NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all i am a he, and i din't break anything the only thing i broke was my head with thes constant questions.

Okay, I will keep in mind you are a guy, but mostly what I see coming from everyone in this thread is constant religious slurs...although I am unsure to whether I am Christianarchist or Athianarchist, I do remember one thing from the bible, and that is the simple rule of equality...I think we all need to stop making racial slurs and just leave this thread right now, and make peace.

Because I know some uneducated moron WILL ask me how you blend Christianity and Anarchy, and I have this to say:

Anarchy: the belief that there should be no higher political figure

This is the literal meaning of Anarchy, and many gluesniffing potheads have blurred it's true meaning. You can very easily blend Anarchy with ANY religion.

The athiest one is just because I'm not sure whether there should be a god OR a political figure...

If someone is to look up my nation and see that it is a Rogue Nation, and not an anarchy, the reason is this: This game is more a social experiment to me than a game. I believe it is very important to discover other types of religions and politics.

I also want to say that my nation was really stuck on relious problems, and I got really tired of them, and just wiped out churches. Although I have seperate beliefs, I have many Christian friends who would not be who they are today if it were not for the church, and I really hope we don't have that happen in the real world, because religion CAN change a person.

Are you saying you dont see the raw hippocracy of him calling himself a "true christian", and saying that millions of american christians are not "true" christians, all the while, calling me a lying ,backstabbing, athiest bastard?

Cuz I sure did, and called him on it.

Who told, I never once Stated that I am a true christian, the best christian, a replica of God, and if you read the posts carefully i said i was A NORMAL CHRISTIAN.And then tell me how i cannot call you liar.

4. Oh, still waiting for a decent argument regarding the paradox with the Catholic definition of hell and the characteristic of Omnipresence.
Perhaps I can help with that.

As everyone know, the Mitre of the Pope grant its wearer 7+ Charisma and the power of Facny Verbal Footwork.
If you cast Fancy Verbal Footwork together with Voice of the Church you get a perfect 20 Befuddlement for all your believers.

For non-believers this is modified with a -4 to -6 of the 20, with the Skepticism ability.
If the non-believer also succeeds in his Will saving throw the effect is halved, and if they should have the Improved Initiative feat, the effect is negated.

Thus, for you, there is no valid explanation. It is a paradox that got through/is left from when the scripture was written.

For a believer though, it makes sense.

Get it? ;)

Irrelevant question: Why would a devout Christian name himself after a Pagan fertility symbol?

Who told, I never once Stated that I am a true christian, the best christian, a replica of God, and if you read the posts carefully i said i was A NORMAL CHRISTIAN.And then tell me how i cannot call you liar.


You made several references wherein you implied that many american Christians were "not true Christians", and in fact, accused them of living a pagan lifestyle.

Now you can attempt to insinuate that you "didnt mean to call yourself a true christian", but if thats how you want to do it, I can easily click and paste your own words.

So, by ridiculing millions of christians, you obviously feel better than them, or that your faith is superior to thiers.
Ergo, you obviously feel that you are a "true christian" even if you feel that millions of american Christians are not.

Irrelevant question: Why would a devout Christian name himself after a Pagan fertility symbol?

For the 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
time i didn't know that maypole stood for some damned greek godess, i named it for a grocery/breadshop in my hometown. You people are so hard to please.

Irrelevant question: Why would a devout Christian name himself after a Pagan fertility symbol?


Weve been wondering that, apprently its due to a grocer?

Irrelevant question: Why would a devout Christian name himself after a Pagan fertility symbol?

For reference that'd be a Maypole, which is a pole hippies and pagans dance around in the May to refresh their magic. They wind streamers around it, and sing.

Oh yeah! That's why I remember that name... (my bro's pagan) Or maybe i read it...one of the two.

For the 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
time i didn't know that maypole stood for some damned greek godess, i named it for a grocery/breadshop in my hometown. You people are so hard to please.

Welcome to NS General where hard to please is our specialty :D

Perhaps I can help with that.

As everyone know, the Mitre of the Pope grant its wearer 7+ Charisma and the power of Facny Verbal Footwork.
If you cast Fancy Verbal Footwork together with Voice of the Church you get a perfect 20 Befuddlement for all your believers.

For non-believers this is modified with a -4 to -6 of the 20, with the Skepticism ability.
If the non-believer also succeeds in his Will saving throw the effect is halved, and if they should have the Improved Initiative feat, the effect is negated.

Thus, for you, there is no valid explanation. It is a paradox that got through/is left from when the scripture was written.

For a believer though, it makes sense.

Get it? ;)

I understand that to believe is nonsensical, and any nonsense that may cohere with what a believer wants to believe suddenly becomes indupitable fact in the eyes of that individual. Completely ignoring the fact that it isn't factual, of course.


Irrelevant question: Why would a devout Christian name himself after a Pagan fertility symbol?

That has already been answered :P

You made several references wherein you implied that many american Christians were "not true Christians", and in fact, accused them of living a pagan lifestyle.

Now you can attempt to insinuate that you "didnt mean to call yourself a true christian", but if thats how you want to do it, I can easily click and paste your own words.

So, by ridiculing millions of christians, you obviously feel better than them, or that your faith is superior to thiers.
Ergo, you obviously feel that you are a "true christian" even if you feel that millions of american Christians are not.


First of all the argument came because you falsley accuse roman chatolics priests to molesting 1,000s but you made it sound like millions. I said that because to show you that the Catholic Church is not the same everywhere, like for example in my homecountry where these events are extremley rare, and as i said these priest will be judged by God severly.

fact
( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

Notice if you will...God applies to none of these.

Heh okay well apart from the above 'Something believed to be true or real'
That definition of a fact seems right to me.

So then you would agree that the only real fact is in fact "I think, therefore I am" as all other facts ultimatly cannot be proven?

Perhaps I can help with that.

As everyone know, the Mitre of the Pope grant its wearer 7+ Charisma and the power of Facny Verbal Footwork.
If you cast Fancy Verbal Footwork together with Voice of the Church you get a perfect 20 Befuddlement for all your believers.

For non-believers this is modified with a -4 to -6 of the 20, with the Skepticism ability.
If the non-believer also succeeds in his Will saving throw the effect is halved, and if they should have the Improved Initiative feat, the effect is negated.

Thus, for you, there is no valid explanation. It is a paradox that got through/is left from when the scripture was written.

For a believer though, it makes sense.

Get it? ;)

So, if im reading that right...it says:

Jesus Saves, everyone else takes full damage?

Perhaps I can help with that.

As everyone know, the Mitre of the Pope grant its wearer 7+ Charisma and the power of Facny Verbal Footwork.
If you cast Fancy Verbal Footwork together with Voice of the Church you get a perfect 20 Befuddlement for all your believers.

For non-believers this is modified with a -4 to -6 of the 20, with the Skepticism ability.
If the non-believer also succeeds in his Will saving throw the effect is halved, and if they should have the Improved Initiative feat, the effect is negated.

Thus, for you, there is no valid explanation. It is a paradox that got through/is left from when the scripture was written.

For a believer though, it makes sense.

Get it? ;)

So, if im reading that right...it says:

Jesus Saves, everyone else takes full damage?

Perhaps I can help with that.

As everyone know, the Mitre of the Pope grant its wearer 7+ Charisma and the power of Facny Verbal Footwork.
If you cast Fancy Verbal Footwork together with Voice of the Church you get a perfect 20 Befuddlement for all your believers.

For non-believers this is modified with a -4 to -6 of the 20, with the Skepticism ability.
If the non-believer also succeeds in his Will saving throw the effect is halved, and if they should have the Improved Initiative feat, the effect is negated.

Thus, for you, there is no valid explanation. It is a paradox that got through/is left from when the scripture was written.

For a believer though, it makes sense.

Get it? ;)

So, if im reading that right...it says:

Jesus Saves, everyone else takes full damage?

For the 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
time i didn't know that maypole stood for some damned greek godess, i named it for a grocery/breadshop in my hometown. You people are so hard to please.

For some reason I feel that I don't have the time to read through 5500+ posts in this thread... go figure.

It brings up the question, though, why you expect everyone to know about and accept your faith when you seem to know little about others' faiths. What makes Christianity any more believable than any other religion on this planet?

First of all the argument came because you falsley accuse roman chatolics priests to molesting 1,000s but you made it sound like millions. I said that because to show you that the Catholic Church is not the same everywhere, like for example in my homecountry where these events are extremley rare, and as i said these priest will be judged by God severly.

I hate to burst your bubble but if they repent their sins, they'll be washed away.

Weve been wondering that, apprently its due to a grocer?

If you don't want to believe hell don't.

So, if im reading that right...it says:

Jesus Saves, everyone else takes full damage?
Bingo! :p

For some reason I feel that I don't have the time to read through 5500+ posts in this thread... go figure.

It brings up the question, though, why you expect everyone to know about and accept your faith when you seem to know little about others' faiths. What makes Christianity any more believable than any other religion on this planet?

It has the most evidince of all the other religions.

I hate to burst your bubble but if they repent their sins, they'll be washed away.

Yes, but he was 'shocked' the poor fellow and I had to tell him something otherwise he would scandalise himself.

It has the most evidince of all the other religions.

Oh really now? That evidence being...?

Okay, I read the post about Catholic Priests molest 1000s not 1000000s...

WHO THE F*** CARES!? IF YOU MOLEST A F***ING CHILD YOU SHOULD F***ING GO TO F***ING JAIL FOR IT YOU F***ING MORON!!!

Evidince of what? It's a f***ing popularity contest, just like the rest of life...

Oh really now? That evidence being...?

I am not going to write again if you want to just scroll some pages back and you will find my posts.

Okay, I read the post about Catholic Priests molest 1000s not 1000000s...

WHO THE F*** CARES!? IF YOU MOLEST A F***ING CHILD YOU SHOULD F***ING GO TO F***ING JAIL FOR IT YOU F***ING MORON!!!

Whoa, chill. You'll get yourself a forumban for flaming like that.

Whoa, chill. You'll get yourself a forumban for flaming like that.

I really don't care right now, I want to kill anyone who gets their kicks from touching small children, it's wrong.

Okay, I read the post about Catholic Priests molest 1000s not 1000000s...

WHO THE F*** CARES!? IF YOU MOLEST A F***ING CHILD YOU SHOULD F***ING GO TO F***ING JAIL FOR IT YOU F***ING MORON!!!

Who told you that they shoudn't go to jail for it.( trying very hard to keep temper down) Every crime should be punished, so damn it don' misquote me.
And life is not A popularity contest.

I am not going to write again if you want to just scroll some pages back and you will find my posts.

And if you read a few pages further back than that, you will see my quote from David Hume which denies miracles. Additionally, religious delusion/religious experience can almost always be explained by scientific factors, and in the cases were it cannot, it is due to the lies or overembellsihment of the person who allegedly experienced it.

Homosexuals should not be allowed to raise children; the child will be devoid of a moral influence.

Have you seen the same arguments made about Christians?

After all - in the US, crime by 'Christians' FAR outweighs crime by any other group, far more 'Christians' get divorced, far more 'Christians' are the instigators of child-abuse, etc.

Thus - surely, we can assume that being 'Christian' leaves people unfit to be good parents... don't you think?

I really don't care right now, I want to kill anyone who gets their kicks from touching small children, it's wrong.

As if children are going to get example from your swearing and offensive language. Hiss,hey as if like you care about children, if you did you woudn't write half of your post with 'f' word.

And if you read a few pages further back than that, you will see my quote from David Hume which denies miracles. Additionally, religious delusion/religious experience can almost always be explained by scientific factors, and in the cases were it cannot, it is due to the lies or overembellsihment of the person who allegedly experienced it.
But why does a religious experience become invalid just because it can be explained scientifically?
To me, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Er, I hope I used the right term there. I meant that they can both be true at the same time.

And if you read a few pages further back than that, you will see my quote from David Hume which denies miracles. Additionally, religious delusion/religious experience can almost always be explained by scientific factors, and in the cases were it cannot, it is due to the lies or overembellsihment of the person who allegedly experienced it.

