NationStates Jolt Archive

The topic I am bringing up today is those wacky Christian conspiracy theories about the end of the world/apocalypse and an elaborate set of events which they have translated from the drug fueled rantings of Paul into the modern era. These usually revolve around the Middle East crisis, Israel, but also occasionally talk about events outside that region. Despite the 'questionable' historical worth of Revelations, some wackos seem intent that this apocalypse will be happening any day now (religious wackos were also probably saying this 100 years ago but anyway), so in the meantime an entire generation of hucksters and profit-mongering 'Christians' have come out of the woodwork with their books to make their sweat buck from the collective ignorance of the common Christian. I have even heard that some Christians take this whole thing so seriously that they will say things like 'Nothing matters because Jesus will be coming back soon'. Of course this distracts them from the fact that they are dirt poor and just gave all their money to the divine folks at the GOP.

Anyways, that's my rant, what DO YOU think of this strange phenomenon?

Despite the 'questionable' historical worth of Revelations, Predictions of the future are by definition not historical.

Predictions of the future are by definition not historical.If someone in antiquity made a prediction of a future that is already past to us, then these predictions of the future are historical.

If someone in antiquity made a prediction of a future that is already past to us, then these predictions of the future are historical.Nah. History is events recorded. Future predicted correctly and already past is not history.

Apocolyptic end time scenarios are Christian porn.

Nah. History is events recorded. Future predicted correctly and already past is not history.Of course it is. Recorded history includes predictions.

Apocolyptic end time scenarios are Christian porn.


SIGGED!

I don't care what those Jesus freaks get up to, or how much they screw up the government, because the Spaghetti Monster will be coming next Tuesday to come and rapture me to a better place where I shall have communion with the great Spaghetti Hoop in the Sky. I've got my survival pack ready in the cellar in anticipation of His arrival.

Save yourselves now by accepting His last offered plate of Bolognaise-y goodness by sending me all your money!

:p

working in the mental health field i think christianity in its self can fit the criteria of mental illness

I love it when they try to predict the end of the world, especially considering this passage from the Bible

1Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

Which means the end of times cannot be predicted by mere men. They always seem to forget the important Bible passage...

I like Dixieannia's (well, and a lot of other Christians) "you only support Gay marriage so you can destroy capitalism and Christianity" conspiracy theory. It amuses me to no end.

I like Dixieannia's (well, and a lot of other Christians) "you only support Gay marriage so you can destroy capitalism and Christianity" conspiracy theory. It amuses me to no end.

Never really understood how gay marriage would threaten capitalism. In fact it may boost it because now they'll be bridal showers for men, gay marriage expos, etc. etc.

Never really understood how gay marriage would threaten capitalism. In fact it may boost it because now they'll be bridal showers for men, gay marriage expos, etc. etc.

Yeah. That's (part of) why it's such a silly conspiracy theory. ;)

If someone in antiquity made a prediction of a future that is already past to us, then these predictions of the future are historical.

I agree.

Despite the 'questionable' historical worth of Revelations, some wackos seem intent that this apocalypse will be happening any day now (religious wackos were also probably saying this 100 years ago but anyway)

Christians, Muslims, Jews, Cainites, Secular Theists, Satanic Jews, Buddhist Nazis, Nazi Jews, Christian Hindus, Mesopotamian Watermelon-Worshippers, Rastifarian Discordianists, and the Church of the Grounded Lasanga Beast have been predicting the end of the world for millennia. What most people don't realize, is that the world ended a long time ago, and we are actually living in 47 A.D. (After Donut).

Which means the end of times cannot be predicted by mere men. They always seem to forget the important Bible passage...

even worse is the fact that the bible clearly states that jesus already must have returned, unless we wish to posit some incredibly long-lived people hanging out somewhere. 'cause i'm pretty sure jesus' generation has already passed, and the synoptic gospels are pretty clear on this point.

I love it when they try to predict the end of the world, especially considering this passage from the Bible



Which means the end of times cannot be predicted by mere men. They always seem to forget the important Bible passage...

Thats saying that one cannot predict the second coming of Christ. Meaning we shouldn't set dates. However, if we see all the signs around us, it can give us reason to suspect it will happen "soon"

Soon can be a day, month, year, decade, or generation.

Thats saying that one cannot predict the second coming of Christ. Meaning we shouldn't set dates. However, if we see all the signs around us, it can give us reason to suspect it will happen "soon"

Soon can be a day, month, year, decade, or generation.what cult are you in precisely?

working in the mental health field i think christianity in its self can fit the criteria of mental illnessnot can but does.

I have noticed that you are all bigots against christians. Hypocrisy is quite the style among left leaning people isnt it.

working in the mental health field i think christianity in its self can fit the criteria of mental illness

not can but does.

and what criteria from the DSM-IV are you guys getting this from?

The topic I am bringing up today is those wacky Christian conspiracy theories about the end of the world/apocalypse and an elaborate set of events which they have translated from the drug fueled rantings of Paul into the modern era. These usually revolve around the Middle East crisis, Israel, but also occasionally talk about events outside that region. Despite the 'questionable' historical worth of Revelations, some wackos seem intent that this apocalypse will be happening any day now (religious wackos were also probably saying this 100 years ago but anyway), so in the meantime an entire generation of hucksters and profit-mongering 'Christians' have come out of the woodwork with their books to make their sweat buck from the collective ignorance of the common Christian. I have even heard that some Christians take this whole thing so seriously that they will say things like 'Nothing matters because Jesus will be coming back soon'. Of course this distracts them from the fact that they are dirt poor and just gave all their money to the divine folks at the GOP.

Anyways, that's my rant, what DO YOU think of this strange phenomenon?

I think they're fucked in the head, wishing to fuck others in the head, hoping for a sick and twisted end to a sick and twisted existence ... the only kind that would fit, in reconciling their lack of personal responsibility and integrity with a bloodthirsty infant of a "god".
Not a strange phenomenon, just cowardice at its worst.

I have noticed that you are all bigots against christians. Hypocrisy is quite the style among left leaning people isnt it.

Teehee! ;)
You're cute.

what cult are you in precisely?

His own!
WooT

Isn't the UN supposed to be headed by the anti-Christ or something? Who will then proceed to you know, bring about the end of the world? I'm not sure since I don't speak crazed bullshit believing fanatic but I seem to recall that...

Isn't one of the signs of the end is that the Jewish Temple will be built on the rock in Jerusalem, you know where the Mosque currently stands?

Thats saying that one cannot predict the second coming of Christ. Meaning we shouldn't set dates. However, if we see all the signs around us, it can give us reason to suspect it will happen "soon"

Soon can be a day, month, year, decade, or generation.

Here's a few dates for consideration ...:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/jazz.htm

Isn't the UN supposed to be headed by the anti-Christ or something? Who will then proceed to you know, bring about the end of the world? I'm not sure since I don't speak crazed bullshit believing fanatic but I seem to recall that...

That is a movie based on a book for your information. If that is all your knowledge of christians you had
best shut up about it.

If that is all your knowledge of christians you'd
best shut up about it.You got it wrong, cutie.
There's no reason 'tall to shut up on a forum like this one for not knowing what the shaol you're talking about.
...feel free to continue. :p

QUOTE=The Brevious;13206076]You got it wrong, cutie.
There's no reason 'tall to shut up on a forum like this one for not knowing what the shaol you're talking about.
...feel free to continue. :p[/QUOTE]

Ahh I have been meaning to compliment you on your tripple posting.

Edit: What's with the way you are "talking" are you a redneck or something?

That is a movie based on a book for your information. If that is all your knowledge of christians you had
best shut up about it.

Ah, yes, the Left Behind series if I recall right, based on exactly the events some Christians believe in. I understand plenty of them supported the series. Interesting that. I'm sure the anti-christ is actually going to take over the EU instead. Be kind of neccessary to have a European power in order to bring about the end of the world after all.

