NationStates Jolt Archive

Sir, I am no troll.

I am not a crook.

No, really.. Since we are all telling something about ourselves here, I am also an omnivore.

Yes, and what was Caesar's due? Nothing.


Actually, wasn't Jesus saying "Pay your taxes. Caesar printed the money (it has his face on it), so that is what you owe him. But don't worship him, he is not God, God is God."?

Actually, wasn't Jesus saying "Pay your taxes. Caesar printed the money (it has his face on it), so that is what you owe him. But don't worship him, he is not God, God is God."?

That's pretty good :)

I can't tell you how many times I've heard this...


Blah blah blah brimstone blah blah hellfire blah blah blah hell blah blah blah god blah blah blah righteous blah blah blah hell blah blah blah

Your statement is so logically fallacious I cannot even fathom how you function. I'd feel sorry for you, but it would be a waste considering you will neither learn nor change.


Also I'm surprised that Imperial Brazil is still around.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard this...




Your statement is so logically fallacious I cannot even fathom how you function. I'd feel sorry for you, but it would be a waste considering you will neither learn nor change.


Also I'm surprised that Imperial Brazil is still around.

lol

That's pretty good :)

I believe the full passage is: They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. - Matthew 22:21

That's pretty good :)

Thanks. Dad was a minister, and a theologian, and we spent a few years living on the seminary campus where I was surrounded by theologians, so I have a pretty strong background in biblical theology. As a non-believer, I tend not to flaunt it in this sort of a discussion because it gets Christians upset sometimes when I use their own theology to refute their statements.

Let me conclusivley and finally say that the world know is a shitload better off than it has been in the past. If youd care for some examples, try the Thirty Year's war, the invasion of the Huns, or the time when the Moors invaded all of Europe, if youre looking for a time when Im pretty sure that Christ would decide to say, "Ya know, maybe this aint so good any more....fuck this, Im canning it. Apocolypse nigh!" In fact, compared to those situations, our modern time is downright peachy. As for sex? Well Im pretty sure you're looking for the sixties. And since thats about 50 years ago, Yeah. No.

As to answer that paradox.....
God could create a giant stone. Then he could remove his omnipotence to no longer be able to lift that stone. Since this would make him no longer omnipotent, I seriously doubt he would do that. But he COULD

Care to prove that Caesar's due was nothing?
Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...#Give_to_Caesar_only_what_you_actually_owe_him) is an argument for such an interpretation.

Um...yea.
Yes?

Actually, wasn't Jesus saying "Pay your taxes. Caesar printed the money (it has his face on it), so that is what you owe him. But don't worship him, he is not God, God is God."?
Read above.

Thanks. Dad was a minister, and a theologian, and we spent a few years living on the seminary campus where I was surrounded by theologians, so I have a pretty strong background in biblical theology. As a non-believer, I tend not to flaunt it in this sort of a discussion because it gets Christians upset sometimes when I use their own theology to refute their statements.

Very Very cool :)

The Lord is indeed displeased, but you're just ranting. Perhaps you should have written it in 1337, that'd fit the general tone better.

What is 1337?

What is 1337?
You do not know?

What is 1337?

Unintelligable language.

I must admit, I thought this thread was going to be about some new band that I've just never heard of yet.(which is quite a large number)

Errr.... I am guessing you don't know what "lest" means.

Good point. I think he means "except" or "unless". lol

You do not know?

Well, i DIDN'T until Corneliu 2 told me (see immediately below):
Unintelligable language.

Thank you.

It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. The imperialist occupation of Iraq continues and falters while ruthless predatory multinationals pollute the skies with global warming. All around society continues to degenerate as the twin snakes of greed and licentiousness gnaw away at what little there is of civilization. But why is this happening? It is happening because God is angry at the world and its evil. God is angry at the amoral secular tyrant Democrat party, as well as the Republican party in its support for capitalism, which is based entirely off of greed and unworthy of selfless Christians. It may be too late to avert God’s righteous anger, but there may still be some possibility to save ourselves from his merciful retribution. It will require nothing less than all of the greatest force that good Christians can muster, as the Sodoms and Gomorrahs of the world must be cleansed, while the greedy and selfish rich man must be turned away from all the world just as Christ did. Perhaps then we may all be able to engage as one community to selflessly aid one another and live in the pure peace of God’s love, rather than wither under his great might.