Really now? Science is greater than God. Thank you very much i will keep it in mind.

Who told you that they shoudn't go to jail for it? (trying very hard to keep temper down) Every crime should be punished, so damn it don't misquote me. And life is not A popularity contest.

I didn't misquote you. Well, this time I did to fix your horrid typos...

You just made it sound okay... like:

-they didn't molest millions, just thousands...-

Have you seen the same arguments made about Christians?

After all - in the US, crime by 'Christians' FAR outweighs crime by any other group, far more 'Christians' get divorced, far more 'Christians' are the instigators of child-abuse, etc.

Thus - surely, we can assume that being 'Christian' leaves people unfit to be good parents... don't you think?

And then I would have to question if they are serious about being Christians.

Do they understand homosexuality is wrong though?

Wrong for YOU, perhaps... if you don't like it, don't DO it.

Have you seen the same arguments made about Christians?

After all - in the US, crime by 'Christians' FAR outweighs crime by any other group, far more 'Christians' get divorced, far more 'Christians' are the instigators of child-abuse, etc.

Thus - surely, we can assume that being 'Christian' leaves people unfit to be good parents... don't you think?
Actually, I think everyone should be screened by an evaluation board before they're allowed to become parents.

I am not going to write again if you want to just scroll some pages back and you will find my posts.

Again, this thread is huge, and finding those posts among all the moralistic gay-bashing and self-victimization which is all that I seem to be able to find from you is a daunting task. Not that I believe that you actually have any real evidence that Christianity would be more real than any other religion.

Wrong for YOU, perhaps... if you don't like it, don't DO it.
The key is to use lots of lube! :p

If there is a God, then he's not a very nice one.

If there is one, how do you decide wether he is or not nice? Don't you think it could be worse? Where do you put the reference?

Anyway, I think that things that happen all around the world are mostly fault of men, don't you think?

And when people say they _believe_ there is no god, isn't this as risky and as proof-lacky as say there is a God?

As if children are going to get example from your swearing and offensive language. Hiss,hey as if like you care about children, if you did you woudn't write half of your post with 'f' word.

How many small children are on this site? And how many would try to copy of a dumb*** like me?

But why does a religious experience become invalid just because it can be explained scientifically?
To me, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Er, I hope I used the right term there. I meant that they can both be true at the same time.

Because if there is a practical, scientific explanation, there is no reason to assume it is a miracle or that it is a higher force at work. Miracle would be something that occured beyond the laws of nature, the supernatural if you will. It doesn't even have to be a religious experience, just something completely unexplainable. It does not have to have any connotations of a deity or possess the four common characteristics of religious experience/delusion that James noted.

Again, this thread is huge, and finding those posts among all the moralistic gay-bashing and self-victimization which is all that I seem to be able to find from you is a daunting task. Not that I believe that you actually have any real evidence that Christianity would be more real than any other religion.
He cited this miracle as part of the proof.
http://www.medjugorje.org/

http://www.medjugorje-online.com/new_millenium.php

It has the most evidince of all the other religions.


Damn me and I would have said Judaism or Hinduism has that!

Again, this thread is huge, and finding those posts among all the moralistic gay-bashing and self-victimization which is all that I seem to be able to find from you is a daunting task. Not that I believe that you actually have any real evidence that Christianity would be more real than any other religion.

First of all i di not victimize gays only their practices. And as someone has just told you before there are those sights and also something i wrote on the creation of the world,humans,evolution, which are evidence.

He cited this miracle as part of the proof.
http://www.medjugorje.org/

http://www.medjugorje-online.com/new_millenium.php

O....kay.

It's always nice to see that every good "miracle" has a gift shop! :D

This is a point my brother tries to make to me constantly...for the record he is an athiest pagan, not sure how it works out...

God says man is fallible
God makes prochecy to man
Man writes prophecy down
Writings become Bible
God says bible is HIS word
If the Bible went through man, it is fallible
Since we only have heard the bible from god, he is fallible

I do not agree with this, but I do not thoroughly disagree with this.

Because if there is a practical, scientific explanation, there is no reason to assume it is a miracle or that it is a higher force at work.
But it's more fun! :p
There's too little humour in religion.
More laughter, less slaughter.

Hmm, that should be a motto...

Miracle would be something that occured beyond the laws of nature, the supernatural if you will. It doesn't even have to be a religious experience, just something completely unexplainable. It does not have to have any connotations of a deity or possess the four common characteristics of religious experience/delusion that James noted.
I see. I agree too, but just like there doesn't have to be a religious/supernatural experience doesn't mean there isn't one either.
Comes back to subjective truth I think.
If the one experiencing it thinks it's true, it's true for her.

And on the supernatural; I think a lot of theing we today label supernatural are things we simply lack the proper understandings and/or equipment to observe in a scientific way, and we will eventually be able to identiy them and explain them.

It's still going to be a lot of fun though. ;)

Because if there is a practical, scientific explanation, there is no reason to assume it is a miracle or that it is a higher force at work. Miracle would be something that occured beyond the laws of nature, the supernatural if you will. It doesn't even have to be a religious experience, just something completely unexplainable. It does not have to have any connotations of a deity or possess the four common characteristics of religious experience/delusion that James noted.

You are right it doesn't have to, but that does not explain why it is not. Okay so if the religious experiance can be scientifcly explained, that just means it can be scientificly explained, not that it isn't a religious experiance.

First of all i di not victimize gays only their practices. And as someone has just told you before there are those sights and also something i wrote on the creation of the world,humans,evolution, which are evidence.

The links are not evidence, as experience is only proof to he or she who had it. You were ot part of that alleged miracle so have no right to quote it. Also, you have posted no proof on the creation, himans or evolution, whilst I have debunked the three classic 'proofs' for the existence of God. If anyone proves you wrong, you claim they are trying to trick or deceive you.

First of all i di not victimize gays only their practices. And as someone has just told you before there are those sights and also something i wrote on the creation of the world,humans,evolution, which are evidence.

First, you misread my post. Try again. Second, even if there is (subjective) evidence of a divine power in the complexity of life, evolution, etc, that doesn't answer why the Christian version of God would be any more plausible than any other god or gods. On what grounds can you say that every other god is make-believe but yours is real?

I don't know why honestly people try to find so many wedges in Christianity to prove its wrong. Don't think arguing makes me have fun. I become sad when I see statements like "if their is a God i will just the same tell him to go to hell and leave me out of his stuf." Sad reflection on society don't you think?

You are right it doesn't have to, but that does not explain why it is not. Okay so if the religious experiance can be scientifcly explained, that just means it can be scientificly explained, not that it isn't a religious experiance.

You and Erketrum are correct that it does not indeed make it an impossibility to be a religious experience, but it leaves no reason to suppose that the experience was indeed religious. If it is explainable through science and practical theories which are close to certainty, this should be accepted over the less probable option of a deity intervening.

I don't know why honestly people try to find so many wedges in Christianity to prove its wrong. Don't think arguing makes me have fun. I become sad when I see statements like "if their is a God i will just the same tell him to go to hell and leave me out of his stuf." Sad reflection on society don't you think?


Nope a sad relflection on what people fell about the Christian faith.

O....kay.

It's always nice to see that every good "miracle" has a gift shop! :D
It's inevetable. Whether it's for the genuine desire of letting more people witness the miracle (refer the hand-touching that goes through the congregation from the priest and back at a point in the cermony in the orthodox churches), or crass comercial thinking behind it, gift shop, souvenirs and such will be part of it.

It's more common in the middle east, and as such more accepted as part of the miracle without cheapening it.
It it works for people I won't object.

First, you misread my post. Try again. Second, even if there is (subjective) evidence of a divine power in the complexity of life, evolution, etc, that doesn't answer why the Christian version of God would be any more plausible than any other god or gods. On what grounds can you say that every other god is make-believe but yours is real?

Ours is real because we have miracles and evidence that he exists, people have seen him in NDE'S and other miracles. Besides no one in the other religions has ever seen a Shiva, or wahtever god or had a miracle from his false pagan 'god'.

I don't know why honestly people try to find so many wedges in Christianity to prove its wrong. Don't think arguing makes me have fun. I become sad when I see statements like "if their is a God i will just the same tell him to go to hell and leave me out of his stuf." Sad reflection on society don't you think?

Yes it is a sad reflection on society. That is one reason why I think the end times is approaching.

Yes it is a sad reflection on society. That is one reason why I think the end times is approaching.

You are the first one here to believ me in that, you said you weren't a catholic though?

I don't know why honestly people try to find so many wedges in Christianity to prove its wrong. Don't think arguing makes me have fun. I become sad when I see statements like "if their is a God i will just the same tell him to go to hell and leave me out of his stuf." Sad reflection on society don't you think?

If anger and loopholes be the food of life, keep on bickering.

can we stop this arguement already ur giving me a headache

I am a disabled person, and I suffer great pain daily. I realize that death is quite different, from physical pain, but I have to believe that there is a god, and that He is kind and benevolent. Look at your situation from perspective. Your friend was suffering at the hands of an abusive ex-husband, and being tortured one of the most horrid diseases mankind has ever seen. I believe that God did not want your friend, who was very dear to you, to suffer anymore. I know that this doesn't help much, but for what it's worth...I'm sorry. Pax Tecum.:cool:

You are the first one here to believ me in that, you said you weren't a catholic though?

What the heck does being a catholic have to do with this? Absolutely NOTHING!

Ours is real because we have miracles and evidence that he exists, people have seen him in NDE'S and other miracles. Besides no one in the other religions has ever seen a Shiva, or wahtever god or had a miracle from his false pagan 'god'.

You have alleged miracles and no evidence. Other religions also allege these miracles, so once more, Catholicism is no better than any other religion.

read the bible that could have saved several hours on this stupid forum

You and Erketrum are correct that it does not indeed make it an impossibility to be a religious experience, but it leaves no reason to suppose that the experience was indeed religious. If it is explainable through science and practical theories which are close to certainty, this should be accepted over the less probable option of a deity intervening.


Heh yeah if you are not religious I can see how you would come to this conclusion. But if I am religous(and I am) and I belive in evolution(and I do) then I can say God did that! and have that be a religious experiance also, as is I guess the whole of life.

Then I guess it becomes a question of perception?

Genesis 19. In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the "men" of Sodom demand to "know" the angelic visitors of Lot (v.5, KJV). Attempts to describe the request as merely a desire to get acquainted with the strangers does not fit the context. Other biblical passages link Sodom with sexual immorality and perversion (2 Peter 2:6-7; Jude 7).


The crime of Sodom was being unwelcoming to strangers. Even Jesus refers to this. Curiously - that is about the entire scope of his commentary on Sodom, also... perhaps he didn't KNOW something you think he should?


Leviticus 18:22. The specific command that a man is not to "lie with a man as one lies with a woman; [for] that is detestable" is sometimes attacked by pro-homosexual scholars who argue that Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law. But there is a sharp distinction between the dietary or ceremonial laws abolished in the New Testament (Mark 7:19; Hebrews 10:8-10) and the moral laws reinforced in the New Testament. They are still applicable today. Breaking the ceremonial laws resulted in temporary uncleanness; breaking the moral laws meant severe punishment or even death (Leviticus 11 and 24).


This is one of a number of references that actually describes a man lying on a woman's 'menstrual bed'. Try reading it in the Hebrew.


Romans 1:26, 27. This New Testament passage is the most pointed and clear condemnation of homosexuality (among men or women) in the Bible. "Women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. . . . Men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Some pro-homosexual scholars claim that Paul’s statements were addressed to first-century believers and thus are not applicable today. But God’s moral laws do not change.


You have added your own prejudice to your 'evidence'. It never really says what the 'unnatural' acts or affections ARE, does it... you just ASSUME that it is the simple process of homosexual relationships.

Judging by the REST of the New Testament scriptural evidence, it is MORE likely that 'unnatural' affections might be those that are circumscribed by law... as in - fornication.

If that were the case, those who resist changing the law to allow homosexuals to marry, are actually accessory TO the sin.