Ah, yes, the Left Behind series if I recall right, based on exactly the events some Christians believe in. I understand plenty of them supported the series. Interesting that. I'm sure the anti-christ is actually going to take over the EU instead. Be kind of neccessary to have a European power in order to bring about the end of the world after all.

Thats where you are wrong, the anti-christ will be someone people LIKE.

I have noticed that you are all bigots against christians. Hypocrisy is quite the style among left leaning people isnt it.

I think you and Dixieanna are the same person.

Ahh I have been meaning to compliment you on your tripple posting. If you mean "TP", that's not what i mean. :p

Edit: What's with the way you are "talking" are you a redneck or something?Heh, you might have to go back aways in posting history for an answer to that.

Thats where you are wrong, the anti-christ will be someone people LIKE.

And why exactly can't this individual make Europe a true military and economic power and still be likeable? Seems perfectly acceptable to me. "Take over" is perhaps to vague, one doesn't have to do it through a coup after all, just smooth manuevering. The result would be the same though right?

But it is all still ridiculous, anyone who wishes to have even a little common sense shouldn't believe in "prophesies" it just shows an ignorant mindset. But if believing that a deity will eventually come down out of the clouds to establish a utopia after slaughtering most of the Earth's inhabitants makes one feel better go right ahead. Just don't expect me not to shake my head in disbelief on how one could really believe in such myth.

I think you and Dixieanna are the same person.

Well I haven't seen him accuse any of us as a "Liberal" or go into lengthy rants so... probably not.

I think you and Dixieanna are the same person.

Do you now. Well, whatever floats your boat.

Thats where you are wrong, the anti-christ will be someone people LIKE.

So Bush isn't anti-christ anymore?
:(
Nor Putin, what with his upbringing and supposed qualification of said antichrist prereq's?
(yes there were already threads about that)
Do we have to start liking these guys to vindicate the end-times philosophies? :rolleyes:

And why exactly can't this individual make Europe a true military and economic power and still be likeable? Seems perfectly acceptable to me. "Take over" is perhaps to vague, one doesn't have to do it through a coup after all, just smooth manuevering. The result would be the same though right?

But it is all still ridiculous, anyone who wishes to have even a little common sense shouldn't believe in "prophesies" it just shows an ignorant mindset. But if believing that a deity will eventually come down out of the clouds to establish a utopia after slaughtering most of the Earth's inhabitants makes one feel better go right ahead. Just don't expect me not to shake my head in disbelief on how one could really believe in such myth.



Well I haven't seen him accuse any of us as a "Liberal" or go into lengthy rants so... probably not.


Well I supose it could be someone from europe, but then again maybe not, we wont know till he comes.

Well I supose it could be someone from europe, but then again maybe not, we wont know till he comes.

I think the prophecy says something about a nation that could be interpreted as an NS-nation ...


...
...
...
.
It's RUFFY!!!!!!!!!
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/220/457194077_f44d3d5ba7_m.jpg

That's right, the "spirit" of antichrist is in all who imbibe ... ah, never mind.

I think the prophecy says something about a nation that could be interpreted as an NS-nation ...


...
...
...
.
It's RUFFY!!!!!!!!!
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/220/457194077_f44d3d5ba7_m.jpg

That's right, the "spirit" of antichrist is in all who imbibe ... ah, never mind.

He'll have to provide free beer before I think about worshiping him.

*nods*

Not to mention turning back time to stop Ohio State from losing to fucking Illinois. GAH!!!!

I for one and a right wing, agnostic, upper class republican. whatever gets my party funded is good with me! Oh and by the way, i don't know if you were raised christian, I was so I am not as ignorant as you are. Not all christians believe in an apocalypse soon to destroy the earth. These people are evangelicals or born agains. the radical christians. The vast majority of christians are pretty normal people, not dirt poor, and not ignorant. try not to sound like a fucktard will ya?

EA, do you ever have anything better to do than troll?

I for one and a right wing, agnostic, upper class republican. whatever gets my party funded is good with me! Oh and by the way, i don't know if you were raised christian, I was so I am not as ignorant as you are. Not all christians believe in an apocalypse soon to destroy the earth. These people are evangelicals or born agains. the radical christians. The vast majority of christians are pretty normal people, not dirt poor, and not ignorant. try not to sound like a fucktard will ya?

So..what, are you trying to say your an elitist and that you have no qualms about getting money from the kkk or somthing? Also what does being raised christian have to do with ignorance. In fact your entire argument makes no sense, its like you become a facist in one sentence and a far left person in another.

Edit: What do you mean by dirt poor? I live in suburbia and am middle class just like my other evangelical christian friends . I really pity you, because no one must take you seriously.

I for one and a right wing, agnostic, upper class republican. whatever gets my party funded is good with me! Oh and by the way, i don't know if you were raised christian, I was so I am not as ignorant as you are. Not all christians believe in an apocalypse soon to destroy the earth. These people are evangelicals or born agains. the radical christians. The vast majority of christians are pretty normal people, not dirt poor, and not ignorant. try not to sound like a fucktard will ya?

Considering where your party does get its funding you aren't left with much choice but to defend the religious I suppose. Those evangelicals you are dismissing after all are one of the major contributors to the GOP.

Considering where your party does get its funding you aren't left with much choice but to defend the religious I suppose. Those evangelicals you are dismissing after all are one of the major contributors to the GOP.

Some would call many Evans a dangerous group of radical fundamnetalists.
Ever seen the documentary "Jesus Camp"?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486358/

Some would call many Evans a dangerous group of radical fundamnetalists.
Ever seen the documentary "Jesus Camp"?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486358/

I've heard of it but the advertisement freaked me out pretty good. I suppose I should get over that and put it in my Netflix queue and see it though.

I've heard of it but the advertisement freaked me out pretty good. I suppose I should get over that and put it in my Netflix queue and see it though.

Its a lot like watching old videos of the HItler Youth.
At one point, they pray for a cardboard cutout of Bush. (looks like theyre giving it a hitler salute)

Its pretty much watching small children being indoctrinated into a religion, by using Hellfire and Brimstone techniques...essentially, scaring Jesus into them.

Its a lot like watching old videos of the HItler Youth.
At one point, they pray for a cardboard cutout of Bush. (looks like theyre giving it a hitler salute)

Its pretty much watching small children being indoctrinated into a religion, by using Hellfire and Brimstone techniques...essentially, scaring Jesus into them.

it's pretty biased and weird.

that one little girl kept crying and I felt bad for her, crying and not wanting to be at camp......then I got hold of the DVD later and saw the "deleted scenes" and found out that her dad had just been shipped off to Iraq, yeah, that explains the crying. I wonder how much more of it was "edited".

although, most of those people in that movie were nutjobs, can't fault you for that, but, really, it's not typical. Nutjobs are nutjobs.

it's pretty biased and weird.

that one little girl kept crying and I felt bad for her, crying and not wanting to be at camp......then I got hold of the DVD later and saw the "deleted scenes" and found out that her dad had just been shipped off to Iraq, yeah, that explains the crying. I wonder how much more of it was "edited".

although, most of those people in that movie were nutjobs, can't fault you for that, but, really, it's not typical. Nutjobs are nutjobs.

Its not even my particular feelings towards religion, its the indoctrination.
Naturally, parents are going to want thier kids to follow thier religion, thats fine, although I prefer it when they leave it up to the kids...its the WAY they did it, and the rabid supporting of one particular political party....any party...church,<-------------------------->state, I say.

Its not even my particular feelings towards religion, its the indoctrination.
Naturally, parents are going to want thier kids to follow thier religion, thats fine, although I prefer it when they leave it up to the kids...its the WAY they did it, and the rabid supporting of one particular political party....any party...church,<-------------------------->state, I say.

yeah, I get that. I saw the "homeschoolers" and almost.....I can't even fathom. That poor kid and his idiot mother. You know what I mean?