Okay, honestly, n/o you sound like an Islamic radical right now with the 'take out the sodom and gomorrahs of the world!' i believe that God is going to come when the world becomes to warlike with one another, that is when the AntiChrist is going to step in and bind it all together and send most of the un-Christian population, and Christian poulation to either Heaven or Hell

I'm sorry but your concept of hell is wrong. We all go to Sheol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol)/Hades in the end. Some do call it hell, but it's not quite the same as the hell you think exists.

Uh, I beg to differ; Jesus said of Hell three times in one of the gospels, "Where their worm dieth not, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED". So it IS a place of literal fire.

Don't pray for mine because my soul does not need to be saved. It was saved the day I realised that God is nothing more than a human fabrication and religion a set of controls dreamt up by a bunch of homophobic old men who hadn't been laid in years.

Reeeeeeally? You'll change your tune when you stand before God and He says "Go to Hell! I offered you a chance to accept my Son as your personal Savior and be saved, but instead you mistook me for 'a human fabrication'!" But by then it will be much too late.

Why does "God" want man to love him? Would that not be homosexual? Unless of course, "God" is bi-curious! Which means that homosexuality and the "acts" that are considered sins are truly not sins. After all, was man not created in the image of "God" according to Genesis?

No, it is NOT homosexual or bi-curious. You just think it is, because you, like so many people on the earth today, are in such a sexual frame of mind that you think "love" automatically means something sexual, when it does NOT necessarily.

And homosexuality IS a sin; God said in the Law, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind", and "If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination".

I'm not hellbound because hell does not exist. I would rather be content in my life with no one preaching at me than disgruntled and "saved". I'd rather not be "saved".

If you were to get saved, you would not be disgruntled. You would be happy that your sin burden was lifted off your back by the blood of Jesus Christ.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...#Give_to_Caesar_only_what_you_actually_owe_him) is an argument for such an interpretation.

Yes?

Read above.

Which doesn't say "Caesar is owed nothing". It MAY say "If you don't owe Caesar any taxes, then you shouldn't pay him any." but it doesn't say that Caesar's due is nothing. In fact, it clearly avoids saying that.

However, the "thou shalt not steal" bit strongly says that if you DO owe Caesar taxes, you should pay them.

Yes, at the time, Jesus was probably weasling out of saying "Overthrow Caesar! Refuse to pay your taxes!" Which makes perfect sense, as, if he did exist, Jesus was probably a small time revolutionary political leader with a fairly decent message (Love is better than hate), not somebody who was looking to become an instant martyr. So what he actually said was more along the lines of "If you do owe taxes (and the undercurrent here is one of "what constitutes a legal tax?") go ahead and pay them, but don't forget, guys, we are doing all this because we want the Jews to be free, so remember that our God is more important than their Caesar any old day."

I am absolutely NOT dodging the question. I am answering it in the only way possible. You posit an all powerful god. I say if that is the case, then yes, god can create a paradox. And then create a solution. What is wrong with that answer?

If I were to say that god could only create the unliftable rock, but then was not able to change reality so that she could lift it, I would be saying that god is NOT all powerful, which would not fill the terms of the question. Likewise if I say god could not create such a rock.

The ONLY answer to the question is "Yes, if an all powerful god exists, she can create a rock so big she can't lift it and then she can change the rules of infinity to be able to lift that rock."

It is a silly question. Sorry. But I think the NEXT question is the important one. That question is "Is there such a god?" and I believe the answer is "no".

So, wait. Your point is that there is no all powerful god?

Funny... That's my point too. No wonder we weren't getting anywhere.

If you believe Caesar's rule is illegitimate in its entirety, then in what sense is he owed anything? It is one thing to say 'pay taxes' to avoid confrontation, another thing to say that they are someone's due.

If you believe Caesar's rule is illegitimate in its entirety, then in what sense is he owed anything? It is one thing to say 'pay taxes' to avoid confrontation, another thing to say that they are someone's due.