1 Corinthians 6:9-10. God’s inclusion of homosexual conduct with other specific sexual and social sins is clear from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian church: "Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Some defenders of the homosexual lifestyle have tried to explain away the terms "male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders" by claiming that they refer to general immoral behavior rather than homosexual practice. But such a meaning of the Greek cannot be found in first-century literature and the translation would result in needless redundancy, for Paul began his list with "the sexually immoral." The two words refer to the sins of passive and active homosexual behavior.

Funny that you should discuss the other 'greek evidences'... I'm sure you are aware that at least ONE of the phrases Paul used 'arsenkoites' has no other use, anywhere in scripture? Effectively, Paul invented a word... and now YOU want to argue abouit what he means?

You are the first one here to believ me in that, you said you weren't a catholic though?
Wrong, after your first post, I agreed. You just insisted on branding me a liar due to me not subscribing to certain Catholic views. I keep bringing this up, but you keep ignoring it.

I don't know why honestly people try to find so many wedges in Christianity to prove its wrong. Don't think arguing makes me have fun. I become sad when I see statements like "if their is a God i will just the same tell him to go to hell and leave me out of his stuf." Sad reflection on society don't you think?
Not neccesarily.
Adhering to a religion doesn't automatically makes you more moral (though I'll admit the ratio usually is higher).
Nor is the denial of God always an indication of that something is wrong.

I've said before that questioning your faith is important to grow both spiritually and as a person.
As such, constructive debates are good for both believers and atheists, and both have things to learn from eachother.

We just have to keep it from degenerating into a flame war.
Simple, huh? :p

stop the madness

Jesus was celibate and lived a sinless life on Earth.

Where does scripture say he was celibate?

Yes it is a sad reflection on society. That is one reason why I think the end times is approaching.

Oh No! Those damned liberals and their anti-Christian views will end the world!!111

What the heck does being a catholic have to do with this? Absolutely NOTHING!

first of all the catholic question was seperate and what were you refrring to in that post to clarify matters.

read the bible that could have saved several hours on this stupid forum

Why are you here?

stop the madness

Only way to do that is to disable the NS General Forum. That won't happen because shopping is very popular here. We offer all kinds of products from Breaking News threads, morbid thread, religion, politics, and silly thread. We also have music and movies.

I hope you enjoy your NS General Shopping experience.

can we stop this arguement already ur giving me a headache

If you don't like it, leave...

read the bible that could have save several hours on this forum

I've read the bible...recent version, hebrew version, it doesn't answer any of my questions...

first of all the catholic question was seperate and what were you refrring to in that post to clarify matters.

Well you did combine the two and you said "I thought you weren't catholic. though?"

And yes. I am not a Catholic.

stop the madness

What Madness?
Its simple- Catholic vs. Athiest
Yes though it has casued me a headache and to the others as well.

Only way to do that is to disable the NS General Forum. That won't happen because shopping is very popular here. We offer all kinds of products from Breaking News threads, morbid thread, religion, politics, and silly thread. We also have music and movies.

I hope you enjoy your NS General Shopping experience.

Corneliu, I think I love you...but I gotta go...

Ours is real because we have miracles and evidence that he exists, people have seen him in NDE'S and other miracles. Besides no one in the other religions has ever seen a Shiva, or wahtever god or had a miracle from his false pagan 'god'.

So you honestly believe that no one in the entire non-Christian world has had a religious experience or has felt his or her god(s). I suppose you've asked all 970 million Hindu-followers about Shiva, for example? Not one of them has had a spiritual moment in their faith? So the reason they follow that faith is... good food?

You know nothing about faiths outside your own. You have closed your mind to everything that doesn't fit your pre-described reality. Had you been born in a time or place where another religion is dominant you no doubt would have followed that blindly as well. Just as you easily dismiss all other religions, I dismiss yours. There is no difference.

What Madness?
Its simple- Catholic vs. Athiest
Yes though it has casued me a headache and to the others as well.

And what about the rest of us who are NOT CATHOLIC? Stop thinking that Catholicism is the only Christian Faith.

stop the madness
It's not madness. It's a debate!

...can't believe I said that with a straight face.
Anyway, in it's best moments this is a thread for debate (or have turned into one) or at least heated discussions (occasionally descening to a "Did not!" - "Did to!" level...).

Still, it's great fun, and you can learn a great deal.
How to not argue for one thing. :p

So you honestly believe that no one in the entire non-Christian world has had a religious experience or has felt his or her god(s). I suppose you've asked all 970 million Hindu-followers about Shiva, for example? Not one of them has had a spiritual moment in their faith? So the reason they follow that faith is... good food?

You know nothing about faiths outside your own. You have closed your mind to everything that doesn't fit your pre-described reality. Had you been born in a time or place where another religion is dominant you no doubt would have followed that blindly as well. Just as you easily dismiss all other religions, I dismiss yours. There is no difference.


Its useless in this thread, if there was one single post which agreed with mine or didn't critisice my posts and me.Everyone with their monkeystyle, do like evrybody else, disagree with maypole because he says he is a true christian which he is not as the name maypole signifies. how irritant.

first of all the catholic question was seperate and what were you refrring to in that post to clarify matters.
Punctuation is our friend. ;)

I've read the bible...recent version, hebrew version, it doesn't answer any of my questions...
ESOM, the Bible is a religious text. Of course you won't find the answer to "How do I find my lost carkeys?" in it.:p

Its useless in this thread, if there was one single post which agreed with mine or didn't critisice my posts and me.

The reason nobody has reached total consensus with you is that what you state is for the most part absurd, so much so that not even Georgia agrees with you on certain things. Now, try answering the poster's point instead of complaining about how nobody agrees with you.

Its useless in this thread, if there was one single post which agreed with mine or didn't critisice my posts and me.

Hmm... you adamantly believe that you follow the One True Faith (tm) and no one agrees with you. Think about that.

Maybe, just maybe, your One True Faith (tm) isn't as absolute as you would wish it to be.

ESOM, the Bible is a religious text. Of course you won't find the answer to "How do I find my lost carkeys?" in it.:p

Blame Hoffman.

Punctuation is our friend. ;)

Yes, I know, but First of all I am not used talking in English and I am witing so many in succession that it gets to your head my friend.;)

Hmm... you adamantly believe that you follow the One True Faith (tm) and no one agrees with you. Think about that.

Maybe, just maybe, your One True Faith (tm) isn't as absolute as you would wish it to be.

That one true faith is our Faith in the Lord Savior Jesus Christ.

That one true faith is our Faith in the Lord Savior Jesus Christ.

Why?

The reason nobody has reached total consensus with you is that what you state is for the most part absurd, so much so that not even Georgia agrees with you on certain things. Now, try answering the poster's point instead of complaining about how nobody agrees with you.

I've already answered it and said that I Belief in God and why.Thank you very much.

Why?

Because it is our ticket into Heaven. If we do not believe in Him we will not get into the kingdom of heaven and we will not get our reward.

Its useless in this thread, if there was one single post which agreed with mine or didn't critisice my posts and me.Everyone with their monkeystyle, do like evrybody else, disagree with maypole because he says he is a true christian which he is not as the name maypole signifies. how irritant.
Two things: first, it's a debate forum so you have to expect that people will take a side opposing things you say in order to advance the debates. Second, I think the name is cute.

Cromotar, don't knock good food.

That one true faith is our Faith in the Lord Savior Jesus Christ.

Can you please tell me what religion you believe in because the way you talk you pretty much sound lik a Christian.

Its useless in this thread, if there was one single post which agreed with mine or didn't critisice my posts and me.Everyone with their monkeystyle, do like evrybody else, disagree with maypole because he says he is a true christian which he is not as the name maypole signifies. how irritant.
Don't be silly. Just because you have a name that also is a pagan fertility symbol doesn't make you not christian.
You already explained it was a coincidence and that you didn't know about the fertility thing.
Don't make yourself less than you are.

Two things: first, it's a debate forum so you have to expect that people will take a side opposing things you say in order to advance the debates. Second, I think the name is cute.

Cromotar, don't knock good food.

What name?

Can you please tell me what religion you believe in because the way you talk you pretty much sound lik a Christian.

You finally hit the nail on the head.

Because it is our ticket into Heaven. If we do not believe in Him we will not get into the kingdom of heaven and we will not get our reward.

Other religions say differently. Why should I believe you and not them?

What name?
Maypole. It's like tadpole, only in May.

God created free will; he did not create sin.

So, there are things that god did NOT do?

Yes, there is a God.

There doesn't need evidence to be a God, and sometimes God does take from us, in order for us to appreciate what we have. So, when one says "There is no God, because he didn't save my friend's life. It wasn't her time."

Well, it obviously was her time, wasn't it? God takes the things we love dearly from us sometimes in order for us to truly appreciate the way we used to have it. Sure it seems unfair and sad, but that's what life is. Everything happens for a reason, and if your friend was as happy and upbeat as you say she was, she went to a better place.

All life is sacred, and we, as humans, try to preserve it here on Earth for as long as possible. But when the time comes for one to die, one must answer that call and die. I believe that the only Hell is here on Earth, so why should we keep someone around if they don't want to stay?

You finally hit the nail on the head.

So?

Interisting is that there has been an increase in the number of yes votes, maybe.......I Didn't waste 5 hours straight of my life for nothing:p

...Cromotar, don't knock good food.

I love good food as much as the next person. Don't know if I wanna sell my soul for it though. ;)

What name?

Your nation name apparently.

Because it is our ticket into Heaven. If we do not believe in Him we will not get into the kingdom of heaven and we will not get our reward.

Then that is selfish desire and not true faith. Furthermore, Augustine was more reliable than the Bible due to his application of logic, and he believed that we are all born with original sin and therefore do not deserve to go to heaven. In fact, nobody has a right to go to Heaven, it just so happens that God is merciful and allows us to regardless. Expecting a reward, therefore, will mostly be fruitless.

So?

You asked if I was a Christian and my answer, in a round about way, was yes. I am a Christian.

Can you please tell me what religion you believe in because the way you talk you pretty much sound lik a Christian.
Yes, but Christian is not neccesarily = Catholic.

Corneliu belong to another of the branches on the Christian tree.

ESOM, the Bible is a religious text. Of course you won't find the answer to "How do I find my lost carkeys?" in it.:p

Thanx, but I have more important questions. What is the point of life? Is there a heaven? Is there a hell? Is there a limbo? Grim reaper? Point of death? Satan? God? True love? Love at first site? Soulmates? It's all coming from man, and I'm starting to believe it was just man's first scam.

Maypole. It's like tadpole, only in May.

Well besides you evryone has offended my name, ty

N.B. this is the 40th page since i posted my first post on this argumnet, look how far it has strectched, never intended to do a whole day here.

Because it is our ticket into Heaven. If we do not believe in Him we will not get into the kingdom of heaven and we will not get our reward.
You said "Him"..

Do you.. what's the term..

Do you bow your head when you say Jesus?

Then that is selfish desire and not true faith. Furthermore, Augustine was more reliable than the Bible due to his application of logic, and he believed that we are all born with original sin and therefore do not deserve to go to heaven. In fact, nobody has a right to go to Heaven, it just so happens that God is merciful and allows us to regardless. Expecting a reward, therefore, will mostly be fruitless.

Oh logic logic logic. To believe in logic all the time is illogical.

Well besides you evryone has offended my name, ty

N.B. this is the 40th page since i posted my first post on this argumnet, look how far it has strectched, never intended to do a whole day here.

That's odd, I have not referred to it.

And 40 pages later you still fail to acknowledge I agreed with you on crumbling morality in society.

Then that is selfish desire and not true faith. Furthermore, Augustine was more reliable than the Bible due to his application of logic, and he believed that we are all born with original sin and therefore do not deserve to go to heaven. In fact, nobody has a right to go to Heaven, it just so happens that God is merciful and allows us to regardless. Expecting a reward, therefore, will mostly be fruitless.
Is it allowed to propagate for other beliefs on the forum?

You said "Him"..

Do you.. what's the term..

Do you bow your head when you say Jesus?

I give praises to Jesus. I sing him songs of Praise and Worship. he is my Lord and Savior.

