edit on 15-10-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Absolutely. Ever wonder what pine trees have to do w/ the baby jesus? Bringing a tree inside the house for the winter solstice is a druidic tradition....and that's just for starters.

reply to post by milominderbinder

I'd be interested to know. I happen to love Christmas for the spirit of it, not the madness of shopping for it, etc.

Originally posted by borntowatch
So are you telling me an animal with one horn doesn't exist
or
You only understand unicorn in the context of fairys rainbows and horses with horns.

I think that explains a lot about your simple statements on this forum.

A rhinoceros is by definition a unicorn
www.globalanimal.org...

Yes. Only one problem.

The ancient hebrew word for rhinoceros is qarnaf...not re'em.

Drats. Foiled again, huh?

Originally posted by rtyfx
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

I'd be interested to know. I happen to love Christmas for the spirit of it, not the madness of shopping for it, etc.

Most pagan cultures from Europe and the Middle East used to practice the bringing of evergreen trees into the house around the Winter Solstice. The scandinavians did it to worship tree elementals, the Romans used to clip evergreen boughs for the Saturnalia Festivals, and the Druids used to do it for the winter solstice and ALSO tie little trinkets and talismans onto the branches for the things they wished the New Year to bring them...and it's been consistently worked back into the judeo-christian tradition for millennia. Long before the alleged birth fo jesus.

In fact...the trusty ol' King James Bible says it's a pagan ritual which very much angered the prophet Jeremiah.

Jeremiah 10:2-4:
"Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not."

Here's your link:
www.religioustolerance.org...

Originally posted by borntowatch

Another hissy fit
You quote mine scripture out of context, its a
cut and paste job from some fundamentalist atheist rant site and tell me its accurate,

.

Once again...the biblical passages are pasted from www.openbible.info...
which is a christian website which wholly owned, managed, and copyrighted to: Copyright ©2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Contact me: openbibleinfo (at) gmail.com.
And here is your link to the Crossway Bible publishing company if you wish to check it out.
www.crossway.org...

You really should quit with the "atheist fundamentalist website" lies. I've already addressed this once for you. You're not fooling anyone.

you cant be that silly, you cant believe all those one paragraph texts stand alone
Surely?

Well...of course not. I've already stated that the bible reads like a schizophrenics attempt at a novel and it contradicts itself more than it agrees with itself. But the passages I quoted are indeed accurate...can't you tell? I thought you said you read the bible?

If you find any errors in transcription, please identify them and I will be happy to notify Crossway Bibles over at the Good News Publishing Company of any errors on their end. After all...they run an entire company that does nothing but print up bibles...I should think they would be quite grateful to learn that they have misleading information in the millions of bibles they sell every year.

So....

specifically which biblical passages are you asserting are not accurate? Let's work together to make sure the record in this thread is true and correct. Lazy scholarly work is a pet peave of mine and I will not allow such concerns to go unaddressed.

You copied and pasted all that and then say you understand it all.

You would be laughing at yourself, would a sane person refute your ignorance. No thanks

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by borntowatch
So are you telling me an animal with one horn doesn't exist
or
You only understand unicorn in the context of fairys rainbows and horses with horns.

I think that explains a lot about your simple statements on this forum.

A rhinoceros is by definition a unicorn
www.globalanimal.org...

Yes. Only one problem.

The ancient hebrew word for rhinoceros is qarnaf...not re'em.

Drats. Foiled again, huh?

Irrespective, does this sound like a horse
The King James Version of Job followed the Septuagint and Jerome Vulgate in its translation unicorn:
"Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?"Book of Job 39:9–12.

Now read my post laughing boy, I never said it was a Rhino, I suggested by the link it could be one of many animals with one horn.
the rhino by definition is classified a uni- corn (One- horn). The Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) is classified as such.

talking to a child I think
Laugh now boy.

reply to post by borntowatch


In the end it all doesn't matter as the bible is DEMONSTRABLY wrong in hundreds of cases...so at best it's proof of what people back then BELIEVED rather than how earth really was back then.

Just like we have fools today claiming nonsense like a global flood was real, and they write down that hogwash too. Doesn't mean that in 2000 years people should read an ATS datadump and automatically believe a flood happend (or that lizard people roamed the planet).

Originally posted by borntowatch
Irrespective, does this sound like a horse

No. But then again...did I ever say that a "re'em" was a one-horned horsey? Nope. Only that the "re'em" /"unicorns" being referenced are clearly mythical, non-existant, make-believe creatures.

Now read my post laughing boy,

I've been laughing hysterically at most of your posts.

I never said it was a Rhino, I suggested by the link it could be one of many animals with one horn. The rhino by definition is classified a uni- corn (One- horn). The Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) is classified as such.

OK...[I]THERE ARE NO OTHER ANIMALS WITH ONE-HORN THAT MIDDLE EASTERN DESERT WANDERERS COULD POSSIBLY BE REFERENCING.[/I] Indeed, it is even HIGHLY IMPROBABLE that any of the the biblical authors would have ever even SEEN, HEARD OF, OR WOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED a one-horned rhinoceros. The vast, VAST majority of rhinospecies on earth (both historically and in the present) are 2-HORNED rhinos. Most notably, those native to Africa, the Mediterranean World, and the Near East. You know...the area that all the Hebrews and Christians lived.