Um...when one is under occupation, yea you do have to give ceaser his due. In this case, in the form of taxes. I mean...why do you think that Jesus was born in Bethlehem?

So, wait. Your point is that there is no all powerful god?

Funny... That's my point too. No wonder we weren't getting anywhere.

We had gotten there. I answered the question you posed.

My point was that IF there were an all powerful god, then the answer would be "Yes... and...".

My afterthought to you was, I don't believe there is one.

Um...when one is under occupation, yea you do have to give ceaser his due. In this case, in the form of taxes. I mean...why do you think that Jesus was born in Bethlehem?
Saying something is one's 'due' implicitly involves the assumption that they deserve it.

Saying something is one's 'due' implicitly involves the assumption that they deserve it.

BINGO!! Ceaser was ruler of the Roman Empire and had control of the region. Therefor, to Ceaser's mind, he deserved their money. That was why he ordered what he ordered. He felt that they deserved to pay Roman taxes. I mean...they were under Roman Occupation. Congratulations, you just proved my point.

If you believe Caesar's rule is illegitimate in its entirety, then in what sense is he owed anything? It is one thing to say 'pay taxes' to avoid confrontation, another thing to say that they are someone's due.

MMMmmmm.... maybe, but it seems that this is just a stretch of what I said. And the whole statement had the intense flavor of avoiding confrontation, which makes sense from a guy who advocated turning the other cheek. So I think the emphasis was less on whether Caesar was actually entitled to any taxes, and more on "I think we should stay focused on what we think is important and not get so tied up on these side issues, so I am going to adroitly sidestep the issue and remind you that our God is the important thing to remember. So pay whatever taxes you owe, and let us move on."

If he was a BIG revolutionary leader, then he would have been more about "get rid of Caesar" and less about "love thy neighbor". But he wasn't, so he didn't.

BINGO!! Ceaser was ruler of the Roman Empire and had control of the region. Therefor, to Ceaser's mind, he deserved their money. That was why he ordered what he ordered. He felt that they deserved to pay Roman taxes. I mean...they were under Roman Occupation. Congratulations, you just proved my point.

Well, in fact, you just proved his. Imp Braz is arguing that Jesus thought the occupation was illegal, so the taxes were also illegal and so Caesar was not actually due anything at all from a legal or moral standpoint. That, in fact, he didn't "deserve" to be paid at all. So his "due" was nothing.

Well, in fact, you just proved his. Imp Braz is arguing that Jesus thought the occupation was illegal, so the taxes were also illegal and so Caesar was not actually due anything at all from a legal or moral standpoint.

Ah...but Jesus did not say that the occupation was illegal. Remember. He did not say anything about the occupation.

Rapture

Yes, we should build it.

Yes, we should build it.

If we build it, will they come? :p

If we build it, will they come? :p

Will the people Rejoice and be Glad?

ok. another pint(s) here.
1. Red Baptism, this is specifically for you. I belive in the New Testament, but not the old. I am bi. Am I going to hell? I really dont care about your answer, just curious to see what you say..
2. As for that "gay sex is an abomination" thing? Well, if you people actually read Levictus (which I admit I do sometimes when I need a good laugh, usually from "atheistsbible.com" or some site like that....), youll realise that MANY things are called abominations. Including shrimp. See the following passage:
Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

Really. Ok then. Well I guess, according to your definition, everyone who has eaten shrimp is going to hell?

The Bible specifically condemns homosexuality, a chosen behavior. Nowhere does it mention heritage (which one does not choose).

Sexuality is no more chosen than race.

Reeeeeeally? You'll change your tune when you stand before God and He says "Go to Hell! I offered you a chance to accept my Son as your personal Savior and be saved, but instead you mistook me for 'a human fabrication'!" But by then it will be much too late.

I'm always appalled when people say things like this with such obvious sadistic glee.