Oh logic logic logic. To believe in logic all the time is illogical.
Heh, he's got you there. ;)

Thanx, but I have more important questions. What is the point of life? Is there a heaven? Is there a hell? Is there a limbo? Grim reaper? Point of death? Satan? God? True love? Love at first site? Soulmates? It's all coming from man, and I'm starting to believe it was just man's first scam.
Life; in a sense; in a sense; in a sense; in a sense; yes; in a sense; in a sense; in a sense; yes; in a sense.

I'm not really religious, but I said "yes" because it#s a nice feeling to believe in a good and if I'm wrong and there's no god I get no trouble but if you unbelievers are wrong, you might really get trouble...:D

That's odd, I have not referred to it.

And 40 pages later you still fail to acknowledge I agreed with you on crumbling morality in society.

Oh! I've insulted it! Only it was more like a burn...

I'm going home now, but will leave some closing remarks:

There is no one true faith or one true god. The fact that even Christians can't seem to agree on what version is "correct" should be proof of this. I doubt that there are two people in the entire world with the exact same faith.

I believe in personaly spirituality rather than organized religion. I'm somewhat of a Pagan, myself (in belief more than practice); I see "miracles" every day in nature and the world around us. In that contact, I experience my own version of "god".

With that, I say adieu.

Oh logic logic logic. To believe in logic all the time is illogical.

Yeah, real smart. I think not. To say logic is illogical is absurd. Logic is the most reliable method of learning humanity has. Don't try to claim the word of God is, because they originally claimed the world was 4,000 years old, the world was created in 7 days and so forth (although as soon as these were found to be false, the church claimed these were simple allegories and metaphors. What a cop-out).

Life; in a sense; in a sense; in a sense; in a sense; yes; in a sense; in a sense; in a sense; yes; in a sense.

Thanx, but I was hoping for a more authorative figure would tell me that...If there was a better sign...maybe it's because I don't believe it till I see it.

That's odd, I have not referred to it.

And 40 pages later you still fail to acknowledge I agreed with you on crumbling morality in society.

Ok so you agreed on one thing with me, but to what do you attribute this?

Well besides you evryone has offended my name, ty
You know, I rather object to that sentiment. I have not given you any insult because of your name.
I have inquired about it, and I said I found it amusing because your belief and the symbolism of the maypole.

However, none of this was intended as an insult, so if you percieved it as offensive, I apologise, but it was not made with evil intent.

Yeah, real smart. I think not. To say logic is illogical is absurd.

It would have been funnier if you said "To say logic is illogical is illogical to logic."

Thanx, but I was hoping for a more authorative figure would tell me that...If there was a better sign...maybe it's because I don't believe it till I see it.
Ah, so the more authoritative figure is you. All's well.

Is it allowed to propagate for other beliefs on the forum?

All depends on what aspects of which faiths are in question. Not all faiths make the same claims, so arguments to debunk a claim are irrelevant to other religions. In fact, seeing as Augustine spoke as a Catholic on behalf of Catholicism, my argument only discounts Catholicism.

Yeah, real smart. I think not. To say logic is illogical is absurd. Logic is the most reliable method of learning humanity has. Don't try to claim the word of God is, because they originally claimed the world was 4,000 years old, the world was created in 7 days and so forth (although as soon as these were found to be false, the church claimed these were simple allegories and metaphors. What a cop-out).

Logic 100% of the time is illogical. You do not want to use logical tactics on the field of battle for they can be anticipated. You need to use illogical tactics to accomplish what you want to do. Why do you think new tactics are fought against? Because they defy logic and when the new tactics succeed, they become the new logical reasoning until something new comes along and upsets it.

Something will always come and upset the logical balance of logic and those who believed in the old logic will fight what will become the new logic.

Logic serves well but what happens when something illogical happens that cannot be described by logic?

YOU ALL OF YOU HAVE BEEN JUDGING ME ALL THE TIME HURLING QUESTIONS INTENDED TO MAKE YOURSELVES FEEL SAFE, ABUSES, INSULTS, JUDGING ME CRAZY, INSANE AND I DID NOT JUDGE THE AMERICANS. I SAID THAT FROM THE FACT HOW SOCIETY IS NOWADAYS ALWAYS LIBERAL, SURELY IF MORE THAN HALF THE NATION AGREES WITH ABORTION THEY CAN'T BE CALLED RELIGIOUS OR GOOD CHRISTIANS. AND IT IS YOU WHO IS RANTING WITH DECIETFUL LIES ABOUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND ITS PRIESTS. SO I TELL YOU " WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO JUDGE THE CHURCH AND GOD" NOT YOU , YOU LYING ATHEIST BASTARD.

Thanks, but Christianity already HAS a 'marytr'.

Ah, so the more authoritative figure is you. All's well.

No a higher figure than that, a God perhaps, I do know that several small societies do praise me, but higher than a wonderful icon as me...

Ok so you agreed on one thing with me, but to what do you attribute this?

Maypole, are you going to respond to my posts about:

Catholicism vs. Athiesm =/= truth

and my comment about me being a christian or are you going to ignore them?

No a higher figure than that, a God perhaps, I do know that several small societies do praise me, but higher than a wonderful icon as me...
There is no higher authority than the reader of signs.

Thanks, but Christianity already HAS a 'marytr'.

Actually...more than one but that is beside the point.

Ok so you agreed on one thing with me, but to what do you attribute this?

The same as you; the demise of religion. While religion does not automatically equate morality, it does instill at least some sense of morality in those with faith. I'm lucky enough to have morality without faith, which is not particularly rare, mind, but more rare than with the religious.

You know, I rather object to that sentiment. I have not given you any insult because of your name.
I have inquired about it, and I said I found it amusing because your belief and the symbolism of the maypole.

However, none of this was intended as an insult, so if you percieved it as offensive, I apologise, but it was not made with evil intent.

No need to appologise.

There is no higher authority than the reader of signs.

Well, thank you for that little insight of spirituality, but I still stand sceptic that you defy the three small third world societies that see me as a god.

Well, thank you for that little insight of spirituality, but I still stand sceptic that you defy the three small third world societies that see me as a god.
How do I defy them?

The reader of signs thingy! Just because I don't yeild, stop, or go under 55 doesn't mean I cannot run a true theocracy.

Logic 100% of the time is illogical. You do not want to use logical tactics on the field of battle for they can be anticipated. You need to use illogical tactics to accomplish what you want to do. Why do you think new tactics are fought against? Because they defy logic and when the new tactics succeed, they become the new logical reasoning until something new comes along and upsets it.

Something will always come and upset the logical balance of logic and those who believed in the old logic will fight what will become the new logic.

Logic serves well but what happens when something illogical happens that cannot be described by logic?

How would you deduce that something other than the normal logical route is needed to be taken? That's right, logic, so consequently it is still the original path of logic. As soon as someone's logic falters, that is where an otherwise even confrontation may turn awry for one party. Of course, this is not to say that doing what doesn't immediately comes to mind is without merit, it is such things that give us the experience and knowledge of such actions to apply logic to them in future. After all, the wheel was discovered by accident. but our understanding of it now allows for complex scientific models and suchlike including it.

Nothing I am aware of cannot be explained by logic. Just because a certain take on logic is not known at the time, doesn't mean it is illogical.

Maypole, are you going to respond to my posts about:

Catholicism vs. Athiesm =/= truth

and my comment about me being a christian or are you going to ignore them?

Sorry didn't see the one about atheism, what was it on so i can reply, and The one about you being a christian you confused me because I asked if i remeber correctly first if you were catholic and christian and you said nop , and you talked like a chrisitan so you confused me.

Sorry didn't see the one about atheism, what was it on so i can reply, and The one about you being a christian you confused me because I asked if i remeber correctly first if you were catholic and christian and you said nop , and you talked like a chrisitan so you confused me.

You stated that this was a catholic vs Athiesm debate. I asked you what about those of us who are NOT Catholic who are debating on the side of Christ.

As to the 2nd part, I am not a Catholic but I am a Christian. Just of a different denomination.

On the subject of the Visual-Kei vs. Corneliu Smackdown, I would have to say that logical thinking is more logical than illogical thinking with the exception of war.

The same as you; the demise of religion. While religion does not automatically equate morality, it does instill at least some sense of morality in those with faith. I'm lucky enough to have morality without faith, which is not particularly rare, mind, but more rare than with the religious.

Thats true, but that doesn't apply in all cases that a person is good. In malta we have a neo-nazi Norman Lowell Who says he is very spiritual and moral but he is a total rascist and discriminator, (not referring To you)

The reader of signs thingy! Just because I don't yeild, stop, or go under 55 doesn't mean I cannot run a true theocracy.
Oh! Those were the signs from God you were looking for...

:D

Oh! Those were the signs from God you were looking for...

:D

No, but they're the only one's I have found.

On the subject of the Visual-Kei vs. Corneliu Smackdown, I would have to say that logical thinking is more logical than illogical thinking with the exception of war.

I would have to include religion in that as well. Some consider religion illogical so you have to include that.

Oh and politics. That's an illogical field for ya :D

You stated that this was a catholic vs Athiesm debate. I asked you what about those of us who are NOT Catholic who are debating on the side of Christ.

As to the 2nd part, I am not a Catholic but I am a Christian. Just of a different denomination.

When i was saying catholic i was refering generally to those that believe in Christ and the Church including you.

I would have to include religion in that as well. Some consider religion illogical so you have to include that.

Oh and politics. That's an illogical field for ya :D

Actually, I think the politics part is only that way in the US and Iraq, and both because of the same psycho texan, not saying I'm against Texans, they're pretty cool, just hat bush...

When i was saying catholic i was refering generally to those that believe in Christ and the Church including you.

Ah ok. You used a capital C that was why I was asking.

I give praises to Jesus. I sing him songs of Praise and Worship. he is my Lord and Savior.
I asked if you bowed your head..

I asked if you bowed your head..

We don't bow our heads, we are in Jesus and Jesus in us thats why we are in God also.Jesus is the Bridge between us and God.

We don't bow our heads, we are in Jesus and Jesus in us thats why we are in God also.Jesus is the Bridge between us and God.
I thought homosexuality was bad?

I bow my head when I say Bill S. Preston [bows] and Theodore Logan[bows]. (that's bill and ted for the record)

I asked if you bowed your head..

I lift my head and hands to the sky when I give Him praise and worship and I bow my head when I pray.

I thought homosexuality was bad?

i know i'm bumping, but FRIGGIN AWESOME BURN, MAN!!!

I thought homosexuality was bad?

What the hell does it have to do with what I wrote? We are in Jesus because we are one As He loves us we love him.

I thought homosexuality was bad?


:p Amen!

Thrice rule, for the record.

All depends on what aspects of which faiths are in question. Not all faiths make the same claims, so arguments to debunk a claim are irrelevant to other religions. In fact, seeing as Augustine spoke as a Catholic on behalf of Catholicism, my argument only discounts Catholicism.
Ok. I'll give it a shot then.
Fell free to flame me for it. ;)


I believe in God, and for me God is life and love.
I also believe God was responsible for the creation of life as we know it, but not for a purpose, rather like getting the ball rolling, or birthing a child.
For this reason, I refer to God as both She and He, and sometimes It or Them.

I don't believe God invlove herself in the universe, or human lives.
Both the univerese and humanity has to grow up, and we can't keep running to Daddy all the time a problem crops up and get him to fix it.
We have to learn from our own mistakes and clean up our own messes.

I don't believe in praying, rather trying to help yourself, and to remember that you're seldom alone, and take help from others.

Balance is a central theme in my beliefs, and I believe that most thigns has both good and bad sides to them. Note that I said has, not "must have".
Too, balance in all things, including balance, so there will also bee some things that percieved as all good or all bad.

I believe you should question your beliefs often, and speak with both people taht agree with you, and with those that disagree.

Give help freely when you can. It never harmed anyone and it might do a lot of good. A little can go a long way.
(Oh yeah, I'm heaping on the cliches ;))

Tolerance and communication are also vvery imporatant to me, as is learning to laugh, both at yourself and the world, or you won't be able to take it seriously.

Since my belief concerning God herself is simple, I don't believe in heaven or hell. God loves everyone, and what happens after death, well, that everyone will find out sooner or later.