Also, that girl, at the bowling alley, that blank look in her eyes, she's going to snap one day and it's going to be bloody.

Its not even my particular feelings towards religion, its the indoctrination.
Naturally, parents are going to want thier kids to follow thier religion, thats fine, although I prefer it when they leave it up to the kids...its the WAY they did it, and the rabid supporting of one particular political party....any party...church,<-------------------------->state, I say.

Can hardly argue with that even if I do feel that we would all be better off with religion in the dustbin of history.

I for one and a right wing, agnostic, upper class republican. whatever gets my party funded is good with me! Oh and by the way, i don't know if you were raised christian, I was so I am not as ignorant as you are.Don't start down that thorny path, honey.
Not all christians believe in an apocalypse soon to destroy the earth. These people are evangelicals or born agains. the radical christians. The vast majority of christians are pretty normal people, not dirt poor, and not ignorant.Don't go there either. There might be what appear to be rosebuds on this thorny path, but upon closer inspection, you'll find them more like turd blossoms.
try not to sound like a fucktard will ya?
You got anyone in mind inparticular, or is this another blanket statement intended to supplement the "victim complex" so commonly found in "christians"? :p

it's pretty biased and weird.

that one little girl kept crying and I felt bad for her, crying and not wanting to be at camp......then I got hold of the DVD later and saw the "deleted scenes" and found out that her dad had just been shipped off to Iraq, yeah, that explains the crying. I wonder how much more of it was "edited".

although, most of those people in that movie were nutjobs, can't fault you for that, but, really, it's not typical. Nutjobs are nutjobs.

Whenever Muslims say that, no one believes us...
:rolleyes:

Despite the 'questionable' historical worth of Revelations, some wackos seem intent that this apocalypse will be happening any day now (religious wackos were also probably saying this 100 years ago but anyway), so in the meantime an entire generation of hucksters and profit-mongering 'Christians' have come out of the woodwork with their books to make their sweat buck from the collective ignorance of the common Christian.
What's truly ironic is that the Book of Revelation (it's not plural) isn't really about the end of the world, at least not literally. Apocalyptic comes from some language (Greek, probably) that means "uncovering." Revelation and similar parts of the Bible, such as the last third of the Book of Daniel are not predicting the end times so much as using symbolism to describe current times. In Daniel the monsters are Greece and Babylon, in Revelation they are Rome. Important messages, to be sure, but no more literally true than the Creation or the Flood.

What's truly ironic is that the Book of Revelation (it's not plural) isn't really about the end of the world, at least not literally. Apocalyptic comes from some language (Greek, probably) that means "uncovering." Revelation and similar parts of the Bible, such as the last third of the Book of Daniel are not predicting the end times so much as using symbolism to describe current times. In Daniel the monsters are Greece and Babylon, in Revelation they are Rome. Important messages, to be sure, but no more literally true than the Creation or the Flood.

Now that there's a reasonable understanding that the "Creation" accounts and the "Flood" accounts aren't to be taken literally so much as figuratively (at least for flow of text), the next and most important step is to recognize the self-conflicting and contradictory nature of "God" should be taken with the same respect. To the extent, even, of consideration of its existence, even.

Some would call many Evans a dangerous group of radical fundamnetalists.
Ever seen the documentary "Jesus Camp"?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486358/

My school had a screening of that, once, at our student theater. Since student tickets are only a dollar, I thought I'd see it...

It's quite frightening. For a moment, I thought it was almost funny, but then I realized how horrible it was for the kids to be brainwashed that way and felt really sorry for them. I also kinda felt like a douche for thinking it was funny.

And then it showed Ted Haggard's little sermon against the "evils" of homosexuality. Now, you see, this was just after the whole scandal broke. That was some nice comic relief. The entire theater was snickering.:D

Some would call many Evans a dangerous group of radical fundamnetalists.
Ever seen the documentary "Jesus Camp"?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486358/

I made it through the first five minutes of that film before I had to turn it off, have a drink, and calm my blood pressure down.

I made it through the first five minutes of that film before I had to turn it off, have a drink, and calm my blood pressure down.

*consoles*

I heard something about them praying to an idol of george bush and brain washing. That does not sound like evangelicals to me, are you sure they wernt some kind of morman cult type thing?

I heard something about them praying to an idol of george bush and brain washing. That does not sound like evangelicals to me, are you sure they wernt some kind of morman cult type thing?

I have to ask ... how would, exactly, the type of "christianity" you participate in/subscribe to differ from mormons as being a cult?
As far as Bush worshipping ... heh ... well, same reason the idea of Satan being our enemy for so long ... there's some pretty tweaked people keeping the dream alive.

I heard something about them praying to an idol of george bush and brain washing. That does not sound like evangelicals to me, are you sure they wernt some kind of morman cult type thing?

Oh No. They were most assuredly Non-Denominational Christian Evangelists.
They werent so much praying to the cardboard cutout of Bush, as praying for him, wich in itself is wrong, but the people on the film were raising thier hands to it, like it was a shrine of some sort.

You may have been to a christian church where they raise thier hands to the sky as some sort of physical expression of thier fervor for Jesus?
Thats pretty much what they where doing, except a few of them had thier hands very low, and it very much appeared as if they where doing the "Nazi Salute".

The film didnt make this connection, nor did it imply this.
This is merely my assertation of what I saw.

Its a lot like watching old videos of the HItler Youth.
At one point, they pray for a cardboard cutout of Bush. (looks like theyre giving it a hitler salute)

Its pretty much watching small children being indoctrinated into a religion, by using Hellfire and Brimstone techniques...essentially, scaring Jesus into them.

I really enjoyed seeing a bunch of kids in Camoflauge and war paint, with the instructors talking about being in the army of God.

Wait, did I say "enjoyed"? I meant very, very scared for these kids.

Thankfully, however, the camp has closed(Very shortly after the movie came out, however the owners claim that it had nothing to do with the movie-right. I'm sure it had nothing to do with parents actually seeing what goes on there). Good riddance to stopping the indoctrination.

I have to ask ... how would, exactly, the type of "christianity" you participate in/subscribe to differ from mormons as being a cult?

As much as I blast Mormons, I really have no problem with them believing that. I may find it amusing, but meh, it's not a great evil to vanquished from the land. That said, they are evangelicals(in the movie), most definitely, and I do, most assuredly, have a problem with this camp.


As far as Bush worshipping ... heh ... well, same reason the idea of Satan being our enemy for so long ... there's some pretty tweaked people keeping the dream alive.
I find it very funny that the people basically constructed an Idol, which they damn near worship no less, out of Bush. I seem to remember something about this in something called the commencements.... or the commendments... no... commemorations... not it... contentions? I don't remember, there were 10 of them, that's all I know. :p

I haven't seen the movie, but I do know (from my previous experiences in the church) that praying for divine guidence of world leaders is a relatively normal part of most Christian traditions. The cardboard cutout, although rather unorthodox, is more of symbolic and 'atmospheric' value. Insofar as there being something to criticise, appropriate targets for criticism seem to be 1) the belief (in god) upon which the action (prayer) is based, or 2) the means used to achieve it (indoctrination). Since the only way to disprove the existence of god seems to be to exhaust every rational argument FOR god's existence (thereby forcing the theist into a denial of logic and reason), the most promising line would be denouncing indoctrination. But, this is never going to happen in any general sense :p nor will real church<------->state unfortunately. Beliefs will always be exploited, as will the belief in freedom.

I have noticed that you are all bigots against christians. Hypocrisy is quite the style among left leaning people isnt it.

Nah, we make fun of Muslims and Jews as well. It's just that most of us live in places where there are more Christians around than Muslims or Jews, so we get to laugh at them more often.

Nah, we make fun of Muslims and Jews as well. It's just that most of us live in places where there are more Christians around than Muslims or Jews, so we get to laugh at them more often.