1. Omg wtf is dat ayngel doin wiv teh key to teh botmlez pit an a chain?
2. Teh ayngel is laik, “Oh hai, Tacgnol, u is evilz an u is goin in teh pit 4 laik a rilly long time, dood. Srsly.”
3. An Tacgnol is frown into teh botmlez pit 4 lying to pplz. Getz out in laik 1000 years but not 4 long tho, so no worryz.
4. An ai seen judgez on frones, an wtf! teh gud pplz has got laik no hedz just coz dey laiks Baby Jesus an stuffs! Not bin worshipin idles or anyfin! Anyways, theyz bak to life an livin with Baby Jesus for laik 1000 years.
5. (Ded gud pplz wiv heds has 2 wait 1000 years. Not gud.) Dis bak to life 1.
6. Bak 2 life 1 pplz pwn other pplz, not even pwned by secund dedding. Deyz laik best matez wiv Baby Jesus an Ceiling Cat, for laik 1000 years, srsly. OMG how kool is dat?
7. Laik 1000 years laterz, Tacgnol gotted out of teh botmlez pit
8. An sez lying stuffs to all urths pplz, tryin to start teh scrap.
9. Loadz pplz turnded up an are laik, “Oh hai, Ceiling Cat pplz, we pwn you big stylez”, but den teh Ceiling makes teh firez an dey is all “Oh noes! Do not want!”.
10. An Tacgnol is frown in a lake of fartz, wiv other evil pplz to burn 24 7 forevers. Sry.
11. Omg, is dat Ceiling Cat on teh white frone? Ys, coz Ceiling Cat is pwning the urths and stuffs.
12. Ai see ded pplz. Srsly.
13. All ded pplz deyz bein judged, even the rilly rilly hard onez 2 get at coz deys in teh sea an stuffs.
14. Den death an Hades gets frown in teh fire lake. Oh noes! Dis teh secund dedding.
15. Oh btw evil pplz is goin in teh fire lake also. Pwned!

I don't know about anybody else, but I think the Book of Revelation makes more sense when read in Lolcat.

Hee! I have had a horrible day, but reading that just made it ever so much better. That's fantastic and I'm stealing it. :)

Ah...but Jesus did not say that the occupation was illegal. Remember. He did not say anything about the occupation.

*I* agree with you.

Now I am confusing myself, by defending both sides of this argument.

OK, to clear it up, I think Jesus was saying "Go ahead and pay your taxes if you owe them, but let's focus on the important stuff, that being God."

IB was saying that since the occupation was illegal, Jesus was saying (with irony) "Sure, go ahead, give Caesar his due" and thinking "but since this whole occupation thing is illegal, he isn't really due anything."

Well, in fact, you just proved his. Imp Braz is arguing that Jesus thought the occupation was illegal, so the taxes were also illegal and so Caesar was not actually due anything at all from a legal or moral standpoint. That, in fact, he didn't "deserve" to be paid at all. So his "due" was nothing.Did Jesus consider being part of the Roman Empire illegal? He doesn't say so. And except for a few fundamentalist Jewish nutjobs nobody in Judaea, Samaria, or the Decapolis believed that. Most of the people there were quite happy to have part of the enormous economical and cultural boost that came with being in the RE. That's why they built Caesaraea in the first place. And Roman taxes were not particularly high, what made them high for the population were the native publicans (thus the population wasn't mad at the Romans but at their own folks).

It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. The imperialist occupation of Iraq continues and falters while ruthless predatory multinationals pollute the skies with global warming. All around society continues to degenerate as the twin snakes of greed and licentiousness gnaw away at what little there is of civilization. But why is this happening? It is happening because God is angry at the world and its evil. God is angry at the amoral secular tyrant Democrat party, as well as the Republican party in its support for capitalism, which is based entirely off of greed and unworthy of selfless Christians. It may be too late to avert God’s righteous anger, but there may still be some possibility to save ourselves from his merciful retribution. It will require nothing less than all of the greatest force that good Christians can muster, as the Sodoms and Gomorrahs of the world must be cleansed, while the greedy and selfish rich man must be turned away from all the world just as Christ did. Perhaps then we may all be able to engage as one community to selflessly aid one another and live in the pure peace of God’s love, rather than wither under his great might.

So let's sum up shall we?