Another very important tenet of my beliefs is "There is no one true way."
People have different beliefs. As long as people don't harm eachother, to each his own.

Sin and evil, well, perhaps all-encompassing greed can be seen as evil.
Taking away people's humanity is probably the worst sin in my book.
People are people are people. Always.



There are other parts of it as well, but this is a fairly good rundown, or I'd probably be lisitng things into next day. ;)

Got to go now, See you later, hopefully there will be some coversoin......heheh:p

I won't flame you, but by your earlier comment about Jesus is in us, I'd say your the one that's flaming.

On the subject of the Visual-Kei vs. Corneliu Smackdown, I would have to say that logical thinking is more logical than illogical thinking with the exception of war.
You forget women. :p

Or, let's be fair, men for the women.

Ok. I'll give it a shot then.
Fell free to flame me for it. ;)


I believe in God, and for me God is life and love.
I also believe God was responsible for the creation of life as we know it, but not for a purpose, rather like getting the ball rolling, or birthing a child.
For this reason, I refer to God as both She and He, and sometimes It or Them.

I don't believe God invlove herself in the universe, or human lives.
Both the univerese and humanity has to grow up, and we can't keep running to Daddy all the time a problem crops up and get him to fix it.
We have to learn from our own mistakes and clean up our own messes.

I don't believe in praying, rather trying to help yourself, and to remember that you're seldom alone, and take help from others.

Balance is a central theme in my beliefs, and I believe that most thigns has both good and bad sides to them. Note that I said has, not "must have".
Too, balance in all things, including balance, so there will also bee some things that percieved as all good or all bad.

I believe you should question your beliefs often, and speak with both people taht agree with you, and with those that disagree.

Give help freely when you can. It never harmed anyone and it might do a lot of good. A little can go a long way.
(Oh yeah, I'm heaping on the cliches ;))

Tolerance and communication are also vvery imporatant to me, as is learning to laugh, both at yourself and the world, or you won't be able to take it seriously.

Since my belief concerning God herself is simple, I don't believe in heaven or hell. God loves everyone, and what happens after death, well, that everyone will find out sooner or later.

Another very important tenet of my beliefs is "There is no one true way."
People have different beliefs. As long as people don't harm eachother, to each his own.

Sin and evil, well, perhaps all-encompassing greed can be seen as evil.
Taking away people's humanity is probably the worst sin in my book.
People are people are people. Always.



There are other parts of it as well, but this is a fairly good rundown, or I'd probably be lisitng things into next day. ;)

I'm kinda disappointed you expect me to flame you for it, for the most part it is perfectly unassuming and acceptable. The only problems logically are the assumption of a diety and that the aforementioned diety loves everyone, but you do not use your faith to be some authority on the world and it is likewise not provable that you are wrong, so no real borders have been crossed that shouldn't be. I find your attitude refreshing :D

I don't believe God invlove herself in the universe, or human lives.


What makes everyone so sure that God is a woman? Did God give another prophecy, except it was to a moron American, and they screwed it up, or is it because god is a tranny, or is it just because everyone wants god to be their gender? Latest craze? DaVinci Code? WTF?

You forget women. :p

Or, let's be fair, men for the women.

And even though I am a guy, i'd have to say men are the illogical half.

Because you forced it to display love you. Love requires an element of choice. If you want someone to love you, you can be very nice to them, do everything in your power to give them what they want and that can in some cases encourage them to love you back but the fact is it isnt certian. If we could force people to love us, the world would be a very different place. Perhaps you should instead prove that love can be forced.


You made the claim that love requires free-will.

I express skepticism... I question your assertion, and demand evidence.

The burden of proof is on you, my friend.


God is omnipotent. Its not for a lack of power that he can't do that. Its simpley a defeinition that humans have placed upon it. The only way to undo it would be for God to in time past alter what the word Hexagon means.


Like I said - arguing semantics. What does THAT have to do with omnipotence?


Frankly, if anyone thinks they can force love, I would like to see how it works. You can enocourage love, give love yourself, but it is impossible to force it from someone else.


You made the first claim - I'm skeptical, and waiting for your evidence.


It is consistant, and if your going to claim it isnt, show me concrete examples where it isn't and I'll explain them


I don't need you to 'explain' it for me, friend... I appreciate your bias, and realise you simply cannot see the truth.

Jesus is simply not the Messiah... plain as that. He can't be. He follows the wrong branch of the Davidic bloodline, and he is under the curse of Jeconiah... and that is assuming you even ALLOW for the (conflicting) Biblical lineages.

Not the ONLY inconsistency, but one of the most important...


We have the author here, he doesnt claim these are facts.


Have you read the books?


So your unwilling to look at evidence that supports my argument. How very immature of you.


Who says I didn't read your sources?


http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gutripper.html#harden

Read this. And if you dont read it because it supports me, your only going more in the direction of immaturity.


Again, you assume too much. You have a skewed perspective of your own importance, my friend... pride IS a sin, you know.

Do I fear your arguments? Am I qualing before your evidence?

Sorry to disillusion you, my friend, but you are a mosquito yelling at the tornado.


The Serpant does lie. He says that they will not die, and they would.


He said they would not SURELY die. Which was true.


How just is it if a judge just ignores the crimes of a murder without any kind of punishment for anyone


Relevence?


We have plenty of evidence that he existed. More evidence than most other figures. And if there is evidence to suggest he couldnt feel pain, I'd like to see it. Also while 30 years of suffering is not much in God's terms, it is in terms of humans and Jesus was a human.


No - we have NO independent, contemporary corroboration.


Well then you would understand that even if it was temporary it was a sacrifice

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/2littlepain.html

Again... relevence? I don't see the 'pain' part as vital... I just don't think that a sacrifice of my life would be much of a gesture, if I KNEW I'd be back three days later.

What makes everyone so sure that God is a woman? Did God give another prophecy, except it was to a moron American, and they screwed it up, or is it because god is a tranny, or is it just because everyone wants god to be their gender? Latest craze? DaVinci Code? WTF?

Most likely due to the idea of a diety birthing the world, spawning the world and such like. All the man does is copulate, but the female bears the child, nurtures it and releases it into the world. Replace the child with a universe and you may see parallels, or at least recognise connotations of females with birth and creation.

And I'm with ESO that men tend to be more illogical than women. Just like him, I am male.

I'm kinda disappointed you expect me to flame you for it, for the most part it is perfectly unassuming and acceptable. The only problems logically are the assumption of a diety and that the aforementioned diety loves everyone, but you do not use your faith to be some authority on the world and it is likewise not provable that you are wrong, so no real borders have been crossed that shouldn't be. I find your attitude refreshing :D
Oh I didn't expect you to flame me for it. It was more in jest than anything else, and a way to note (generally, not to you*) that I don't mind people questioning my beliefs.


*in retrospect, since I quoted your post, it wasn't clear that it was more meant for people in general rather than you, sorry.

Okay, I'm gonna start a new thrwead, because it doesn't fit in here. It's an idea for a TV show I actually had yesterday. It needs some building, so I need some Christians to help me come up with it. It will be titled Welcome to Hell.

What makes everyone so sure that God is a woman? Did God give another prophecy, except it was to a moron American, and they screwed it up, or is it because god is a tranny, or is it just because everyone wants god to be their gender? Latest craze? DaVinci Code? WTF?
Read more carefully. ;)

"I also believe God was responsible for the creation of life as we know it, but not for a purpose, rather like getting the ball rolling, or birthing a child.
For this reason, I refer to God as both She and He, and sometimes It or Them."

Don't worry in 30 years time and less you will have some strong evidence that will shock you to the toes.

You realise people have been claiming the end is 'just around the corner', since BEFORE Jesus even died, yes?

(Assuming he is not ENTIRELY a fictional character).

Most likely due to the idea of a diety birthing the world, spawning the world and such like. All the man does is copulate, but the female bears the child, nurtures it and releases it into the world. Replace the child with a universe and you may see parallels, or at least recognise connotations of females with birth and creation.

And I'm with ESO that men tend to be more illogical than women. Just like him, I am male.
Ah, but from a human point of view, both the male and the female is needed to create new life, so it makes sense that god is more than one, or both male and female.
Or both more than one and male and female at the same time.
If a gender even can be applied to a being like God. ;)


On men and being illogical. I read about a research where men were asked to make decisions after meeting with a potential customer/businesspartner or something like that, and the men that met with pretty women made worse decisions than those that met with plain women or other men.
A pretty face really does turn us on our ear. :p

And then I would have to question if they are serious about being Christians.

They go to church, one assumes. They claim Christ as their leader, and "I AM" as their god.

Any group can be tarred with a brush tainted with it's worst factional excesses.

They go to church, one assumes. They claim Christ as their leader, and "I AM" as their god.

So? That doesn't make one a believer. You know how many false Christians there are?

Any group can be tarred with a brush tainted with it's worst factional excesses.

Now here, I will agree with you.

Actually, I think everyone should be screened by an evaluation board before they're allowed to become parents.

Actually - despite my pro-freedoms angle... this is one I agree with. Children are too innocent and too important to leave to the vagaries of fate.

We don't bow our heads, we are in Jesus and Jesus in us thats why we are in God also.Jesus is the Bridge between us and God.
Well.. catholics bow thier heads when they say "Jesus" why don't christians?

Ah, but from a human point of view, both the male and the female is needed to create new life, so it makes sense that god is more than one, or both male and female.
Or both more than one and male and female at the same time.
If a gender even can be applied to a being like God. ;)


On men and being illogical. I read about a research where men were asked to make decisions after meeting with a potential customer/businesspartner or something like that, and the men that met with pretty women made worse decisions than those that met with plain women or other men.
A pretty face really does turn us on our ear. :p

Logically, gender would be irrelevant considering creation since it is not a reproductive process. Any gender, be it biological or a gender identity, can create a daisy chain for instance. With connotations of course, there would be suggestions of either adrogynous gender, be it hermaphroditic in nature or not, or devoid of gender in it's entireity. However, the reasons these assumptions are not made are as follows;

1. God was claimed to be male by the church and always referred to as 'He' within the Bible, most likely to assert the idea of male dominance over females in the time period when it was authored.
2. Due to the lack of prevalence of hermpahroditic people, and absence of other androgynous/non-gendered individuals in mankind, these do not normally come to mind.


Regarding the pretty face thing, that is one of the very few things that makes me thankful I never developed a libido. A PRIDE!

Actually...more than one but that is beside the point.

Only really NEEDS one, though... right?

What makes everyone so sure that God is a woman? Did God give another prophecy, except it was to a moron American, and they screwed it up, or is it because god is a tranny, or is it just because everyone wants god to be their gender? Latest craze? DaVinci Code? WTF?
Why does anyone assume that a diety - something non-corporeal - would have a gender at all?

Ah, but from a human point of view, both the male and the female is needed to create new life, so it makes sense that god is more than one, or both male and female.


Not strictly true. It is theoretically possible to replicate through 'parthenogenesis'... in which case, only ONE parent would be required, but it would NEED to be the female.

Actually - despite my pro-freedoms angle... this is one I agree with. Children are too innocent and too important to leave to the vagaries of fate.
Yes...
Impossible to actually do though, I think.
Can't monitor everyone all the time, and there's teh statistical flukes. Those that look bad but work out fine, and those that look fine but goes in the crapper.

Still, be they hetero, homo or single, some kind of screening process would be nice.

So? That doesn't make one a believer. You know how many false Christians there are?


Almost all of them, as far as I'm concerned. Most people who CALL themselves 'christian' seem to value the lessons of Paul WAY over the lessons of Jesus.

(Or, all of them, I guess... if you can accept that the religion is fundamentally false).

Yes...
Impossible to actually do though, I think.
Can't monitor everyone all the time, and there's teh statistical flukes. Those that look bad but work out fine, and those that look fine but goes in the crapper.

Still, be they hetero, homo or single, some kind of screening process would be nice.

Put something in the water, I say.

A chemical sterilising agent, that can be reversed ONLY if you can obtain the 'antidote'... and make screening the requirement for the medicine.

Put something in the water, I say.