The only way you can live in Ireland without having the odd giggle at the crazy Catholics is if you're one of them. *nods*

The only way you can live in Ireland without having the odd giggle at the crazy Catholics is if you're one of them. *nods*

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/c/c6/FATHER_TED_Down_with_this_sort_of_thing.jpg

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/c/c6/FATHER_TED_Down_with_this_sort_of_thing.jpg

Thank goodness there is someone here who knows of that show.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

*lol
I honestly think this is about the sickest piece of the whole Christianity-business... "I love you guys so much, I'm gonna kill my son. Not that I need to, cause I'm omnipotent, but it makes for such a nice story and it will confuse the hell out of people for millenia!"

*lol
I honestly think this is about the sickest piece of the whole Christianity-business... "I love you guys so much, I'm gonna kill my son. Not that I need to, cause I'm omnipotent, but it makes for such a nice story and it will confuse the hell out of people for millenia!"

It's not surprising that the argument against sanctification through the crucification is attacked, its the same naysaying as has been around for millennia as well...

1 Corinthians 1
20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

But its not just the crucification, it’s the resurrection in which Christians are saved.

1 Corinthians 15
...that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,...

The topic I am bringing up today is those wacky Christian conspiracy theories about the end of the world/apocalypse and an elaborate set of events which they have translated from the drug fueled rantings of Paul into the modern era. These usually revolve around the Middle East crisis, Israel, but also occasionally talk about events outside that region. Despite the 'questionable' historical worth of Revelations, some wackos seem intent that this apocalypse will be happening any day now (religious wackos were also probably saying this 100 years ago but anyway), so in the meantime an entire generation of hucksters and profit-mongering 'Christians' have come out of the woodwork with their books to make their sweat buck from the collective ignorance of the common Christian. I have even heard that some Christians take this whole thing so seriously that they will say things like 'Nothing matters because Jesus will be coming back soon'. Of course this distracts them from the fact that they are dirt poor and just gave all their money to the divine folks at the GOP.

Anyways, that's my rant, what DO YOU think of this strange phenomenon?

Given that I'm Amillenial, and since the majority of Christendom is also Amillenial, and that along with Preterists and Post-millenialists: we consider the apocalyptic events of revelations to have been fulfilled in the past... I consider the ranting of premillenialist nut-jobs, just that...

*lol
I honestly think this is about the sickest piece of the whole Christianity-business... "I love you guys so much, I'm gonna kill my son. Not that I need to, cause I'm omnipotent, but it makes for such a nice story and it will confuse the hell out of people for millenia!"
Only He didn't really kill his son. Who was it again? Oh right, those stupid humans. :)

I love it when they try to predict the end of the world, especially considering this passage from the Bible



Which means the end of times cannot be predicted by mere men. They always seem to forget the important Bible passage...

I agree with you Wilgrove. I agree 100%. As a Christian, I await it but will I try to figure out when? Hell no.

Isn't the UN supposed to be headed by the anti-Christ or something? Who will then proceed to you know, bring about the end of the world? I'm not sure since I don't speak crazed bullshit believing fanatic but I seem to recall that...

Well the Anti-Christ will be the head of a united planet. Something that will take the place of the United nations.

Ah, yes, the Left Behind series if I recall right, based on exactly the events some Christians believe in. I understand plenty of them supported the series. Interesting that. I'm sure the anti-christ is actually going to take over the EU instead. Be kind of neccessary to have a European power in order to bring about the end of the world after all.

Well that and the fact that he has to control the planet by some means so it is feasable for him to do it through the EU. I mean after all, if rumor is true, the anti-christ has to come from Europe :D

Not to mention turning back time to stop Ohio State from losing to fucking Illinois. GAH!!!!

*throws party for Illinois*

I for one and a right wing, agnostic, upper class republican. whatever gets my party funded is good with me! Oh and by the way, i don't know if you were raised christian, I was so I am not as ignorant as you are. Not all christians believe in an apocalypse soon to destroy the earth. These people are evangelicals or born agains. the radical christians. The vast majority of christians are pretty normal people, not dirt poor, and not ignorant. try not to sound like a fucktard will ya?

Umm...NWQ? I'm a born again evangelical and yet I'm a level head normal individual so you can can it.

Checks World Series Champions:

Have the Cubs won yet? Nope.

Excellent we have nothing to worry about.

I really enjoyed seeing a bunch of kids in Camoflauge and war paint, with the instructors talking about being in the army of God.

Wait, did I say "enjoyed"? I meant very, very scared for these kids.

Thankfully, however, the camp has closed(Very shortly after the movie came out, however the owners claim that it had nothing to do with the movie-right. I'm sure it had nothing to do with parents actually seeing what goes on there). Good riddance to stopping the indoctrination.

Yeah. That part worried me. I immediately thought of the Extremist Muslim groups in the Middle East when I saw that part.

Excuse, but Eureka Australis, it is very rude of you to refer to St. Paul the Aposlte as some "drug fuelled [ranter]"

This is the kind of ignorance that will lead to the end of world, and I hope that I misinterpreted what you said about St. Paul the Apostle.

Secondly, yet equally as important is my "beef" with you saying that St. Paul the Apostle wrote the Book of Revelations. If you knew anything, instead of living in your theologicaly deprived sinkhole of an intellectual environment that you reside in, you would know that the actual author is unkown, but many theologians agree that is it most likely St. John the Evangelist, the author of the Gospel According to St. John, or someone who was close to St. John.

The Book of Revelations was written after the Great Fire of Rome, when Nero (the megalomaniac who acutally caused the fire) was Emperor of Rome. Nero used Christians as a scapegoat, so St. John the Evangelist and his contemporaries decided to use a highly complex, and poetic system of language to communicate with his fellow Christians, who were fearing persecuation at the time.

According to the Holy Roman Catholic Church (and the Eastern Orthodox too), the book of revalation is therefore a message of Justice to those who feared persecution in a very perilous time.

And MOST OF ALL! TO THE IGNORAMOUS WHO HAS NO FREAKIN' IDEA WHY JESUS DIED ON THE CROSS!
Jesus willingly made a sacrefice to die for our sins, so that sins maybe forgiven, now and for forever!

I pray that this mindless discusion will soon come to a close and that people will enlighten themselves before speaking, and if they something no matter how ludicris that will at least make it a well thought out paragraph instead of a small little idiotic oneliner.

Excuse, but Eureka Australis, it is very rude of you to refer to St. Paul the Aposlte as some "drug fuelled [ranter]"

This is the kind of ignorance that will lead to the end of world, and I hope that I misinterpreted what you said about St. Paul the Apostle.

Secondly, yet equally as important is my "beef" with you saying that St. Paul the Apostle wrote the Book of Revelations.[...]

The Book of Revelations...

It is the Book of Revelation. There is no "s" at the end.

Um Pug? Ignore EA (AKA AP)! Oh and it is the Book of REVELATION! There is no s at the end.

Well that and the fact that he has to control the planet by some means so it is feasable for him to do it through the EU. I mean after all, if rumor is true, the anti-christ has to come from Europe :D

Well from what I understand the two powers that clash in the end of the world are from Europe and Asia. The anti-Christ would seemingly have to come from a Christain continent. Seems to make sense as much as such craziness can make sense anyway...

Especially those who I've heard say they think the "mark of the Beast" is literal. Buh? Really? :p

*throws party for Illinois*

This forum really needs a troutslapping emocon for such a post. ;)

You want intelligent, well thought out argurments to your statements?
Very well, I accept your challenge.



Excuse, but Eureka Australis, it is very rude of you to refer to St. Paul the Aposlte as some "drug fuelled [ranter]"

Drug fueled?
I dont know about that, but Its pretty clear from his letters, he was quite the mysoginistic woman hater. Particularly if you adhere to the philosophy as some christians do that it was his direct intervention wich caused the association of Mary Magdelene as a prostitute, wich most scholars disagree with.