Bad Things

the world (going to hell)
occupation of Iraq
multinational (corporations)
pollution
global warming
social degeneration
greed
licentiousness
evil of the world
amorality
secularism
Democrats
Republicans
capitalism
Sodoms
Gomorrahs
greedy, selfish rich (men)

Good Things

God (the one that is sending the world to hell)
communities selflessly aiding each other
cleansing the world of all things bad (see above, esp. Sodoms and Gomorrahs)
God's Peace and Love (the peace and love that is again sending the world to hell)

So basically, the same shit that's been peddled by fundies for centuries, but with a modernized bit condemning Democrats, Republicans, and mentioning global warming and pollution. Well that's good, I guess. Still have a ways to go before the 21st century but progress is clearly being made...

I will pray for your soul in face of this blasphemy. In response, they do not foil his omnipotence. He wants them to go to Hell and lets them do so.

Hear that ladies and gents of NSG? Everyone's destiny is predetermined by his god, so nothing you do is not without his express approval.

Quick! Somebody set RB on fire. It's what his god wants.

Hear that ladies and gents of NSG? Everyone's destiny is predetermined by god, so nothing you do is not without his express approval.

Quick! Somebody set RB on fire. It's what god wants.

Well, I don't believe in god, so... no. :p

So you judge the message based on what ignorant people do?

And we're supposed to believe your claims of "enlightenment"? The same claims murderers made as they hung ignorant locals?

Riiiiiiight.

The world has had its share of self proclaimed messiahs and so called "enlightened". The world got rid of them. Natural selection at work.

Well, I don't believe in god, so... no. :p

Well uhm... his noodliness! The great FSM commands it! And her invisible pinkness the great Invisible Pink Unicorn too. :p

What is with all the crazy christians coming out of the woodwork these days?

Personally I prefer Call me over Rapture, but of all Blondies later singles War Child stands out.

Did Jesus consider being part of the Roman Empire illegal? He doesn't say so. And except for a few fundamentalist Jewish nutjobs nobody in Judaea, Samaria, or the Decapolis believed that. Most of the people there were quite happy to have part of the enormous economical and cultural boost that came with being in the RE. That's why they built Caesaraea in the first place. And Roman taxes were not particularly high, what made them high for the population were the native publicans (thus the population wasn't mad at the Romans but at their own folks).
Nutjobs? Wanting one's independence makes them a 'nutjob'? An occupation achieved by conquest is not illegal? Well okay, but then do not complain when the US decides to go around the world colonizing other countries. Remember, it's for their own good, and only a nutjob would think otherwise. Also, please do not complain about Iraq.

Ah...but Jesus did not say that the occupation was illegal. Remember. He did not say anything about the occupation.
Let's see, given Jesus' disdain for earthly kings, what would his likely position vis-a-vis Caesar be?

Nutjobs? Wanting one's independence makes them a 'nutjob'? An occupation achieved by conquest is not illegal? Well okay, but then do not complain when the US decides to go around the world colonizing other countries. Remember, it's for their own good, and only a nutjob would think otherwise. Also, please do not complain about Iraq.


Let's see, given Jesus' disdain for earthly kings, what would his likely position vis-a-vis Caesar be?

'Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar' no?

'Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar' no?

See, most people think that Jesus meant that you should pay your taxes and generally be a good citizen. What Jesus really meant was that Caesar and all the other leaders will get what's coming to them, i.e. a can of Jesus brand whup ass.


How do I know this? Well......eh.......HEY LOOK A THREE HEADED MONKEY!

'Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar' no?
That is the contentious matter.

That is the contentious matter.

I once again haven't read the thread so apologies, I should delete my post and read through this :)

How do I know this? Well......eh.......HEY LOOK A THREE HEADED MONKEY!
Hilarious. Of course, it is possible, based on other writings in the Bible and via knowledge about Jesus, to say that he most certainly held earthly rulers in disdain. Why, then, must we infer that he believed anything is 'due', in the moral sense of due, to Caesar? Upper Botswania may be correct that what he meant was that taxation was ultimately a nonissue, but I still do not see how anyone could logically infer from the Bible that Jesus believed Caesar was due anything. To reverse the question, what evidence at all do we have that Jesus would've seen Roman occupation as legitimate?

Hilarious. Of course, it is possible, based on other writings in the Bible and via knowledge about Jesus, to say that he most certainly held earthly rulers in disdain. Why, then, must we infer that he believed anything is 'due', in the moral sense of due, to Caesar? Upper Botswania may be correct that what he meant was that taxation was ultimately a nonissue, but I still do not see how anyone could logically infer from the Bible that Jesus believed Caesar was due anything. To reverse the question, what evidence at all do we have that Jesus would've seen Roman occupation as legitimate?