A chemical sterilising agent, that can be reversed ONLY if you can obtain the 'antidote'... and make screening the requirement for the medicine.

This would lead to revolt and revolution, though I suppose the idea isn't as harsh as it sounds. One problem however would be that of a black market.

Logically, gender would be irrelevant considering creation since it is not a reproductive process. Any gender, be it biological or a gender identity, can create a daisy chain for instance. With connotations of course, there would be suggestions of either adrogynous gender, be it hermaphroditic in nature or not, or devoid of gender in it's entireity. However, the reasons these assumptions are not made are as follows;

1. God was claimed to be male by the church and always referred to as 'He' within the Bible, most likely to assert the idea of male dominance over females in the time period when it was authored.
2. Due to the lack of prevalence of hermpahroditic people, and absence of other androgynous/non-gendered individuals in mankind, these do not normally come to mind.


Regarding the pretty face thing, that is one of the very few things that makes me thankful I never developed a libido. A PRIDE!

There are also quite a few creation myths that have the universe hatch from an egg.
I don't remember if it was agricultural societies or nomadic societies that they were common in.
There is a genderless option, since there usually is no mentioning of who/what laid the universe-egg.


Congratulations on the low libido. ;)

Almost all of them, as far as I'm concerned. Most people who CALL themselves 'christian' seem to value the lessons of Paul WAY over the lessons of Jesus.

(Or, all of them, I guess... if you can accept that the religion is fundamentally false).

And yet....Paul's teachings come from the lessons of Jesus. Anyways....I value Jesus's teachings for Jesus is the way into heaven.

Not strictly true. It is theoretically possible to replicate through 'parthenogenesis'... in which case, only ONE parent would be required, but it would NEED to be the female.
Hmm, what is pathogenesis? Is it what amoebas do to replicate?


English isn't my native language, so words and concepts escape me sometimes.

Put something in the water, I say.

A chemical sterilising agent, that can be reversed ONLY if you can obtain the 'antidote'... and make screening the requirement for the medicine.
That has possibilities. At least for places that doesn't have their own well. ;)

This would lead to revolt and revolution, though I suppose the idea isn't as harsh as it sounds. One problem however would be that of a black market.

I think it'd be mostly a matter of how you phrased it.

Hell, if you time it right, you can persuade large groups of people to do all kinds of stupid stuff...

(*Don't mention Iraq. Don't mention Iraq. Don't mention Iraq.*)

And yet....Paul's teachings come from the lessons of Jesus. Anyways....I value Jesus's teachings for Jesus is the way into heaven.

Paul wasn't even THERE for 'the lessons of Jesus'. He didn't even MEET Jesus during his earthly ministry.

And - while Jesus expressly promoted salvation ONLY for the Jews, Paul is of the era that insisted what JESUS MEANT to say, was 'salvation for everyone'.

Hmm, what is pathogenesis? Is it what amoebas do to replicate?


English isn't my native language, so words and concepts escape me sometimes.


"The phenomenon that leads to "virgin births" in some species looks like a promising source of embryonic stem cells. Researchers are on the brink of obtaining human stem cells this way for the first time, and animal experiments suggest such cells are indistinguishable from normal stem cells.

In parthenogenesis, an unfertilised egg keeps two sets of chromosomes and begins developing as if it had been fertilised. Some insects and reptiles can reproduce this way but even though an electric or chemical stimulus can induce parthenogenesis in mammals, the resulting embryos die after a few days."

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3654

I think it'd be mostly a matter of how you phrased it.

Hell, if you time it right, you can persuade large groups of people to do all kinds of stupid stuff...

(*Don't mention Iraq. Don't mention Iraq. Don't mention Iraq.*)
No more abortions needed! No more little "accidents"! Feel free to sleep around without a condom!

Well, maybe not the last one. There would still be STD's.
Too bad really, that one might have done the trick. :p

Paul wasn't even THERE for 'the lessons of Jesus'. He didn't even MEET Jesus during his earthly ministry.

I wouldn't say that. I seem to recall his persecution trip to Damascus where he ran into him.

And - while Jesus expressly promoted salvation ONLY for the Jews, Paul is of the era that insisted what JESUS MEANT to say, was 'salvation for everyone'.

And if you actually study the words of the lord, you can see that he sent his disciples out to the....oh I don't know the word....gentiles maybe?

Originally Posted by New Scientist
"The phenomenon that leads to "virgin births" in some species looks like a promising source of embryonic stem cells. Researchers are on the brink of obtaining human stem cells this way for the first time, and animal experiments suggest such cells are indistinguishable from normal stem cells.

In parthenogenesis, an unfertilised egg keeps two sets of chromosomes and begins developing as if it had been fertilised. Some insects and reptiles can reproduce this way but even though an electric or chemical stimulus can induce parthenogenesis in mammals, the resulting embryos die after a few days."
Oh. Was it this article someone meant when they said that it might soon be possible to make a baby from two female eggs?
And make males redundant in the bargain. ;)

That has possibilities. At least for places that doesn't have their own well. ;)

It'd be a start...

Of course - even people that have their own wells, often drink Cokes at McDonalds... :)

I wouldn't say that. I seem to recall his persecution trip to Damascus where he ran into him.



And if you actually study the words of the lord, you can see that he sent his disciples out to the....oh I don't know the word....gentiles maybe?

Oh, do quote. I'd be interested to see it. Seems to me he said specifically to "go not to the gentiles", but hey, maybe I'm just reading what it actually says.

Matthew 10:5These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' 8Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[b]drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. 9Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; 10take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.

11"Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. 12As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. 16I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.

I wouldn't say that. I seem to recall his persecution trip to Damascus where he ran into him.


After Jesus was already dead, you mean?

How does that qualify as part of his 'earthly ministry'?


And if you actually study the words of the lord, you can see that he sent his disciples out to the....oh I don't know the word....gentiles maybe?

No -actually, he didn't. He expressly forbids it, in fact.

It is one of the inconsistencies of scripture, simply explained by the fact that the 'minister to the Gentiles' verses added on at the ends of some Gospels, do not even EXIST in the earliest versions of those texts.

Clearly - they were added later, probably, in an honest attempt to make the Gospels agree with the Pauline teaching.

Oh. Was it this article someone meant when they said that it might soon be possible to make a baby from two female eggs?
And make males redundant in the bargain. ;)

Well, the idea has been around for a while... but I believe the other poster was probably talking about combining two ova to produce a 'conventional' conceptus - just one with two female parents.

I'm not bang-up-to-date on that one... I think there has been some small success in 'lower orders' like mice, but nothing indicative of success in higher orders, like humans, yet.

Of course - it'll just be one more thing for the religious right to go crazy over...

Oh, do quote. I'd be interested to see it. Seems to me he said specifically to "go not to the gentiles", but hey, maybe I'm just reading what it actually says.

Matthew 10:5These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' 8Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[b]drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. 9Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; 10take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.

11"Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. 12As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. 16I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.

Exactly. Thanks - I was about to go grab my bible to look up the references.

Nice bit of devilled-advocado work... wouldn't have necessarily expected to see you argue this one on this side... :)

After Jesus was already dea, you mean?

How does that qualify as part of his 'earthly ministry'?

Seems to me I wasn't talking about his eartly ministry when I said he met Jesus. I distinctly used the word...Persecution Trip didn't I?

No -actually, he didn't. He expressly forbids it, in fact.

Oh then I guess the fact that Gentiles came to hear is false then eh? (Matt 4:25)

Or the fact that they were more faithful than the Jews? (Matthew 12:41-42)

Or how about when he expanded his ministry to include them in Matthew 15:32. not to mention Matthew 8:11-12.

You were saying?

Paul wasn't even THERE for 'the lessons of Jesus'. He didn't even MEET Jesus during his earthly ministry.I wouldn't say that. I seem to recall his persecution trip to Damascus where he ran into him.

Sad, that is. Appears Grave was talking about the earthly ministry and you said he was wrong.

But then you were wrong about a lot of things in that post.

Seems to me I wasn't talking about his eartly ministry when I said he met Jesus. I distinctly used the word...Persecution Trip didn't I?



Oh then I guess the fact that Gentiles came to hear is false then eh? (Matt 4:25)

Or the fact that they were more faithful than the Jews? (Matthew 12:41-42)

Or how about when he expanded his ministry to include them in Matthew 15:32. not to mention Matthew 8:11-12.

You were saying?

Amusing. You quote a specific example when he says he's not there for the Gentiles even using a racial slur against them (dogs). And I'm sure you listed the wrong passage on the second one. I believe you mean Matthew 15. And you ignore that he EXPRESSLY says not to preach to Gentiles or Samaritans.

Matthew4:23Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people. 24News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed, and he healed them. 25Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis,[f] Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him.


Your first example is clearly specious. If you thought someone could heal you, you'd follow him and try to get healed. Gentiles did this. How does THEIR actions change HIS purpose?

Matthew 15:23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

27"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

28Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

And if Jesus had to expand his ministry when he repeatedly said he was sent only to the lost sheep, was he wrong?

*snip*

Matthew 8:11 And I tell you this, that many gentiles will come from all over the world-from east and west-and sit down with abraham Isaac, and Jacob at the feast in the Kingodm of Heaven.

I could quote what my study bible says about this but will it do me good to say what these verses says for "us gentiles" meaning us Non-Jews. Since I am not a Jew why would Jesus die for my sins if he didn't die for everyone?

I know full well that he first came for the Jews.

Amusing. You quote a specific example when he says he's not there for the Gentiles even using a racial slur against them (dogs). And you ignore that he EXPRESSLY says not to preach to Gentiles or Samaritans.

Your first example is clearly specious. If you thought someone could heal you, you'd follow him and try to get healed. Gentiles did this. How does THEIR actions change HIS purpose?

As I said that I could quote what my study talks about with these verses but I can see that would be a waste of my time.

Anyone with the eyes and ears to see that these verse mean he first came to the jews and then to the rest of us non-jews. So I will ask again. If he came to the jews only, then why did he die for all of our sins?

Amusing. You quote a specific example when he says he's not there for the Gentiles even using a racial slur against them (dogs). And you ignore that he EXPRESSLY says not to preach to Gentiles or Samaritans.

Your first example is clearly specious. If you thought someone could heal you, you'd follow him and try to get healed. Gentiles did this. How does THEIR actions change HIS purpose?
Hmm, sarmatians... What was their culture like?
I know the women among them were in charge or equal to the males, more or less, back when they were still Sauromatians.
They either split or were absorbed by another people though.

Have to look that up...

They were still polyethistic at the time of Jesus, weren't they?

EDIT: Oops. Sorry, read wrong or Samaritans and Sarmatians.:rolleyes:

You made the claim that love requires free-will.

I express skepticism... I question your assertion, and demand evidence.

The burden of proof is on you, my friend.

You made the first claim - I'm skeptical, and waiting for your evidence.


Your asking me to prove a negaitve, that it is impossible to force love. Thats like you all those times you have said to me that the burden of proof is on you to prove that God does exist rather than on you to prove that he doesnt. Love cannot be forced, that much is self evident. The reason is that love is not a physical response. You can force someone to physically love you (with the threat of violence or the promise of money) but you can't force someone to emotionally love you. The fact that you are skeptical about this sickens me. You must know that its obvious that you cannot force someone to love you


Like I said - arguing semantics. What does THAT have to do with omnipotence?

You were saying how you thought I had weak faith for believing God couldnt do the logically impossible. I was disagreeing.


I don't need you to 'explain' it for me, friend... I appreciate your bias, and realise you simply cannot see the truth.

Jesus is simply not the Messiah... plain as that. He can't be. He follows the wrong branch of the Davidic bloodline, and he is under the curse of Jeconiah... and that is assuming you even ALLOW for the (conflicting) Biblical lineages.

Not the ONLY inconsistency, but one of the most important...

Jesus is not Josephs natural son. If you look at the geneology the word "begat" follows a generational link. But there is not a direct generational link between Joseph and Jesus, it is indirect. So while he is still a member of the line of David, Jesus does not inheret the curse.



Who says I didn't read your sources?

I can only assume you have and dismissed them since you dont bring any of the points they raise up here. However if you have I'd like please to discuss further with you.


