Heh, take that fundies.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-10-17 05:06pm

I don't need a God damn fucking little pissant CULTIST telling me that he "pitties me."

Shut the fuck up, you fucking little sheep.

*BAA!*

Australopithicus · Post by **Australopithicus** » 2002-10-17 05:10pm

Define 'cult'.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-10-17 05:22pm

Australopithicus wrote:Define 'cult'.

Part of the definition would be:
A group that holds to notions which have been proven false irrefutably and it's mentally shut to the real world.

It's OK to have beliefs. But if they're proven wrong then still holding them is moronic.

Quoting the Dalay Lama:
If someday science disproves ressurrection, then we'll certainly change our belief system.
But I think scientists will have a hard time proving or disproving that.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-10-17 05:24pm

Apocolyptic predictions that include precise dates for the end of the world, which are within several decated also count.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2002-10-17 05:25pm

What's so valid about about 'pitying' someone for not fearing sexuality?
You haven't backed up your assumption that no JW ever masturbates, but that wasn't what I was addressing. Why the hell should I care about JW texts, anyway? It's just modern-day, eschewed armegeddon-obsessed 'analysis' of meaningless Judeo mythology. You bring me nothing.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-10-17 05:34pm

I bet that at least half of them do, but they just lie and say they don't.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2002-10-17 06:01pm

Australopithicus wrote:You just think 'Ah, it must be one of those ye olde values which have no bearing on us today'

That's funny, don't you say the exact same thing about Israel's and God's atrocities in the old testament?

and you read on, looking for possible faults in the canonical reliability of then Bible. And that, my 'friends', is known as a 'specious argument'. Your ideas may seem sound on the outside, but really they tend to be nothing more than desperate fallacy, with nothing more than a ring of truth in them.

Care to back any of that up with examples?

And that is why I pity you.

OK. Lets assume that I was looking for a religion. WHY should I accept your's as opposed to any of the other thousands of denominations? Why are your interpretations of the Bible any better than theirs? And before you answer simply "Because mine it the true one" let me remind you that every other religion says the same thing.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-10-17 06:05pm

Darth Servo wrote:
Australopithicus wrote:and you read on, looking for possible faults in the canonical reliability of then Bible. And that, my 'friends', is known as a 'specious argument'. Your ideas may seem sound on the outside, but really they tend to be nothing more than desperate fallacy, with nothing more than a ring of truth in them.
Care to back any of that up with examples?

I doubt it. This is the same kid that says Revelations proves the Archangel Michael and Jesus Christ are the same being, which totally and absolutely violates Canon.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2002-10-17 06:12pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:I doubt it. This is the same kid that says Revelations proves the Archangel Michael and Jesus Christ are the same being, which totally and absolutely violates Canon.

I used to have quite a bit of JW literature (no, it didn't cause my brain to decay--I guess I was one of the lucky ones) and I never found any kind of scriptural support for that belief, only their insistance that it was so. Of course that is true for any religious belief.

I'd be interested in seeing your scriptures against thier position.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2002-10-17 06:36pm

Darth Utsanomiko wrote:
EmperorMing wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: You pity him for having a relaxed attitude about sex and female orgasms?

That's pretty funny. The rest of us pity you for denying yourself the pleasures of the flesh thanks to your sad cult of pointless self-denial. Why do you have a problem with masturbation, female orgasms, etc?

If God had a problem with female pleasure, he wouldn't have given Mankind the genius to invent the vibrator
If God had a problem with women having orgasms, they wouldn't be equiped to have them in the first place...
If God had a problem with women having orgasms, he shouldn't have given me these busy hands.

Oh, and $50 says more than half of all JW masturbate. Y'know they would, as long as they do it secretly.

Umm..doesn't that last statement apply to 99.999% of people who masturbate?

KG

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2002-10-17 08:59pm

http://www.jhs2.com/jhs/

I'm really not sure this one if fake, but I think it is... maybe. I read the tips on quiting masturbation, I was never religous as a child but... I mean, they really don't think doing things like praying and thinking of god solves their problems do they?

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2002-10-17 09:03pm

anarchistbunny wrote:http://www.jhs2.com/jhs/

I'm really not sure this one if fake, but I think it is... maybe. I read the tips on quiting masturbation, I was never religous as a child but... I mean, they really don't think doing things like praying and thinking of god solves their problems do they?

Thinking about the fate God has in store for you just might.