Actually, having read a bit back on this thread, and given my limited knowledge, I think Jesus' opinion was that taxes have bugger all to do with him and that he has no opinion on either taxes, occupation or indeed anything of an earthly nature.

His only concern is that people find God through him.

So I doubt he held any position as these were the affairs of man, and the affairs of man are to be dealt with by man - he is only concerned with the affairs of God.

Licentiousness, sodomy, blasphemy, profanity, and immorality proliferate as never more.

AWESOME!

Actually, having read a bit back on this thread, and given my limited knowledge, I think Jesus' opinion was that taxes have bugger all to do with him and that he has no opinion on either taxes, occupation or indeed anything of an earthly nature.

His only concern is that people find God through him.

So I doubt he held any position as these were the affairs of man, and the affairs of man are to be dealt with by man - he is only concerned with the affairs of God.
Potentially; that is after all what Upper Botswania hinted at. My question is different though - what is Caesar truly due? I doubt Jesus would believe he was morally due anything, or that his rule over the Jews was legitimate. I posted an interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...#Give_to_Caesar_only_what_you_actually_owe_him) of the phrase to that effect. Fellow Christians are usually quick to evoke it in support of whatever state they want, and I do not believe it warrants such conclusions.

Nutjobs? Wanting one's independence makes them a 'nutjob'?Religious fundamentalism made them nutjobs.

An occupation achieved by conquest is not illegal?There was no conquest. After Ptolemaic Egypt had become a Roman province, the Herodian court switched allegiance and bribed the Roman emperor to retain the crown. They built Caesarea and more or less invited the Romans in. You know, becoming a part of the empire meant prosperity, access to foreign goods, and a cultural and ideological freedom that before had been unknown in the area.

His [Jesus'] only concern is that people find God through him.

I don't know about that. That was a big part of it, but he also seemed to have a lot of "love thy neighbour" stuff going, and seems to me to be more what he was about.

It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that the world is going to hell in a handbasket.
Postulating that there is a thing such as "hell", of course.

The imperialist occupation of Iraq continues and falters while ruthless predatory multinationals pollute the skies with global warming. All around society continues to degenerate as the twin snakes of greed and licentiousness gnaw away at what little there is of civilization.
Somehow I find it difficult to accept that global warming and war are on par with pornography and out-of-marriage sex.

But why is this happening? It is happening because God is angry at the world and its evil. God is angry at the amoral secular tyrant Democrat party, as well as the Republican party in its support for capitalism, which is based entirely off of greed and unworthy of selfless Christians.
So, God is punishing the whole world (or maybe just Iraq) because of USA. Very just. Very merciful. (bold for later reference...)
Also, iirc, just to quote one, Clinton isn't an atheist.

It may be too late to avert God’s righteous anger, but there may still be some possibility to save ourselves from his merciful retribution.
Shoudln't a "selfless christian" try to save his neighbour, rather than himself? Fallacy.

It will require nothing less than all of the greatest force that good Christians can muster, as the Sodoms and Gomorrahs of the world must be cleansed, while the greedy and selfish rich man must be turned away from all the world just as Christ did.
Read the New Testament better. Christ did not "turn away rich men from all the world". He did:
1.Expel the merchants who held business in the Temple.
2.Say that it is unlikely that a rich man will enter Paradise.
Also, explain me what makes Baghdad more a Sodom/Gomorrah than Las Vegas. Yet I don't see bombs razing down Las Vegas. Another fail.

Perhaps then we may all be able to engage as one community to selflessly aid one another and live in the pure peace of God’s love, rather than wither under his great might.

What if I don't want to be a part of your community? Or don't give a fuck about a supposed "God" who says "love me or I will destroy you"? What does he think he'll get with blackmail and terror?

I don't deal with terrorists.;)

How is he a dick for carrying out justice? He gave a clear warning, repent and live for Him or face eternal separation from Him. If you do the first, you will be rewarded by being allowed to be in His presence. If you go along with the second, you are punished. Its not Him getting off on people being in Hell,but because He is a God of Justice, and His word, he follows through with the threats.