This is the kind of ignorance that will lead to the end of world, and I hope that I misinterpreted what you said about St. Paul the Apostle.

I tend to think sheep-like devotion to ancient belief systems, and religious intolerance will likely be the cause. Wich of us is correct?


Secondly, yet equally as important is my "beef" with you saying that St. Paul the Apostle wrote the Book of Revelations. If you knew anything, instead of living in your theologicaly deprived sinkhole of an intellectual environment that you reside in, you would know that the actual author is unkown, but many theologians agree that is it most likely St. John the Evangelist, the author of the Gospel According to St. John, or someone who was close to St. John.

To the best of my knowledge, you are quite correct when you say that the author is unknown. So then, why would you place so much stock in a book, whos date of origin and authorship are so unknown.
Wouldnt these facts, when placed to a sane person, cast serious doubt upon the validity of such a writing?




And MOST OF ALL! TO THE IGNORAMOUS WHO HAS NO FREAKIN' IDEA WHY JESUS DIED ON THE CROSS!
Jesus willingly made a sacrefice to die for our sins, so that sins maybe forgiven, now and for forever!

Thats a lovely thought, but tell me, what kind of evidence do we have (outside any clearly biased sources) that such a fantastic event even happened, let alone what the true meaning of such a thing actually meant?

Jesus was a clear and present threat to the Roman Authority, and the Jewish leaders of the time, and as such, was crucified as a rabble rouser.

I would also ask you this: How would such a sacrifice be an even exchange for "sins" commited by everyone who ever lived?
By what kind of logic would this be an even exchange?



I pray that this mindless discusion will soon come to a close and that people will enlighten themselves before speaking, and if they something no matter how ludicris that will at least make it a well thought out paragraph instead of a small little idiotic oneliner.

Is it mindless becuase you disagree with it, or becuase it may make you stop for a moment to actually think about the beliefs you have chosen for yourself?

Why place so much stock in a few books that have unknown origins, unknown authors, and have been mistranslated several times, and in all likelyhood, lost quite a bit of thier original context?

Why would the rantings of an anonymous poster, cuase you to have such an angry reaction?

You want intelligent, well thought out argurments to your statements?
Very well, I accept your challenge.





Drug fueled?
I dont know about that, but Its pretty clear from his letters, he was quite the mysoginistic woman hater. Particularly if you adhere to the philosophy as some christians do that it was his direct intervention wich caused the association of Mary Magdelene as a prostitute, wich most scholars disagree with.



I tend to think sheep-like devotion to ancient belief systems, and religious intolerance will likely be the cause. Wich of us is correct?



To the best of my knowledge, you are quite correct when you say that the author is unknown. So then, why would you place so much stock in a book, whos date of origin and authorship are so unknown.
Wouldnt these facts, when placed to a sane person, cast serious doubt upon the validity of such a writing?





Thats a lovely thought, but tell me, what kind of evidence do we have (outside any clearly biased sources) that such a fantastic event even happened, let alone what the true meaning of such a thing actually meant?

Jesus was a clear and present threat to the Roman Authority, and the Jewish leaders of the time, and as such, was crucified as a rabble rouser.

I would also ask you this: How would such a sacrifice be an even exchange for "sins" commited by everyone who ever lived?
By what kind of logic would this be an even exchange?




Is it mindless becuase you disagree with it, or becuase it may make you stop for a moment to actually think about the beliefs you have chosen for yourself?

Why place so much stock in a few books that have unknown origins, unknown authors, and have been mistranslated several times, and in all likelyhood, lost quite a bit of thier original context?

Why would the rantings of an anonymous poster, cuase you to have such an angry reaction?

My main problem with you, beside your bigotry, is your atrocious spelling.

Edit: Although, I must congratulate you on acting civil, most of the anti-christian nut jobs around here don't even do that.

My main problem with you, beside your bigotry, is your atrocious spelling.

Right, anybody who thinks that certain Christian dogma is silly is a bigot, as you clearly indicate whenever anybody expresses such a view. :rolleyes:

Right, anybody who thinks that certain Christian dogma is silly is a bigot, as you clearly indicate whenever anybody expresses such a view. :rolleyes:

How are you any different, any time someone dissagrees with leftist views you scream BIGOT.

Edit: At least when I say someone is a bigot its when they are blatantly attacking and making fun of christianity or some other view you dissagree with. Its like anything that does not fit your exact parameters is evil with you people.

My main problem with you, beside your bigotry, is your atrocious spelling.

How are you any different, any time someone disagrees with leftist views you scream BIGOT.

Fixed. :rolleyes:

I would interpret this to mean that you are openly admitting you are a reactionary bigot who is biased against everyone who disagrees with your views, although Pirated Corsairs apparently is the same, yes?

Fixed. :rolleyes:

I would interpret this to mean that you are openly admitting you are a reactionary bigot who is biased against everyone who disagrees with your views, although Pirated Corsairs apparently is the same, yes?
I was just pointing out that is if that is what I am he is too, allthough i'd rather not thing of myself that way.

Only He didn't really kill his son. Who was it again? Oh right, those stupid humans. :)

Let's see if I remember my RE here... he had to be killed in order to save us? Wasn't it something along those lines?
And you'd think an omniscient god would've known his baby boy would get killed before he started the whole thing, wouldn't you?

How are you any different, any time someone dissagrees with leftist views you scream BIGOT.
I don't do that, and I also believe that a lot of Christian dogma is silly.

Am I a bigot?

I was just pointing out that is if that is what I am he is too, allthough i'd rather not thing of myself that way.
Think.

If you're going to rag on spelling in other posts, be prepared to have perfect spelling in your own posts.

How are you any different, any time someone dissagrees with leftist views you scream BIGOT.

Edit: At least when I say someone is a bigot its when they are blatantly attacking and making fun of christianity or some other view you dissagree with. Its like anything that does not fit your exact parameters is evil with you people.

Evil? What a strange mental conection you've got there... do you regularly make fun of pedophiles? Mass murders? Do you fall of your chair laughing anytime the Holocaust is mentioned?

We're not making fun of views we regard as evil. We are making fun of views we regard as inherently silly and anachronistic.
Nobody here really takes them serious enough to call them evil, I think.

I don't do that, and I also believe that a lot of Christian dogma is silly.

Am I a bigot?

Sometimes! :p

I was just pointing out that is if that is what I am he is too, allthough i'd rather not thing of myself that way.

Nah, I don't think anybody who disagrees with me is a bigot. I know some non-bigoted Christians. Now, I do think certain doctrines that are extremely popular in Christianity are bigoted, and therefore the majority of Christendom is bigoted(particularly against homosexuals, but also against atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers generally), however, I don't judge the individual based on that, because it's not an overwhelming majority, just a fairly sizable one.
Hell, to better match the thing for which you called someone a bigot, let's take something that I'm fairly convinced is true and do something similar. If somebody said "hahah, evolution. you think we went from goo to you by way of zoo LOL!" I wouldn't scream "BIGOT," even though the person would be mocking something I believe to be true. I'd say something similar to, "While you oversimplify it, yes, evolution is a pretty solid theory. Here's some of the evidence in favor, and I'll be willing to listen to any objections you have and attempt to answer them."

So no, your claim that if you call everybody who disagrees with you a bigot, I must too is insane.

Let's see if I remember my RE here... he had to be killed in order to save us? Wasn't it something along those lines?
And you'd think an omniscient god would've known his baby boy would get killed before he started the whole thing, wouldn't you?


Of course he knew it was going to happen, and so did Jesus. Not only did Jesus know, he repeats it over and over again that it's going to happen and his followers should not to be surprised by it.

Matthew 12:40
For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Matthew 17:12
But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands."

Matthew 20:18
"See, we are going up to Jerusalem. And the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death

Matthew 20:28
even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Matthew 26:2
"You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified."

Mark 8:31
And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Mark 8:38
For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."