The only rhino species with one horn in existence from "biblical" times to the present are the Sumatran, Sunda, and Indian (aka "Greater One-Horned") rhinos. Here are maps which show both their historical and present ranges of these species.





One would have to wonder whether or not the ancients would have even truly recognized that these three species were even truly "horned" given that the long spike which comes to mind when we think of the word "rhinoceros" is really little more than a boney bump on their snouts. Here are some comparative silhouette's of these three rhino species so you can get a good idea of one those "horns" really look like on the "one-horned" species of rhinos.



So...given that the ancient Hebrews were certainly aware of the existence of rhinos and had decided to refer to this animal as a "qarnaf" IN ADDITION TO the highly improbable idea that they had a separate word for the one-horned rhinos that they almost certainly would not have ever encountered (much less encountered them on a regular basis), we must ask ourselves..."WTF other kinds of 'one-horned animals' do you propose that these desert nomads were talking about???" I'm assuming it's safe to say that you (hopefully) aren't postulating that Moses & Co. would sometimes go whaling in the arctic circle where they would have encountered a narwhal?


I mean...clearly the ancient Hebrews weren't referring to the wooly Elasmotherium because they died out 50,000 years ago and everybody knows that the entire Earth is only 9,000 yrs old and that any fossils found dating to PRIOR to 9,000 yrs ago were placed there by "god" to "test mankind's faith" or some such nonsense...right? I mean...the bible says that the Earth is only 9,000 yrs old...doesn't it?
en.wikipedia.org...

So again...I ask you...what "other kinds" of one-horned animals were the Hebrews talking about?? Do tell...I can't wait to hear this one.

The KJV of Job followed the Septuagint and Jerome Vulgate in its translation unicorn:
"Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?"Book of Job 39:9–12.

In fairness you bring up a good point regarding the Septuagint translation of "re'em". Don't get me wrong...I'm not stating that the ancient Hebrew people ACTUALLY BELIEVED that there were "unicorns" scampering about.

Indeed, ordained Rabbi Natan Slifkin builds a compelling case that "re'em" actually referred to the 2-HORNED Oryx.( www.zootorah.com... ] Of course, Rabbi Slifkin is also sane in other matters as well. He has gone on record to state that the Earth is billions of years old, the Torah is not scientifically valid, and we shouldn't EVER interpret judaic religious texts literally. Not surprisingly his people have banned his books and branded him a heretic.

Feel free to revise your interpretation of the bible as being the oft-mistranslated myths of nomadic people instead of being "The Word of God" any time.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by borntowatch

 

In the end it all doesn't matter as the bible is DEMONSTRABLY wrong in hundreds of cases...so at best it's proof of what people back then BELIEVED rather than how earth really was back then.

Just like we have fools today claiming nonsense like a global flood was real, and they write down that hogwash too. Doesn't mean that in 2000 years people should read an ATS datadump and automatically believe a flood happend (or that lizard people roamed the planet).

Yep. Remember just a few decades ago when the norm for the religious folk in this country was to just sort of look to their biblical teachings as a generalized sort of guidebook on how to live their lives instead of thinking that all those stories ACTUALLY happened...or at least admitted that they almost certainly didn't happen JUST EXACTLY the way "the bible" says that they did?

It wasn't so long ago that anybody who actually stated in public that "evolution is just a theory" or that "the bible is a factual record of the past and ought to be followed explicitly" in public was almost universally considered to be batsh^t insane by all but perhaps a handful of extremists on the fringe.

What happened to that country? I want it back.

I'm beginning to understand why I was attacked for wading into this thread. I thought it was a civil discussion, this being ATS and all.

Do things have to be so nasty between believers and non-believers all the time?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by borntowatch

 

In the end it all doesn't matter as the bible is DEMONSTRABLY wrong in hundreds of cases...so at best it's proof of what people back then BELIEVED rather than how earth really was back then.

And the most hilarious part of this all? Borntowatch comes out and states outright that the word "unicorn" was mistranslated...but then proceeds to try to build a case for the rhino and "all of the other one-horned animals" as being possible candidates for the mythical "unicorn"....thereby invalidating his argument that "unicorn" was a mistranslation and postulating that the Hebrews WERE INDEED talking about some kind of one-horned animal...even if our own mental image of a one-horned magical horsey isn't what they meant.

The incoherency is astounding. Which is it? Was it "mistranslated" or not? If it was "mistranslated" then lets dispense w/ the quest for desert-based, land-dwelling narwhals and start evaluating potential two-horned candidates.

...and then when we are done with that we can also start compiling a big list of all the other things that are blatantly inaccurate, scientifically disproven, demonstrably inaccurate, and obviously embellished in "the bible" and apply the same rules of logic to interpreting the ENTIRE bible.

