Jump to content

Mr. Neil

Regular Member
  • Content Count

    1,753
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Mr. Neil last won the day on June 23 2010

Mr. Neil had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Mr. Neil

  • Rank
    Esteemed Pervert
  • Birthday 08/22/1976

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    Neil Ousama
  • MSN
    mr_neil@earthlink.net
  • Website URL
    http://neilsama.deviantart.com/
  • ICQ
    148984117
  • Yahoo
    lordcrimson@sbcglobal.net

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Planet Earth, Galaxy Milky Way
  • Interests
    Art. Video games. Cartoons. Girls. Heavy metal.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    Jesus Christ NO!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Wow. Blasted. I think that pretty much describes the vast majority of Christians. Sometimes I truly believe that the only one who has the Bible figured out correctly is Fred Phelps.
  2. Matthew chapter 7 says that you shall recognize them by their fruit. Of course, they're talking about prophets of the Lord, but I don't think I'm being too far off the mark by bringing it up here. I think Nara hit it right on the head. It's not very convincing of a religion to claim that an allegedly bad tree cannot bear good fruit when you, in fact, see it all the time. It also says that a good tree (i.e., one that represents Christ) cannot bear bad fruit, but if you were to hop over to the Lion's Den sub-forum, you'll see that Justyna has been bearing a lot of dingleberries.
  3. It's good that you have questions about your faith. Just be advised that regardless of who you ask, you're going to get a biased answer. If you go to a church member, you know what you're going to get. If you come here, you know what you're going to get. Ultimately, it's always going to be up to you to make the decision that's right for you. It's quite a bit different than the picture they paint of atheism on Trinity Broadcasting Network, isn't it? Your sister is not unusual. Lots of people are happier after they leave faith. It's also not unusual for people to retain the language of religion in our speech. Most people here probably still say "bless you" to someone who sneezes. Personally, I would find it to be more neurotic if I were to change the way I talk just because I don't believe. Truthfully, there is no surefire recipe for happiness. Some people feel liberated to give up faith. Others become woefully depressed after they deconvert. A lot of what you hear about atheists is that they want to rebel from God and revel in their sin, but some people step away from faith because they'd rather choose a sobering reality over a comforting falsehood. It all depends on the person. If you were to decide that there's no truth in religion, there's nothing I can say to guarantee that you'll be happier as an atheist. Reality has its sober moments. What do you mean by miracles? Are we talking actual miracles or just good fortune? In either case, the bias of the mind is to seek what it wants to confirm. If you're talking about good fortune, then that's not a miracle. People win the lottery. It happens. If you're talking about seeing actual miracles, such as the act of a faith healer, then I suggest you hop on Google and search for James Randi and Peter Popoff.
  4. Saw this on Adult Swim. Thought it was pretty funny... Q. How man surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A. Fish!
  5. I started buying books by well-known atheist and was like, "Mmm-hmm... those are mine."
  6. Here are a couple lame jokes from my blog. Did you hear about the Siamese Twins at the World Series? They hit back-to-back home runs! What's more impressive than a man who play piano by ear? A man who fiddles with his whiskers!
  7. I bet she stopped saying that when some geek hacked her cell phone number. ... Want it?
  8. Of course you're a geek. You've got a Red Mage avatar. It gives a +4 to your geekiness.
  9. I have the DVDs, and even I wasn't pay that close attention to the music during the battle of Hoth (of course, the fact that I know the official name of the battle might count as geekiness). I just went with the tune that fans of the movies would most likely identify by name, and even if they didn't know the name, it should be obvious anyway which tune I'm referring to.
  10. I think I shall dub thee AT-AT. *cues the Imperial march* Welcome to the forums!
  11. Well one of the best evidences can be found in Christian documents. Church father Justin Martyr admitted that there Christ-like pagan saviors before Jesus, but his resolve was to say that Satan counterfeited those saviors in advance to confuse Christians. What this shows is that even the early Christians knew that these other pagan saviors came first, but the argument that they give is strained if not blatantly absurd. In fact, even a more recent author (might have been C.S. Lewis, but I have to check) said that the other pagan saviors that came before Christ were actually prophecies of Jesus, the one who is to come. But again, this is just special pleading, as a typical Christian answer is given which assumes Christ as a historical figure while dismissing other similar saviors from the same time or before. It's just special pleading.
  12. He was definitely logged in yesterday. I saw him myself.