Of course he knew it was going to happen, and so did Jesus. Not only did Jesus know, he repeats it over and over again that it's going to happen and his followers should not to be surprised by it.

Matthew 12:40
For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Matthew 17:12
But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands."

Matthew 20:18
"See, we are going up to Jerusalem. And the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death

Matthew 20:28
even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Matthew 26:2
"You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified."

Mark 8:31
And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Mark 8:38
For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."

Yep, that's what I mean.
Pretty sick in the head, isn't it?

Yep, that's what I mean.
Pretty sick in the head, isn't it?

Why, I'd willingly die to save my kids too, I'm surprised you wouldn't.

Why, I'd willingly die to save my kids too, I'm surprised you wouldn't.

Wait a sec, let me sum this up once more :

We're talking about an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent god. Who created the universe and absolutely everything in it, right?
Since being omniscient, he knew what it would turn out like, and being omnipotent he was able to make it just so it would turn out the way he wanted it.
And then, because it's not as perfect as he keeps shouting it should be, he goes and kills his kid?

If I was a psychologist, I'm sure I could give you a good few interesting descriptions of that state of mind, and I'm sure sadist and sociopath would be among them.

But then again, it's a nice story if you like horror books.

Wait a sec, let me sum this up once more :

We're talking about an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent god. Who created the universe and absolutely everything in it, right?
Since being omniscient, he knew what it would turn out like, and being omnipotent he was able to make it just so it would turn out the way he wanted it.
And then, because it's not as perfect as he keeps shouting it should be, he goes and kills his kid?

If I was a psychologist, I'm sure I could give you a good few interesting descriptions of that state of mind, and I'm sure sadist and sociopath would be among them.

But then again, it's a nice story if you like horror books.

Maybe you think this life is so bad it isn’t worth living at all. Or, Maybe you think it’s so good that you can’t imagine it being even better.

I think this life is good enough to be worth living now, AND I can imagine it being even better. As I read about human history, I have no reason to think that I would not have loved to watch it in action as God can/does. Generation after generation of human life in all of its triumph and tragedy, what a wonder to behold. Since God knows that we are born into death he sent us his Son so that we can be born into eternal Life with him, this a great gift, it is not a curse that we are born while needing to be saved from death.

John 11:25
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,

If you want to deny God's help because you are angry with his world and creation itself, did you save yourself from death? No, you will die anyway. God knows you will die, you know you will die, denying that God exists does not change reality one bit.

He didn't just get mad and go kill his kid, he sent his Son on a suicide mission to save us, and his son agreed to do it. Additionally, they reward us with eternal life, because he is the God of the living, not the God of the dead. Jesus still lives, and so do those who died of this life while in him.

Matthew 22
31And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living."

The topic I am bringing up today is those wacky Christian conspiracy theories about the end of the world/apocalypse and an elaborate set of events which they have translated from the drug fueled rantings of Paul into the modern era. These usually revolve around the Middle East crisis, Israel, but also occasionally talk about events outside that region. Despite the 'questionable' historical worth of Revelations, some wackos seem intent that this apocalypse will be happening any day now (religious wackos were also probably saying this 100 years ago but anyway), so in the meantime an entire generation of hucksters and profit-mongering 'Christians' have come out of the woodwork with their books to make their sweat buck from the collective ignorance of the common Christian. I have even heard that some Christians take this whole thing so seriously that they will say things like 'Nothing matters because Jesus will be coming back soon'. Of course this distracts them from the fact that they are dirt poor and just gave all their money to the divine folks at the GOP.

Anyways, that's my rant, what DO YOU think of this strange phenomenon?

The best conspiracy theories are the Islamic ones. Muslims are generally well into a bit of a conspiracy.

Maybe you think this life is so bad it isn’t worth living at all. Or, Maybe you think it’s so good that you can’t imagine it being even better.

I think this life is good enough to be worth living now, AND I can imagine it being even better. As I read about human history, I have no reason to think that I would not have loved to watch it in action as God can/does. Generation after generation of human life in all of its triumph and tragedy, what a wonder to behold. Since God knows that we are born into death he sent us his Son so that we can be born into eternal Life with him, this a great gift, it is not a curse that we are born while needing to be saved from death.

John 11:25
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,

If you want to deny God's help because you are angry with his world and creation itself, did you save yourself from death? No, you will die anyway. God knows you will die, you know you will die, denying that God exists does not change reality one bit.

He didn't just get mad and go kill his kid, he sent his Son on a suicide mission to save us, and his son agreed to do it. Additionally, they reward us with eternal life, because he is the God of the living, not the God of the dead. Jesus still lives, and so do those who died of this life while in him.

Matthew 22
31And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living."

Nice argumentum ad hominem.

Nice argumentum ad hominem.

How is it ad hominem? I did not attack her, I attacked the point of view that started from the position of saying life is not good enough and it's God's fault.

Maybe you think this life is so bad it isn’t worth living at all. Or, Maybe you think it’s so good that you can’t imagine it being even better.

I think this life is good enough to be worth living now, AND I can imagine it being even better. As I read about human history, I have no reason to think that I would not have loved to watch it in action as God can/does. Generation after generation of human life in all of its triumph and tragedy, what a wonder to behold. Since God knows that we are born into death he sent us his Son so that we can be born into eternal Life with him, this a great gift, it is not a curse that we are born while needing to be saved from death.
Maybe you love watching children starve to death. Maybe it's fun for you to see women beaten and raped by their own fathers and husbands. Maybe you find it "triumphant" to know that millions of children die of preventable illnesses every single day. Maybe millions of innocent civilians being slaughtered under genocidal regimes is something you like to observe.

Or maybe you just think that it's fine for some people to suffer horribly in order for human history to have some juicy drama and tragedy to entertain you.

Personally, I think it's beyond fucked up to claim that anybody with any shred of empathy or human decency would look at the suffering of their fellow humans and be delighted. It makes my stomach turn to hear you talk about how much you would love to watch the misery of millions of humans, and how you think their suffering is some kind of glory to your God.

Any God who would be delighted with the fate of his human children as it has played out is a sick fucker who absolutely does not deserve worship of any kind.


John 11:25
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,

If you want to deny God's help because you are angry with his world and creation itself, did you save yourself from death? No, you will die anyway. God knows you will die, you know you will die, denying that God exists does not change reality one bit.

You make it sound like dying is the worst that can happen.

Worshipping a sadistic pervert who glories in the brutalization of my fellow humans is a fate worse than death, to me.


He didn't just get mad and go kill his kid, he sent his Son on a suicide mission to save us, and his son agreed to do it. Additionally, they reward us with eternal life, because he is the God of the living, not the God of the dead. Jesus still lives, and so do those who died of this life while in him.

So the best solution your God could come up with was more torture and more killing. Pathetic, if not down right evil.

Maybe you think this life is so bad it isn’t worth living at all. Or, Maybe you think it’s so good that you can’t imagine it being even better.

I think this life is good enough to be worth living now, AND I can imagine it being even better. As I read about human history, I have no reason to think that I would not have loved to watch it in action as God can/does. Generation after generation of human life in all of its triumph and tragedy, what a wonder to behold. Since God knows that we are born into death he sent us his Son so that we can be born into eternal Life with him, this a great gift, it is not a curse that we are born while needing to be saved from death.

John 11:25
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,

If you want to deny God's help because you are angry with his world and creation itself, did you save yourself from death? No, you will die anyway. God knows you will die, you know you will die, denying that God exists does not change reality one bit.

He didn't just get mad and go kill his kid, he sent his Son on a suicide mission to save us, and his son agreed to do it. Additionally, they reward us with eternal life, because he is the God of the living, not the God of the dead. Jesus still lives, and so do those who died of this life while in him.

Matthew 22
31And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living."

Huh? You lost me with the first bit... I like my life, and I'm continually working on making it better. Why wouldn't I?