Wait up, hold on, now something about this smells a bit fishy, what it is? What is it?

Ohhh ohh God omnipresent, yet you say that there is a place that God is not? Agghhh aghhhh logical inconsistancy, brain...melting......

I have met a few premillenial Calivinists but mostly they were Baptists who were elitists.

Baptists aren't Calvinists; they just think they are... They're hyper-Calvinists... True Calvinism isn't an elitist soterology, like they present it.... A Reformed Baptist, on the other hand, is a Calvinist... though Reformed Baptists are a a bit rare...

Personally I prefer Call me over Rapture, but of all Blondies later singles War Child stands out.

Anthing but "The Tide is High". Honestly, what was she thinking?

Besides, regardless if tommorrow is the apocalypse, or if it doesn't come for another 1000 years, the mission of the Christian is the same always. To glorify God, to spread His beloved Gospel, and to help others grow closer to Him.

Exactly So

Anthing but “The Tide is High”. Honestly, what was she thinking?
Perhaps, “who doesn’t like a bit of reggae-pop?”

It’s not a bad song.

Perhaps, “who doesn’t like a bit of reggae-pop?”

It’s not a bad song.

I am with Maineiacs on this. I like reggae but hate attempted reggae like the Police and Culture Club et al.

AFter catching up on what I missed, I had to laugh at some of the posts made by IB!

Now my question for IB is....

How long have you been studying the Bible?

I am with Maineiacs on this. I like reggae but hate attempted reggae like the Police and Culture Club et al.

Umm what about Musical Youth, and Smiley Culture? What about Skindred? UB40?

Umm what about Musical Youth, and Smiley Culture? What about Skindred? UB40?

All far too pop for my tastes - I prefer stuff like Lee Perry, Mad Professor, Augustus Pablo, Dr Alimantado, and Jimmy Cliff.

I am with Maineiacs on this. I like reggae but hate attempted reggae like the Police and Culture Club et al.
Blondie, IMO, weren’t trying to recreate ‘true’ reggae, they were doing a reggae-inspired pop song, that’s catchy and danceable, just as all their other songs are catchy, danceable punk-inspired pop. Think of Denis or Hanging on the Telephone.

Blondie, IMO, weren’t trying to recreate ‘true’ reggae, they were doing a reggae-inspired pop song, that’s catchy and danceable, just as all their other songs are catchy, danceable punk-inspired pop. Think of Denis or Hanging on the Telephone.

The Atomic Kitten version didn't help...

Religious fundamentalism made them nutjobs.
Which invalidates their desire for independence, how?

There was no conquest.
There (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah#Roman_occupation) wasn't? Even if Rome inherited Israel from another ruler, the original conquest would still be illegitimate, and Rome would still be an illegitimate ruler.

After Ptolemaic Egypt had become a Roman province, the Herodian court switched allegiance and bribed the Roman emperor to retain the crown. They built Caesarea and more or less invited the Romans in. You know, becoming a part of the empire meant prosperity, access to foreign goods, and a cultural and ideological freedom that before had been unknown in the area.
I'm sure it was fabulous (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/revolt.html).

Corneliu, if you have a direct counter-argument, provide it. You were apparently too dense to understand my point earlier on, but hopefully this is not the general case.

The Atomic Kitten version didn’t help...
True, but think how many great songs have been bastardised by crappy plastic-pop ‘bands’. Loads of ‘em.

Pretty much every song in the UK charts during the 1990s.

All far too pop for my tastes - I prefer stuff like Lee Perry, Mad Professor, Augustus Pablo, Dr Alimantado, and Jimmy Cliff.

What even Skindred? Well I guess horse for course huh, myself I like Burning Spear, Black Uhura, I Jahman Levi, Toots and the Matals. Then again I prefer your Ska to your actual reggae.

Of course special mention to Smiley Culture for 'gatewaying' me on to Yelloman as a youth.

Corneliu, if you have a direct counter-argument, provide it. You were apparently too dense to understand my point earlier on, but hopefully this is not the general case.