  13. Well, being the resident confirmed bachelor of the forum, I can honestly tell you that as long as the girls are of legal age, looking at porn is a fairly innocent activity. In fact one of the reasons I'm able to keep my mind so focused on intellectual persuits is because I take a moment every day to... uh... wait, why am I telling you this? Uh, anyway... Although there are some fairly obnoxious values expressed in the Bible, such as the stoning of homosexuals and the joyous tossing of children against rocks (everyone's favorite Bible passage), there are some things in the book that can be appreciated. I bring this up every so often (not to toot my own horn or anything) but I happen to be somewhat of an ameteur writer. I'm fascinated by story-telling motifs that show up again and again in folk lore and mythology. The gospels are part of that. You see a lot of the same things in other mythical figures. Hercules is he most obvious, but believe it or not, a lot of the same architypes still exist in modern literature, such as Superman. You should look into Lord Raglan's "The Hero" to see what I mean. The point here is that there are ways to appreciate the Bible that are non-religious, and I would suggest that you take that approach with it. In some cases, you literally can't appreciate the Bible unless you take a step back, remove the fundy-filter, and let the text speak for themselves. When you look at contradictory passages from a mythical point of view, you see that neither verse is the "correct" version, but each could individually convey some sort of expression that doesn't have to rely on canonical harmony. Often what you find in apologetic "scholarship" is that they're so committed to the doctrine inerrancy that they have to warp the meaning of certain verses to maintain inerrancy. But when apologists do this, they also destroy the original context, and they end up completely missing the point of what the author was trying to say. The apologetic approach of Jason Gastrich is loaded with examples of this. I mentioned this another recent topic, but you should check out the work of Robert M. Price. He's an atheist, but he's got a particular respect for the Bible that you might find appealing. He's got a couple books that you can find on Amazon. He also hosts an internet radio show on InfidelGuy.com every Sunday called "The Bible Geek". He's only done two shows so far, and the most recent episode is downloadable to anyone who visits the site. Even though Price's approach abandons any importance of a literal historical Jesus, it does expand your understanding of why these stories existed in the first place and what was going on during the period of the writings. In my opinion, the enlightenment you gain from understanding ancient writings such as the Bible is far more fulfilling the the superficial security blanket of Christian faith. But then again, I'm a writer, and I always geek out over literary devices and story-telling motifs.
  14. Why do you do that? How is that any different than saying that you trust any other ancient myth? What other writings? Most of the historians from the first century recorded no such man ever existing, and the ones who appear to mention him are extremely questionable. The alleged passage by Josephus, for example, is widely recognized as a forgery, because there's no way a Jewish historian working for Rome would write a passage either praising Jesus or calling him the Messiah. Again, what evidence? So in place of an actual demonstration, you want us to accept anecdotes of healings. That's not good enough. Anecdotal evidence is the worst kind of evidence you can find to support an argument. The reason is because people lie, they misremember, and mishear things all the time. It is for this reason that we're not going ot accept stories. Besides, the Bible says nothing about the willingness of the person to drink poison. It just says that believers can drink poison and not be harmed. The only condition is that you believe in Jesus. It doesn't say anything else. It doesn't say anything about being forced (we're not forcing you, anyway). Listen. We don't want you to drink the poison, anyway. I certainly wouldn't want you to have to get your stomach pumped (or worse, die) and have that on my conscience for the rest of my life. So please don't drink any poison, as that will certainly earn you a one-way trip to the hospital. What we're trying to do here is demonstrate to you how absurd these texts are. And deep down, you know it's absurd, too. You won't drink poison, because you know that it's not going to work. To be brutally honest, you don't have faith in it at all. Again, you're displaying that you don't actually have faith in what the Bible is plainly telling you. The Bible says, in no uncertain terms, that believers can drink poison without getting harmed. It provides no conditions for this statement. The Bible says that if you are a believer, you can drink poison. And the reason you won't do it, is because you know that it's wrong. You have no faith in what the Bible is plainly telling you. No secondary attributes, please.
  15. The verse says that all of these things will accompany those who believe. Plain as day. The question is, why are you limiting this to only the apostles? Ironically, you're the one making excuses here. If your original explanation was that the apostles fulfilled the prophecy, then why are you now making excuses for all of the other believers who can allegedly do these things? Better question... Can you do any of these things? Can you drink poison without getting hurt? Can you place your hands on the sick and make them well? If you're a believer, then you should be able to do these things. Or can't you tell us because you have to keep it hushed? They complement each other? Are you Jason Gastrich?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.