As for the rest : I don't believe in god. So why would I be angry with him? But I have read the story, and I find it... well, interesting, to say the least. Disturbing, even.
So, in this story, god created humans that will eventually die. And then he kills his son. And then he allows humans to live forever. Still sounds really sick to me...

How is it ad hominem? I did not attack her, I attacked the point of view that started from the position of saying life is not good enough and it's God's fault.

Er, no.
Just no.
Life is nice, it can be pain but it's interesting. And it's got nothing to do with god.
Please don't confuse me with someone who thinks god messed up her life. I did that myself, mostly ;)
I don't see god having any hand whatsoever in my life, I'm just interested in the story here.

Huh? You lost me with the first bit... I like my life, and I'm continually working on making it better. Why wouldn't I?

As for the rest : I don't believe in god. So why would I be angry with him? But I have read the story, and I find it... well, interesting, to say the least. Disturbing, even.
So, in this story, god created humans that will eventually die. And then he kills his son. And then he allows humans to live forever. Still sounds really sick to me...
Indeed.

I'm not angry at the Christian God, any more than I'm angry at the Easter Bunny. What makes me sick is when I hear a fellow human being talk about how much they worship and idolize a being who--according to their own beliefs--gets off on watching his children suffer. That's fucking scary. People who get off on hurting and killing other humans are scary to me.

Huh? You lost me with the first bit... I like my life, and I'm continually working on making it better. Why wouldn't I?

See Bottle's post. She seems to be saying that she's one of the people that think this life isn't worth living... In fact, she seems down right angry about it.

As for the rest : I don't believe in god. So why would I be angry with him? But I have read the story, and I find it... well, interesting, to say the least. Disturbing, even.
So, in this story, god created humans that will eventually die. And then he kills his son. And then he allows humans to live forever. Still sounds really sick to me...

Even the non-religious have to know that Life comes from death. Life is sustained by the consumption of itself... Try sustaining yourself by eating something that wasn't alive once.

It's how life works. If we can like it, then why can't we be thankful for it. IF we are thankful for it, we can thank the creator of it.

See Bottle's post. She seems to be saying that she's one of the people that think this life isn't worth living... In fact, she seems down right angry about it.

Please don't lie. It's extremely rude.

Please don't lie. It's extremely rude.

I didn't lie, see your own post at the top of this page... And it was rude of you to suggest that I lied.

Er, no.
Just no.
Life is nice, it can be pain but it's interesting. And it's got nothing to do with god.
Please don't confuse me with someone who thinks god messed up her life. I did that myself, mostly ;)
I don't see god having any hand whatsoever in my life, I'm just interested in the story here.

In my answer to your post I didn't attempt to assign a position to you, I attempted to assign two options for you, a half full or half empty scenario. When I summarized your answer I was simply defending myself from the ad hominem accusation, and I apologize if I summarized you position poorly.

I didn't lie, see your own post at the top of this page... And it was rude of you to suggest that I lied.
Here's how I know you lied:

I was very clear in what I said. You posted something, claiming it's what I said, when it very clearly was not what I said. You are obviously quite aware of what I said, but you are choosing to make untrue claims. This is called "lying."

Kindly knock it off.

Nah, I don't think anybody who disagrees with me is a bigot. I know some non-bigoted Christians. Now, I do think certain doctrines that are extremely popular in Christianity are bigoted, and therefore the majority of Christendom is bigoted(particularly against homosexuals, but also against atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers generally), however, I don't judge the individual based on that, because it's not an overwhelming majority, just a fairly sizable one.
Hell, to better match the thing for which you called someone a bigot, let's take something that I'm fairly convinced is true and do something similar. If somebody said "hahah, evolution. you think we went from goo to you by way of zoo LOL!" I wouldn't scream "BIGOT," even though the person would be mocking something I believe to be true. I'd say something similar to, "While you oversimplify it, yes, evolution is a pretty solid theory. Here's some of the evidence in favor, and I'll be willing to listen to any objections you have and attempt to answer them."

So no, your claim that if you call everybody who disagrees with you a bigot, I must too is insane.

Ummm, what? "I must too is insane"? Is that a misspelling or what, to be honest I don't understand.

Here's how I know you lied:

I was very clear in what I said. You posted something, claiming it's what I said, when it very clearly was not what I said. You are obviously quite aware of what I said, but you are choosing to make untrue claims. This is called "lying."

Kindly knock it off.

Knock it off yourself. YOU made the argument that life is too much misery and if anyone actually thinks it is worth watching is sick in the head (God specifically and me included). I summerized your statement by saying simply that you think life isn't worth living... In fact, she [you] seems down right angry about it. There is NO lie in my statement.

Everyone can read this:

Maybe you love watching children starve to death. Maybe it's fun for you to see women beaten and raped by their own fathers and husbands. Maybe you find it "triumphant" to know that millions of children die of preventable illnesses every single day. Maybe millions of innocent civilians being slaughtered under genocidal regimes is something you like to observe.

Or maybe you just think that it's fine for some people to suffer horribly in order for human history to have some juicy drama and tragedy to entertain you.

Personally, I think it's beyond fucked up to claim that anybody with any shred of empathy or human decency would look at the suffering of their fellow humans and be delighted. It makes my stomach turn to hear you talk about how much you would love to watch the misery of millions of humans, and how you think their suffering is some kind of glory to your God.

Any God who would be delighted with the fate of his human children as it has played out is a sick fucker who absolutely does not deserve worship of any kind.

You make it sound like dying is the worst that can happen.

Worshipping a sadistic pervert who glories in the brutalization of my fellow humans is a fate worse than death, to me.

So the best solution your God could come up with was more torture and more killing. Pathetic, if not down right evil.

And see that it is an angry statement, from an angry postion. Clearly an argument made from the outlook of, the glass is half empty.

I see no point in arguing against your outlook of life and your statement. I don't think life is all bad. I know it's not bad all the time everywhere. I know the glass is empty AND full at the same time.

If life has anything in it that makes it worth living, then I can Thank God for that thing, and I do. If nothing in your life is worth being thankful for then I feel sorry for you. But I suspect that your poor portrayal of human existence has more to do with your own outlook/personality then it does with your life being more miserable than other people’s lives, I take your pessimism as out of my control.

I still don't understand the Jesus story, and I never did even as a Christian. If God wanted to forgive us, couldn't he just have done so without killing his son? After all, doesn't God make up the rules? So he could just make a rule that he forgives people now?

And anyway, what is the Jesus story but pure scapegoating? If somebody commits murder, and they execute me for it, does that mean that the other person isn't guilty of murder anymore? It's ridiculous.

Ummm, what? "I must too is insane"? Is that a misspelling or what, to be honest I don't understand.

My apologies, I was unclear. That's grouped with the part before it. Your claim is that if you call everybody who disagrees with you a bigot, then I must do the same, too. That claim is insane.

Knock it off yourself. YOU made the argument that life is too much misery and if anyone actually thinks it is worth watching is sick in the head (God specifically and me included). I summerized your statement by saying simply that you think life isn't worth living... In fact, she [you] seems down right angry about it. There is NO lie in my statement.

Everyone can read this:



And see that it is an angry statement, from an angry postion. Clearly an argument made from the outlook of, the glass is half empty.

I see no point in arguing against your outlook of life and your statement. I don't think life is all bad. I know it's not bad all the time everywhere. I know the glass is empty AND full at the same time.

If life has anything in it that makes it worth living, then I can Thank God for that thing, and I do. If nothing in your life is worth being thankful for then I feel sorry for you. But I suspect that your poor portrayal of human existence has more to do with your own outlook/personality then it does with your life being more miserable than other people’s lives, I take your pessimism as out of my control.

Bullshit. It's saying "bad shit happens in the world. To say that those bad things are good, and it's good they happen because of the "triumphs and tragedies" of the human race are "beautiful" is ridiculous. When bad things like rape, murder, and abuse happen, it is NOT beautiful, it is horrible, and anybody who thinks it is inspiring or beautiful is sick in the head."