He said they would not SURELY die. Which was true.

No it wasnt. After eating the fruit they would now surely die. I dont know what the word surely has to do with it


No - we have NO independent, contemporary corroboration.

Yes we do, the gospels.

http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm


Again... relevence? I don't see the 'pain' part as vital... I just don't think that a sacrifice of my life would be much of a gesture, if I KNEW I'd be back three days later.

I disagree, I think to face that death with the extreme pain and all that he went through when you consider where he was before is an extreme sacrifice.

Oh then I guess the fact that Gentiles came to hear is false then eh? (Matt 4:25)

Came to hear has nothing to do with the purposes of Jesus that he says was only for the lost sheep of Israel.

Or the fact that they were more faithful than the Jews? (Matthew 12:41-42)

Matthew 12:39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one[e] greater than Jonah is here. 42The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.

Hmmm... says nothing about Jesus being sent to Gentiles, yet we've quoted Jesus saying otherwise. I guess I can see why you referenced this passage, but are you actually willing to amend the words of Jesus as he directly expressed by looking so desperately in such obscure references?

Or how about when he expanded his ministry to include them in Matthew 15:32. not to mention Matthew 8:11-12.

You were saying?

Expanded his ministry? How? By feeding some people who were hungry. That proves he's compassionate, not ministering to them.

Matthew 15:32
Matthew 15:29Jesus left there and went along the Sea of Galilee. Then he went up on a mountainside and sat down. 30Great crowds came to him, bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute and many others, and laid them at his feet; and he healed them. 31The people were amazed when they saw the mute speaking, the crippled made well, the lame walking and the blind seeing. And they praised the God of Israel.
32Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way."

33His disciples answered, "Where could we get enough bread in this remote place to feed such a crowd?"

34"How many loaves do you have?" Jesus asked.
"Seven," they replied, "and a few small fish."

35He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. 36Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to the people. 37They all ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 38The number of those who ate was four thousand, besides women and children. 39After Jesus had sent the crowd away, he got into the boat and went to the vicinity of Magadan.

Yep, compelling stuff there.
One passage - "I am only here for the lost sheep of Israel:
Another - "Hey, Gentiles. Hungry? Here's a fish."

Yep, I can see how one jumps to a ministry for Gentiles. In La-La land.

Matthew 8:11-12
5When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6"Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering."
7Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him."

8The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."

10When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

13Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.

Yeah, compelling stuff. I'm very impressed. Statements that expressly state the opposite of what you claim and statements that don't even really reference the issue negate them, according to you. Interesting what passes for a logical argument of Bible truths around here.

As I said that I could quote what my study talks about with these verses but I can see that would be a waste of my time.

Anyone with the eyes and ears to see that these verse mean he first came to the jews and then to the rest of us non-jews. So I will ask again. If he came to the jews only, then why did he die for all of our sins?

Quick. Who said he did?

Meanwhile, yes, it would be a waste of your time to post a biased path of study that argues something clearly untrue. He expresses clearly during his earthly ministry that he came for the lost sheep of Israel. I quoted him saying so. Can you quote him saying he didn't? Some of my quotes came later in his life than your claims he expanded his ministry. Was Jesus confused or were you?

Now, I do believe that if we are faithful enough that we will be saved by him as evidence in Matthew 15, but that doesn't mean he came for us. To say he did is to say Jesus was either lying or wrong when he said the EXACT OPPOSITE. I'm not willing to say such a thing. Are you?

Now you have yet to answer my question and I doubt you ever will.

Shall we look at Isiah 49:6?

Or shall we look at Matthew 28:18-20 when jesus sends out his disciples, those who are left after Judas's suicide, to make disciples of All The Nations and batizing them in the name of the Father, and the son, and the holy spirit?

We could go at this all day but I'm not going to do this all day because it is rather a pointless.

Quick. Who said he did?

Meanwhile, yes, it would be a waste of your time to post a biased path of study that argues something clearly untrue. He expresses clearly during his earthly ministry that he came for the lost sheep of Israel. I quoted him saying so. Can you quote him saying he didn't? Some of my quotes came later in his life than your claims he expanded his ministry. Was Jesus confused or were you?

Oh I'm sorry. I thought I was looking at a study bible. Stupid me. How could I forget that a study bible is biased. Oh brother aren't you in trouble. How can I take what you are saying seriously if you are going to call a study bible, biased.

have a nice day Jocabia. My respect for you has dropped. Caio.

Matthew 8:11 And I tell you this, that many gentiles will come from all over the world-from east and west-and sit down with abraham Isaac, and Jacob at the feast in the Kingodm of Heaven.

I could quote what my study bible says about this but will it do me good to say what these verses says for "us gentiles" meaning us Non-Jews. Since I am not a Jew why would Jesus die for my sins if he didn't die for everyone?

I know full well that he first came for the Jews.

I didn't say Gentiles can't make it into heaven, nor did Jesus. It wasn't why he was here, however, and he says so expressly and repeatedly. You've not quoted him saying otherwise, ever. And you'd think if he thought it necessary to state it so clearly and so many times, that if he'd changed that position he would make it known. Odd that he didn't.

Now you have yet to answer my question and I doubt you ever will.

Your question was like stating "when did you stop beating your wife?" I requires me to first accept that he died for all our sins.

Shall we look at Isiah 49:6?

Or shall we look at Matthew 28:18-20 when jesus sends out his disciples, those who are left after Judas's suicide, to make disciples of All The Nations and batizing them in the name of the Father, and the son, and the holy spirit?

We could go at this all day but I'm not going to do this all day because it is rather a pointless.
You mean he did that after he died? After his earthly ministry again. In a portion of the Gospels amended on long after the original Gospels are written. Hmmmm...

Meanwhile, was Jesus wrong or lying when he said he was sent to just the lost sheep?

Oh I'm sorry. I thought I was looking at a study bible. Stupid me. How could I forget that a study bible is biased. Oh brother aren't you in trouble. How can I take what you are saying seriously if you are going to call a study bible, biased.

have a nice day Jocabia. My respect for you has dropped. Caio.

Is this what you do? You don't like what people have to say so you cut and run? And you wonder why people react to you like they do? What's the matter? My faith is strong enough to hear what you have to say on the matter? Is yours strong enough to hear what I have to say?

Meanwhile, who wrote your study Bible? Yes, I would claim that many things that come from the Church, particularly their interpretation of the Bible are hideously biased. There is a mountain of evidence for this so forgive my skepticism. Personally, I like to rely on studying the scripture myself to figure out what it SAYS and means and not letting other people tell me it says or means something different. When I have questions I ask God not man. Who do YOU think is more likely to have the right answer? I know. Do you?

Seems to me I wasn't talking about his eartly ministry when I said he met Jesus. I distinctly used the word...Persecution Trip didn't I?



Oh then I guess the fact that Gentiles came to hear is false then eh? (Matt 4:25)

Or the fact that they were more faithful than the Jews? (Matthew 12:41-42)

Or how about when he expanded his ministry to include them in Matthew 15:32. not to mention Matthew 8:11-12.

You were saying?

Matthew 4:25... it doesn't matter if Gentiles came to hear. The message wasn't FOR them. If you listen to a message on my answering machine, it doesn't become 'for you'... nor are you the intended audience of the person who leaves that message.

Matthew 12:41-2... it doesn't matter if the Gentiles believed Solomon of Jonah. That STILL doesn't mean they are the intended recipients of the message of Jesus, now does it?

To continue:


Matthew 8:11-2 "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

This passage doesn't say that those who come to sit will be Gentiles. Indeed, the ONLY thing it specifies is "Children of the Kingdom"... the Jews.


Matthew 10:23 "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come."

This verse strongly implies that the ministry of the Apostles MUST remain in Israel until the Second Coming.


Matthew 13:37-40 " He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked [one]; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world."

Again - the 'heathen' are described as separate from the 'Children of the Kingdom", as the spawn of the devil, and as chaff to be burned.


Mathhew 15:24 "But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Unequivocal. "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel"


Matthew 15:26 "But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast to dogs."

Again - unequivocal. Jesus says his ministry is NOT for the heathen. (Dogs equates to Gentiles).


Matthew 18:17 "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

The non-believer is compared to a Gentile... a [i]derogatory reference. Clearly, the Gentile is NOT the target of the ministry.


Matthew 25:32-3 "And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left."

Again - more biblical 'animal' allegory. The 'sheep' are the flock of Israel. The goats are the Gentiles. Read Matthew 25:41 if you wish to see what he foretells for the Gentile.

Im probably out of the loop, which case im sorry for making a post about the beginning question.

Simply if god were to exsist there would be no true evidence other than his 'Miracles' which are scientifically unexplainable. In this there is no other way to prove of gods exsistance. I really dont have much more to say, I would like to say alot here but can't sorry.

Is this what you do? You don't like what people have to say so you cut and run? And you wonder why people react to you like they do? What's the matter? My faith is strong enough to hear what you have to say on the matter? Is yours strong enough to hear what I have to say?

Do not judge me Jocabia unless you yourself be judged. My faith is as strong as yours but you said that the source I was using was biased when it isn't. You called the bible, to be more exact a study bible, to be bias.

I do not care if you call it bias or not but the fact is, it is the same book of faith as yours but at least it explains the verses. I find it quite useful.

And yet....Paul's teachings come from the lessons of Jesus. Anyways....I value Jesus's teachings for Jesus is the way into heaven.
Okay, I know this has been asked before, but you've yet to truly answer it...so maybe I'll ask in a different way.

You've claimed that Jesus is the truth. You've claimed that Jesus is the ticket into heaven.

I ask why. Why is Jesus the right person? Why is Christianity the correct path, and the hundreds of other religions are all wrong? What evidence, besides what Jesus and the God of the NT say, is there for this idea?

Matthew 4:25... it doesn't matter if Gentiles came to hear. The message wasn't FOR them. If you listen to a message on my answering machine, it doesn't become 'for you'... nor are you the intended audience of the person who leaves that message.

Matthew 12:41-2... it doesn't matter if the Gentiles believed Solomon of Jonah. That STILL doesn't mean they are the intended recipients of the message of Jesus, now does it?

To continue:


Matthew 8:11-2 "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

This passage doesn't say that those who come to sit will be Gentiles. Indeed, the ONLY thing it specifies is "Children of the Kingdom"... the Jews.


Matthew 10:23 "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come."

This verse strongly implies that the ministry of the Apostles MUST remain in Israel until the Second Coming.


Matthew 13:37-40 " He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked [one]; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world."

Again - the 'heathen' are described as separate from the 'Children of the Kingdom", as the spawn of the devil, and as chaff to be burned.


Mathhew 15:24 "But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Unequivocal. "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel"


Matthew 15:26 "But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast to dogs."

Again - unequivocal. Jesus says his ministry is NOT for the heathen. (Dogs equates to Gentiles).


Matthew 18:17 "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

The non-believer is compared to a Gentile... a [i]derogatory reference. Clearly, the Gentile is NOT the target of the ministry.


Matthew 25:32-3 "And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left."

Again - more biblical 'animal' allegory. The 'sheep' are the flock of Israel. The goats are the Gentiles. Read Matthew 25:41 if you wish to see what he foretells for the Gentile.

Is it Corny's general practice to cut and run when it gets too hot? And apparently I've lost his respect by not agreeing with some random study Bible. How dare I?

Matthew 8:11 And I tell you this, that many gentiles will come from all over the world-from east and west-and sit down with abraham Isaac, and Jacob at the feast in the Kingodm of Heaven.

I could quote what my study bible says about this but will it do me good to say what these verses says for "us gentiles" meaning us Non-Jews. Since I am not a Jew why would Jesus die for my sins if he didn't die for everyone?

I know full well that he first came for the Jews.

You misrepresent the scripture.

The Greek text does not include 'Gentile'... that is an addition.

He came FIRST for the Jews. He came ONLY for the Jews.

As I said that I could quote what my study talks about with these verses but I can see that would be a waste of my time.

Anyone with the eyes and ears to see that these verse mean he first came to the jews and then to the rest of us non-jews. So I will ask again. If he came to the jews only, then why did he die for all of our sins?