KG

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-10-17 10:29pm

kheegan wrote:
anarchistbunny wrote:http://www.jhs2.com/jhs/

I'm really not sure this one if fake, but I think it is... maybe. I read the tips on quiting masturbation, I was never religous as a child but... I mean, they really don't think doing things like praying and thinking of god solves their problems do they?
Thinking about the fate God has in store for you just might.

KG

That's the kind of stuff Chick preaches.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-17 10:41pm

Australopithicus wrote:You study the Bible to disprove it, but you don't stop to comprehend it's meaning.

We have something called "critical thinking skills". You are suggesting that we should mindlessly accept it, the way you do?

And that is why I pity you.

Because we're not happily mindless, like you?

Australopithicus · Post by **Australopithicus** » 2002-10-18 02:59am

Darth Wong wrote: We have something called "critical thinking skills". You are suggesting that we should mindlessly accept it, the way you do?

No, I suggest you understand it first before you criticise it. If you didn't know what the word 'ancestor' meant (for the sake of illustration - I know you know what it means) and I used it in an argument, would you use the word to prove a point if you didn't understand it?

Lord_Xerxes · Post by **Lord_Xerxes** » 2002-10-18 03:26am

Darth Utsanomiko wrote:Heh, if the fundies were right, no less than 90% of the US population would be blind, drug-using atheists.

You hear that, fundies? 90%! That includes your own members! Chew on that!

This blindness thing, I've heard it before. Is this actually factual? How the hell does masturbating make you blind? I can't think of a logical reason it might cause this. Must be another one of those stupid myths.

Heh. Maybe that's why Priests have altar-boys. So they won't go blind.

Lord_Xerxes · Post by **Lord_Xerxes** » 2002-10-18 03:38am

This is probably ridiculously late, but did anyone scroll down that link to the bottom and see the stuff about SW? It's under the Reviews section. Hillariousness!

"When my son had an erection I watched as he was blasted with the anti-erection ring. When the sparks started flying it reminded me of that scene in 'Return of the Jedi' when Luke is being zapped by the Emperor. The irony of the situation was not lost as he screamed, 'save me father!!!'"
Karl-Heinz Stirner, London UK"

LOL. Who does that? Shock your son to not have wet dreams and get erections...Hello people, where the hell do you think you came from? Fornication!

Lord_Xerxes · Post by **Lord_Xerxes** » 2002-10-18 03:42am

Australopithicus wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: We have something called "critical thinking skills". You are suggesting that we should mindlessly accept it, the way you do?
No, I suggest you understand it first before you criticise it. If you didn't know what the word 'ancestor' meant (for the sake of illustration - I know you know what it means) and I used it in an argument, would you use the word to prove a point if you didn't understand it?

Understand this. Just because someone pens a book and burries in the ground and thousands of years later people find it, it doesn't mean it's factual. Take for example, Lord of the Rings. If someone burries that now, and thousands of years from now when the human race is gone, (because that's the way this world is going right now) if another race discovers it and praises it as the factual history of our planet, does it mean it's true?

No. It doesn't.

The fact is, we don't HAVE to understand it, or read it, or should we be subjected to having it force-fed to us. If that's what you believe, then fine. But I didn't ask for it to be crammed down my throat, and I'm sure plenty of other people in this forum didn't either.

And maybe if you people got your rocks off once in a while, you wouldn't be so damn uptight about what everyone else believes or doesn't believe.

George Carlin: "Keep thy religion to thyself."

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-10-18 03:47am

Actually, we've been arguing that his cult's interpretations of the Bible are wrong. The JW's say that Jesus Christ is the same entity as the Archangel Michael, which violates Canon.

Lord_Xerxes · Post by **Lord_Xerxes** » 2002-10-18 03:51am

Suppose that would be the more logical way to debate these types.

I was just addressing the entire bible-bashing, force-feeding bs in general.

Frankly I have issues with any part of the bible being considered "canon". But I understand in which context you're refering to with that. As far as their canon. Debunk them from their own beliefs. And I like that method.

*pats you all on the shoulders*

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2002-10-18 10:46am

Frankly, Austi, I was making fun of your ludicrous inference that JWs aren't Full Orchestral Crochists, if you take my meaning, and then expanded to the christian churches in general. If you don't like it, eh, shucks. It's your turn in the barrel.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Heh, take that fundies.

LOL!