Either that or I know more about it than you do. Its really to complicated to condense but I will tell you this! The posts you made were innaccurate. I also noticed you dodged my question so I will ask it again.

How long have you been studying the bible?

I doubt it's anything that complicated.

3 years.

What even Skindred? Well I guess horse for course huh, myself I like Burning Spear, Black Uhura, I Jahman Levi, Toots and the Matals. Then again I prefer your Ska to your actual reggae.

Of course special mention to Smiley Culture for 'gatewaying' me on to Yelloman as a youth.

Skindred were the only one I hadn't come across. I will check them out. I have a few ska compilations as well.

I doubt it's anything that complicated.

3 years.

Only 3 years? Interesting! I've been studying it for 10.

Only 3 years? Interesting! I’ve been studying it for 10.
And have a bigger penis. :p

Edit: Damn you, Peep!

Only 3 years? Interesting! I've been studying it for 10.

*points* Look lookee here penis size comparisons!;) Damn beaten to it!

Only 3 years? Interesting! I've been studying it for 10.
That's lovely. Now how about some arguments?

Wang measuring contests?
*gets ruler*

Not really. I'm just sick and tired of arm chair bible scholars thinking they know how to interpret the word of God. There is no One interpretation but then when these sunday schoolers try to say something is factual and it isn't and maintain it when five different posters tells them its wrong...

That's lovely. Now how about some arguments?

Sorry but I try not to argue with unarmed individuals.

I think it's believable that there could be hell and an apocalypse because there are people right now experiencing their own tiny apocalypses (not that this excuses us from relieving suffering where we can).

Obviously, we're dealing with a God, and a reality, that is a lot more serious than we'd like to think.

Not really. I'm just sick and tired of arm chair bible scholars thinking they know how to interpret the word of God. There is no One interpretation but then when these sunday schoolers try to say something is factual and it isn't and maintain it when five different posters tells them its wrong...

If there is no One interpretation of the Bible, then how do you know when these sunday schoolers are wrong?

If there is no One interpretation of the Bible, then how do you know when these sunday schoolers are wrong?

Considering the fact that history tells them they are wrong...anyways...I'm done with IB.

Sorry but I try not to argue with unarmed individuals.

What he has no arms, I wonder if he types with his mouth?

What he has no arms, I wonder if he types with his mouth?

haha!!

What he has no arms, I wonder if he types with his mouth?

Eww, slobber all over the keyboard. Bleh, I pity the poor sod who gets the computer after him.

Eww, slobber all over the keyboard. Bleh, I pity the poor sod who gets the computer after him.
Only the True God can pity.

Mr. T FTW!!1!!1!11

anyone on here play bioshock, that is all rapture really means to me anymore.

Not really. I'm just sick and tired of arm chair bible scholars thinking they know how to interpret the word of God. There is no One interpretation but then when these sunday schoolers try to say something is factual and it isn't and maintain it when five different posters tells them its wrong...
Yes, and I have contested their points.

Sorry but I try not to argue with unarmed individuals.
IOW: 'I have no argument.' Then we're done.

Let's see, given Jesus' disdain for earthly kings, what would his likely position vis-a-vis Caesar be?

Why would Jesus have a disdain for earthly kings?

If you believe Jesus is fulfillment of Messianic prophecy, he has to BE an earthly king. (One of the reason Judaism is stil awaiting messiah).

Also - as pointed out quite clearly already... Jesus openly said there are two domains - the domain of earthly power, and that of godly power - and that the two are touching, but not overlapped.

As another thought - if you buy the idea of Jesus as 'god'... he must have approved of earthly kings... that's the whole purpose of the divine institution of the Throne of David.

Why would Jesus have a disdain for earthly kings?

If you believe Jesus is fulfillment of Messianic prophecy, he has to BE an earthly king. (One of the reason Judaism is stil awaiting messiah).

Also - as pointed out quite clearly already... Jesus openly said there are two domains - the domain of earthly power, and that of godly power - and that the two are touching, but not overlapped.

As another thought - if you buy the idea of Jesus as 'god'... he must have approved of earthly kings... that's the whole purpose of the divine institution of the Throne of David.

IB gets owned. And he wonders why I said I would not argue with an unarmed opponet.