He didn't. You are mistaking what later editors added to the text, and what Paul (who never MET his earthly form) made of his teachings.... for what Jesus said about himself.

Is it Corny's general practice to cut and run when it gets too hot? And apparently I've lost his respect by not agreeing with some random study Bible. How dare I?

:rolleyes:

Did I cut and run? No I didn't.

I do not care if you call it bias or not but the fact is, it is the same book of faith as yours but at least it explains the verses. I find it quite useful.
Just out of curiosity, what is the translation and explanation of Genesis 1:26?

Also, be careful accepting what footnotes say...alot of the sections that are "explained" are still heavily debated, even by biblical scholars...

You misrepresent the scripture.

The Greek text does not include 'Gentile'... that is an addition.

He came FIRST for the Jews. He came ONLY for the Jews.

Oh bullcrap and you know it. This is why you are not getting into Heaven Grave_n_idle. If he came only for the jews then why did he send his disciple to spread the word to ALL THE NATIONS?

have a nice day Jocabia. My respect for you has dropped. Caio.

Hmmmm... I guess I mistook this as saying "have a nice day Jocabia. My respect for you has dropped. Caio."

Oh bullcrap and you know it. This is why you are not getting into Heaven Grave_n_idle. If he came only for the jews then why did he send his disciple to spread the word to ALL THE NATIONS?

If he didn't, then why did he say it? Was he wrong or lying? That's what's amusing to me about some Christians. They're constantly suggesting God and Jesus were wrong. See, when you're omnipotent and no the future, you don't change your mind based on new evidence. You always had ALL of the evidence. Thus, if you change your mind it can really only be bacause *gasp* you were wrong and wanted to correct yourself. Or it could have always been part of the plan which would Jesus was lying when he said who he was sent for. So which is it?

Or perhaps you're just trying to find what isn't there.

Oh bullcrap and you know it. This is why you are not getting into Heaven Grave_n_idle. If he came only for the jews then why did he send his disciple to spread the word to ALL THE NATIONS?
Matthew 8:11 of the KJV says "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven"

I would also interperet that as stating that those who converted to Judaism would get into heaven, or he would not have specifically mentioned the patriarchs of the faith

Do not judge me Jocabia unless you yourself be judged. My faith is as strong as yours but you said that the source I was using was biased when it isn't. You called the bible, to be more exact a study bible, to be bias.

I'm not judging you. I'm discussing things with you and reacting to what you say. I've never suggested you aren't saved or won't be, unlike what you've suggested about others. I called the study part of the study Bible to be biased. Yep. I said that. I didn't call the Bible biased and have quoted it. I don't care what some MEN added to the Bible to make it easier for YOU to understand.

I'm glad your faith is strong. Thus, you should have no reason to cut and run just because you don't like what I'm saying and we can continue to explore the topic. Yay!

[QUOTE=CorneliuI do not care if you call it bias or not but the fact is, it is the same book of faith as yours but at least it explains the verses. I find it quite useful.[/QUOTE]

Hmmmm... I wonder how they got by when they were just listening to Jesus. How did they ever understand it without the explanations you use? Perhaps by reading it and asking God for guidance? Or is it more appropriate to look for guidance from man?

Your asking me to prove a negaitve, that it is impossible to force love. Thats like you all those times you have said to me that the burden of proof is on you to prove that God does exist rather than on you to prove that he doesnt. Love cannot be forced, that much is self evident. The reason is that love is not a physical response. You can force someone to physically love you (with the threat of violence or the promise of money) but you can't force someone to emotionally love you. The fact that you are skeptical about this sickens me. You must know that its obvious that you cannot force someone to love you


I do not accept 'it is obvious' any more than I accept 'but, everyone knows'. It is obvious that the world is flat. It is obvious that the stars are holes in the sky that let light in. It is obvious that the moon is made of silver, and tacked to the night sky.

You have made the claim that love REQUIRES free-will. I ask for evidence. This is nothing to do with proving negatives... where is your EVIDENCE that love can ONLY come through free-will?


You were saying how you thought I had weak faith for believing God couldnt do the logically impossible. I was disagreeing.


No, you were not disagreeing... you started talking about semantics. Semantic quibbling is not the same as omnipotence.


Jesus is not Josephs natural son. If you look at the geneology the word "begat" follows a generational link. But there is not a direct generational link between Joseph and Jesus, it is indirect. So while he is still a member of the line of David, Jesus does not inheret the curse.


I think you are talking crap. If Jesus is not related to Joseph, then he is not of the house of David at all.. so he CERTAINLY cannot be Messiah.

I also believe your approach to be non-scriptural.


I can only assume you have and dismissed them since you dont bring any of the points they raise up here. However if you have I'd like please to discuss further with you.


I did not consider any of your sources worthy of discussion. That doesn't mean I didn't read them. The one about who wrote the Gospels flies directly in the face of most modern serious theological debate. I'm not going to dignify it with a response.


No it wasnt. After eating the fruit they would now surely die. I dont know what the word surely has to do with it


Then your understanding of the scripture, even just within the confines of Eden, is fairly shaky.

There were TWO 'special' trees in the Garden, were there not?


Yes we do, the gospels.

http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm


The Gospels were all written by people in, or around, the cult of Jesus. Thus - NOT independent.

None of them were written until a generation AFTER the events they claim to describe. Thus - NOT contemporary.

The earliest independent texts are two or three generations later, in the texts of Josephus (for which, the authenticity is highly questionable and subject to some heated debate)... which is CERTAINLY not anything LIKE 'contemporary'.


I disagree, I think to face that death with the extreme pain and all that he went through when you consider where he was before is an extreme sacrifice.

Knowing that you'll be back in three days time, and that you will be a god? If I knew that, I'd be happy to lay down my earthly life. Not much of a sacrifice at all.

Now you have yet to answer my question and I doubt you ever will.

Shall we look at Isiah 49:6?

Or shall we look at Matthew 28:18-20 when jesus sends out his disciples, those who are left after Judas's suicide, to make disciples of All The Nations and batizing them in the name of the Father, and the son, and the holy spirit?

We could go at this all day but I'm not going to do this all day because it is rather a pointless.

Even if we accept Matthew as 'true'... not allowing for the fact that many verses are ACKNOWLEDGED by most serious scholars as having 'migrated' from other scripture.... (there is a lot of it in Luke, for example.. but even within Matthew; Matthew 12:47 is a 'migration' of the text from Mark 3:32, Matthew 17:21 is a migration from Mark 9:29, etc... try looking up the concept of "Harmonic Assimilation"...

Even if we ACCEPT all of that - Jesus says to preach in all nations... but he does NOT say to preach to all peoples. You could preach to the Jews of Egypt, the Jews of Syria, the Jews of Persia.... and be honestly and perfectly following the commandment.


Regarding Isaiah 49:6 "And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth."

And, if this IS a prophecy... it doesn't automatically follow that THIS prophecy is about Jesus...

Oh I'm sorry. I thought I was looking at a study bible. Stupid me. How could I forget that a study bible is biased. Oh brother aren't you in trouble. How can I take what you are saying seriously if you are going to call a study bible, biased.

have a nice day Jocabia. My respect for you has dropped. Caio.

Of COURSE a 'bible study' is biased... it ahs to have been written by men, and it must have been written with some reason or agenda to be served.

Bias is not always a bad thing, but one SHOULD be aware that it exists, and accept the material one reads with that in mind.

Try comparing a Jewish analyis of Old Testament texts, with a Christian analysis of the same texts, sometime.


Many Christians believe that Jesus taught us to have a PERSONAL relationship with God, and with scripture. That we should allow our reading of the scripture to be shaped by 'discernment', not by the Pharisees of our day.

Is it Corny's general practice to cut and run when it gets too hot? And apparently I've lost his respect by not agreeing with some random study Bible. How dare I?

Yes. It is not unusual for issues to be avoided, or simply refused.

I always find it bizarre that people who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus - who quite openly opposed the Pharisee tradition of teaching a 'correct version' of scripture - get SO bent out of shape when one follows a 'discerned' path to salvation.

Oh bullcrap and you know it. This is why you are not getting into Heaven Grave_n_idle. If he came only for the jews then why did he send his disciple to spread the word to ALL THE NATIONS?

This is why I'm not getting into Heaven?

Who are you to judge? I don't get my permissions from you, or any other earthly source, my proud friend.

(As a Jew, I'd say I have a better chance than some....)

How is it bullcrap, anyway? Do I need to go find the Greek version of the scripture? Would that help you?

'Gentile' just is NOT in the verse you claim. It is an addition. And it CAN be proved, if you wish.

Matthew 8:11 of the KJV says "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven"

I would also interperet that as stating that those who converted to Judaism would get into heaven, or he would not have specifically mentioned the patriarchs of the faith

Very good point, and well made.

*genuflects*

Very good point, and well made.

*genuflects*
that may be the first time I've had someone genuflect me:p

that may be the first time I've had someone genuflect me:p

Nah... Straughn does it all the time, just without the 'flourishes'. :)

Hmmmm... I wonder how they got by when they were just listening to Jesus. How did they ever understand it without the explanations you use? Perhaps by reading it and asking God for guidance? Or is it more appropriate to look for guidance from man?

Another good point, well made.

*TG*

100% of born again Christians believe Jesus died for their sins.

Congratulations, you win the Randomlittleisland 'Most Retarded Statistic EVER!!!' award.

The religious quibbling going on in this post kind of amuses me. I suppose this is what Voltaire was thinking about when he conjectured that in almost all cases, what man agrees on to be true is for all intents and purposes true, however if man disagrees on something, all viewpoints are to some degree false. Therefore, since religions disagree about all these tiny details, they are almost certainly all wrong, however the existence of a God is still quite possible. (Again the fact that even if God does exist, which I consider entirely possible, we can't know who's right so it's pointless to argue anyway, since God seems to have chosen not to reveal who is wrong.)

Well.. catholics bow thier heads when they say "Jesus" why don't christians?

The Protestant churches have developed different ways than us to worship Jesus and God.

You realise people have been claiming the end is 'just around the corner', since BEFORE Jesus even died, yes?

(Assuming he is not ENTIRELY a fictional character).

But people have always blattered thier thoughts. This time it came from the Virgin Mary herself, and it is not necessarily an apocalypse, it will make us consious of God's existince.

Oh bullcrap and you know it. This is why you are not getting into Heaven Grave_n_idle. If he came only for the jews then why did he send his disciple to spread the word to ALL THE NATIONS?And you know this for sure?

I love the fact that I asked a question that implies I'm accepting chritianity, and they still can't give me a strait fucking answer.. there truly is no God.

The Protestant churches have developed different ways than us to worship Jesus and God.
For fucks sake!

I love the fact that I asked a question that implies I'm accepting chritianity, and they still can't give me a strait fucking answer.. there truly is no God.

Do you ever regret starting this thread?

Do you ever regret starting this thread?
No, but I regret the poll. I tottaly fucked this thread up with the poll.

No, but I regret the poll. I tottaly fucked this thread up with the poll.

lol, the poll just demonstrates that no one really knows anyway... So in a way it was productive.

No, but I regret the poll. I tottaly fucked this thread up with the poll.Yeah, I sincerely miss an "I don't know" option :(

lol, the poll just demonstrates that no one really knows anyway... So in a way it was productive.
Yes but, I wanted this thread to be about if people really have faith in God. :(

Congratulations, you win the Randomlittleisland 'Most Retarded Statistic EVER!!!' award.

*kisses the award* 'I'd like to thank Gallup for making the statistic available...'

You make it sound like chocolate money is a bad thing. :D

*downs another Van Houten*
it is a bad thing. imagine litterally being eaten into poverty...

and should the air conditioner at the bank break down... all that cash... Down the Drain... :D

HAhahhahh including your sudeen loss of temper? Very Christian! No wait that is actualy very Christian. hehahhahhahhah
please... I've seen many and Athiest, Agnostic as well as those of other religions also display losses of temper. :rolleyes:

Yes but, I wanted this thread to be about if people really have faith in God. :(
I'm sure some of them really do. ;)