Ergo, if "the bible" was wrong about unicorns it is clearly and plainly not the infallible "Word of God" and it should not be treated as such.

However...something tells me that instead of admitting that "the bible" isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be, borntowatch's next post will center around a vaguely defined assertion that "I just don't understand the context", along with a re-assertion of some kind that the Hebrews were indeed talking about a one-horned animal whilst simultaneously declaring that the reference to a one-horned animal was not ever intended to be present in the bible by the original authors.

...and the scariest part is I'll give you 10:1 odds that he sees no cognitive disconnect between the two ideas.

Originally posted by rtyfx
I'm beginning to understand why I was attacked for wading into this thread. I thought it was a civil discussion, this being ATS and all.

Do things have to be so nasty between believers and non-believers all the time?

Indeed...it would be nice if it weren't the case, huh? My first post in this thread was politely correcting some oft-repeated errors of the historical record that I noticed.

borntowatch replied by outright calling me liar twice in the same post and likening me to a clown. You know...just like jesus would have done if he had ATS back in the day in Old Jerusalem.

You can read the post here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by milominderbinder

And the most hilarious part of this all? Borntowatch comes out and states outright that the word "unicorn" was mistranslated...but then proceeds to try to build a case for the rhino and "all of the other one-horned animals" as being possible candidates for the mythical "unicorn"....thereby invalidating his argument that "unicorn" was a mistranslation and postulating that the Hebrews WERE INDEED talking about some kind of one-horned animal...even if our own mental image of a one-horned magical horsey isn't what they meant.

You denied the existence of one horned animals, that in itself was funny, and then proven wrong.
I dont know what it was, never made a suggestion.

Its all in your head.

Originally posted by milominderbinder


Indeed...it would be nice if it weren't the case, huh? My first post in this thread was politely correcting some oft-repeated errors of the historical record that I noticed.

borntowatch replied by outright calling me liar twice in the same post and likening me to a clown. You know...just like jesus would have done if he had ATS back in the day in Old Jerusalem.

You can read the post here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read your last post and see how the title of this thread suits you perfectly,
oh and by the way, your post you linked held nothing to justify the facts you claim.

and now I see why you are so angry, I re read that post, I tore your fairys and unicorn dreams to shreds.
I recommend other atheists read that post and stay away from such silly arguments as the one you proposed in future duicussions

peace out.

Originally posted by borntowatch
You copied and pasted all that and then say you understand it all.

You would be laughing at yourself, would a sane person refute your ignorance. No thanks

Incorrect. I copied and pasted it so save a little time typing and a whole bunch of time by utilizing a search engine to filter out the results I was seeking instead of manually paging through paper text one page at a time.

I understand it because I have read the entire bible from cover to cover. Twice. And the same with the Qu'ran. In addition, I have also read a NUMBER of books which analyze both as a professional historian would. Not that this should be a big surprise...it was part of my required coursework to get my Master's Degree in history.

While I certainly do not have these religious texts committed to memory verbatim, I feel as though I have a good, strong grasp of what they say...context and all...as well as the historical events which were occurring at the time of them being written, compiled, recompiled, edited, embellished, recompiled, and re-edited over the last 1700-ish years since they were first put together in a single volume that we refer to today as "the bible".

However...I really wish you wouldn't view it as "refuting my (alleged) ignorance". Think of it more as "spreading the word" and "sharing the good news". Above all else, I am an excellent student and painstakingly detailed scholar.

Please, PLEEEAASE, take the time to share with me and the rest of the thread just precisely where you feel I'm "not understanding the context". If you have such strong evidence of where I have erred...why not try to show me the error of my ways? What about your fellow Christians for that matter? Are you saying that you are OK with Crossway Bibles and the Good News Publishers, Inc. misleading the millions of good, honest, christian folks out there who have bought their bibles?

Wouldn't you kind of have...well...a moral duty of sorts to ensure that God's Word is being accurately shared throughout the world to both His believers and non-believers alike? After all...you stated just a few posts ago that Morality comes FROM God...thus would it not be immoral to willfully turn away someone asking you for clarification of His word?

Please. Share with all of us. Show us the error of our ways. Please explain how the 100+ biblical passages about how christians shouldn't judge or criticize others which was posted verbatim from a bible publishers website has no merit. If there are passages which supersede this rich tapestry of instruction warning christians to not be judgmental of others what are they and why are THOSE passages given priority over the passages which seem to contradict it?

You offhandedly mentioned 1 Corinthians earlier. Are there other one's as well Why don't you post the passage(s) that you feel over-ride all of the non-judgemental passages I posted right to this thread. After all...you've already stated that the Crossway Bible company's verbatim text in their bibles are "fundamental atheism".

I want to make sure I'm referencing a "good bible". So...let's use yours. Post the passages as well as either a link or reference to which bible/edition it came from and we can all evaluate it together and since it will come directly from whichever religious text you claim to be the "right" one and posted by your own hand then we can dispel any accusations of me using incorrect sources before they even start. That makes sense...doesn't it?

So...let's go. Post away.