I don't know if you've taken the time to acquaint yourself with the guidelines for this board, but I can tell you now that this kind of language is not considered acceptable from anyone - Christian, atheist or Wiccan.
I see you're a both a child and a moron.
Please refrain from using it.
I realise that Adanac's comments were inflammatory, but you didn't have to respond in this way.
I would like to think that you're not incapable of expressing yourself rationally and courteously. Please prove me right.
You state your rebuttals without so much as an ounce of proof, and continually ridicule me in the process.
Please note that you did the same.
Well, oh pious one, I'll put my two degrees in theology and 15 years in ministry against whatever you want to toss my way.
That will be fun.
It's always the Christians who lambast and yell, "stupid", when they don't have a freakin' CLUE on how to respond.
Actually you've proved that the deists are equally capable.
Let's just take ONE of your absurdities for now—the claim that "God never did that to his children." There was a little thing called THE FLOOD...you may not be aware of it. You see, when water rises above the mountains and people cannot breathe, it's called DROWNING. God created man, therefore his creation is HIS CHILDREN. Drowning. Children. Get it, oh judgmental one?
Yes I get it. But I think you'll find that Adanac was using the term 'children' in the theological sense you must have learned about during your degrees.
I gather your problem with the flood is that God killed people. Is that it?
Now, you can defend this as "scorn and wrath" and so-forth...but then you'll have to defend the fact that GOD HIMSELF thought it was a mistake and REPENTED from his actions.
Your theological studies should surely have taught you somthing about not exegeting the English (especially the KJV, with its archaic language), and also something about anthropomorphism?
It wouldn't be the first time—Moses out-argued your mighty Commander-in-Chief and caused an omnicient deity to "repent of the evil he thought to do to his people." Isn't THAT lovely? A god who knows the future yet repents. Just let me know if you need chapter and verse. I'd rather see if you even know what I'm referring to.
Yes, we've seen them all before, we're well aware of them. As a theology graduate you would also be aware of the principle of anthropomorphism which is operating here, wouldn't you?
God, I'm glad I'm done with a culture like yours—one that festers and breeds disdain, rationalizing all the way to the alter.
You're doing exactly the same. Have you noticed? You've swapped one religion for another, thats all. The fact that your attitude hasn't changed one iota demonstrates that it probably doesn't matter what you believe, you'll still be like this.
Next, I'll point out the OBVIOUS LIES made by Sir God concerning his "chosen people". Perhaps you are just too dense to understand it, but the people OF the day were a bit put off by the Gentiles as well. Paul wrote a few books on the subject...perhaps you've glanced through your Cliff Note Bible and noticed. Ever think that the REASON Paul had to explain the "grafted in" bit is because it was NOT UNDERSTOOD?? New info, perhaps? 750 years of study and they all MISSED what you say is clearly present? No, too damn simple...that's why I await your "all through the OT" verses, just to see how 'simple' it was.
No, they didn't all miss it. How familiar are you with Jewish exegesis?
Come to that, how familiar are you with Romans? The 'grafted in' passage to which you refer is addressed to the Gentiles, explaining that they are not to feel disdain for the Jews, since they themselves (the Gentiles), have been grafted in to the hope of the Jews. It's speaking to the Gentiles, not the Jews, and the Gentiles didn't have '750 years of study' of the Old Testament:
13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Seeing that I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
14 if somehow I could provoke my people to jealousy and save some of them.
15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
16 If the first portion of the dough offered is holy, then the whole batch is holy, and if the root is holy, so too are the branches.
17 Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among them and participated in the richness of the olive root,
18 do not boast over the branches. But if you boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19 Then you will say, “The branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted! They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but fear!
21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you.
I'm curious, where did you study theology? And which courses did you take?
It matters little anyway—Constantine's grubby little fingers are all over your precious Septugiant, and the obvious (to all but those burried in dogma) conclusion is that Christ, along with references to the Him and future ministries, were...updated, shall we say? You know...appease the powers that be? Ever read anything on the history of the cannon, or on Hellenization?
Constantine had zero to do with the LXX. Please explain what you mean here. We have textual sources for the text of the Alexandrian LXX, as well as for the editions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, all of whom predate Constantine (Aquila by almost 170 years).
Yes, please do start a discussion on the canon, I'd be most interested.