How could you read that any differently?

Knock it off yourself. YOU made the argument that life is too much misery and if anyone actually thinks it is worth watching is sick in the head (God specifically and me included).

Lie.


I summerized your statement by saying simply that you think life isn't worth living... In fact, she [you] seems down right angry about it. There is NO lie in my statement.

Actually, that statement you just quoted is a lie from beginning to end.


And see that it is an angry statement, from an angry postion. Clearly an argument made from the outlook of, the glass is half empty.

Lie.


I see no point in arguing against your outlook of life and your statement. I don't think life is all bad. I know it's not bad all the time everywhere. I know the glass is empty AND full at the same time.

As a matter of fact, I also think life isn't all bad, and I think there is good as well as bad in the world. My post contained absolutely nothing whatsoever that would rule out that belief.


If life has anything in it that makes it worth living, then I can Thank God for that thing, and I do. If nothing in your life is worth being thankful for then I feel sorry for you.

Frankly, I think you're lying about that, too, though I can't prove it as conclusively as your earlier lies.


But I suspect that your poor portrayal of human existence has more to do with your own outlook/personality then it does with your life being more miserable than other people’s lives, I take your pessimism as out of my control.
It's not pessimism at all. Actually, quite the opposite. See, I believe humans deserve better. I believe it's completely and totally possible to build a better world, a world in which humans don't have to suffer and die painful deaths from preventable causes.

My optimism is precisely why I find your stated beliefs so repulsive. You appear to believe that the best humans can expect is what we have had so far. You appear to believe that an omnipotent, omnicient being could not do any better than the world we have had to date, or (alternatively) that humanity doesn't deserve any better. You appear to believe that an all-knowing, all-good God would look upon humanity's history--including the suffering that has been common throughout--and be HAPPY about it.

That's beyond pessimism. That's sadism.

Well the reason God doesn't "magically" appear and make all the bad people stop is because of that little thing called free will.

Bullshit. It's saying "bad shit happens in the world. To say that those bad things are good, and it's good they happen because of the "triumphs and tragedies" of the human race are "beautiful" is ridiculous. When bad things like rape, murder, and abuse happen, it is NOT beautiful, it is horrible, and anybody who thinks it is inspiring or beautiful is sick in the head."

How could you read that any differently?And that's how I know he's lying.

It's obvious what I was saying, and just as obvious that he wanted to dishonestly portray my words as saying something else. I'm sure his God will be quite proud of him.

[QUOTE=Pirated Corsairs;13212820]My apologies, I was unclear. That's grouped with the part before it. Your claim is that if you call everybody who disagrees with you a bigot, then I must do the same, too. That claim is insane.[/QUOT

I was only pointing out that If I am a bigot in this regard so are you. Allthough im not a bigot, and I would like to think you arnt Either

Well the reason God doesn't "magically" appear and make all the bad people stop is because of that little thing called free will.Bullshit.

Give me omnipotence for 1 second and I could do away with 90% of human cruelty without removing free will in any way. If God is omnipotent, then He knows how to do this, too.

Moreover, what about all the suffering that's not caused by our fellow humans? What about, for instance, my great-granduncle, who died in an earthquake? Exactly how would free will be harmed if God simply made sure that natural disasters didn't kill people?

I still don't understand the Jesus story, and I never did even as a Christian. If God wanted to forgive us, couldn't he just have done so without killing his son? After all, doesn't God make up the rules? So he could just make a rule that he forgives people now?

That's exactly what he did do. He changed the Law of death and made a new law of Life, and he did it himself.

And anyway, what is the Jesus story but pure scapegoating? If somebody commits murder, and they execute me for it, does that mean that the other person isn't guilty of murder anymore? It's ridiculous.

Can I write a check to my Son's parking ticket? Of course I can.

That's exactly what he did do. He changed the Law of death and made a new law of Life, and he did it himself.

But why did Jesus have to die for that to happen? There's no rational reason. He could have just changed it without a scapegoat sacrifice.


Can I write a check to my Son's parking ticket? Of course I can.

Can you go to prison in his place? Can you be executed in his place?
Of course you can't. The difference is with the ticket, you're essentially giving him money, which is perfectly legal. The fact that he never directly receives it because it goes to the government is irrelevant.

Bullshit.

Give me omnipotence for 1 second and I could do away with 90% of human cruelty without removing free will in any way. If God is omnipotent, then He knows how to do this, too.

Moreover, what about all the suffering that's not caused by our fellow humans? What about, for instance, my great-granduncle, who died in an earthquake? Exactly how would free will be harmed if God simply made sure that natural disasters didn't kill people?

Ok, how could you "get rid of 90%" without taking away human will. And to your second argument I was referring to human caused suffering, as you were a momento ago.

Ok, how could you "get rid of 90%" without taking away human will.

It's actually pretty easy. I'll bet you can come up with the answer on your own.

Here's a hint: empathy.


And toyour second argument I was referring to human caused suffering, as you were a momento ago.
When was that?

My point was that humans are capable of preventing harm to other humans, and my optimism is largely based on this ability. I said absolutely nothing about the harm being necessarily CAUSED by other humans.

Bullshit. It's saying "bad shit happens in the world. To say that those bad things are good, and it's good they happen because of the "triumphs and tragedies" of the human race are "beautiful" is ridiculous. When bad things like rape, murder, and abuse happen, it is NOT beautiful, it is horrible, and anybody who thinks it is inspiring or beautiful is sick in the head."

How could you read that any differently?

Because I never said the bad things are good. I said, Triumphs AND tragedies. I never said they were one and the same. But Bottle's position is centered around the premises that she can't see good things because of the bad things. That’s her position, not mine, thus it’s not an argument about what I said.

IMO, anyone that can’t find anything good in life is ‘sick in the head,’ sick with cynicism which leads to depression and worse. But that requires an epiphany or at least therapy to be cured, arguments from me aren’t going to help her see the world through less blood covered glasses.

Ok, how could you "get rid of 90%" without taking away human will. And to your second argument I was referring to human caused suffering, as you were a momento ago.

I don't know what Bottle's plan would be, but one major thing that would eliminate almost all human caused cruelty? Eliminate scarcity. Most of the time, when humans do bad things to other humans, its because they want their stuff. If everybody could get all the stuff they wanted, or even needed, then there'd be very little problem.

Also, I'd tell my followers to knock it off with religious persecution/telling lies to the poor (example: condoms are actually COATED with AIDS! Really! It's a conspiracy to kill all Africans!). That wouldn't be interfering with free will, but it'd be telling them they'd better do what I say or else I'd be damn pissed. Aside from wanting each other's stuff, religion is another major cause of human-inflicted suffering.

Because I never said the bad things are good. I said, Triumphs AND tragedies. I never said they were one and the same. But Bottle's position is centered around the premises that she can't see good things because of the bad things. That’s her position, not mine, thus it’s not an argument about what I said.

IMO, anyone that can’t find anything good in life is ‘sick in the head,’ sick with cynicism which leads to depression and worse. But that requires an epiphany or at least therapy to be cured, arguments from me aren’t going to help her see the world through less blood covered glasses.

She never said that there's nothing good in the world, so stop claiming she did.

She said that there's plenty of things that are really, really bad. And God, being omnipotent, could easily-- no, trivially-- stop these things with no negative consequences for his doing so, even without interfering with free will. The fact that he consciously chooses not to, if he exists, indicates that he enjoys it. Now, saying that such a being is the epitome of goodness, well, that's sick in the head.

But why did Jesus have to die for that to happen? There's no rational reason. He could have just changed it without a scapegoat sacrifice.

Death is what he was destroying. Can't be resurrected unless you die first.

Can you go to prison in his place? Can you be executed in his place? Of course you can't. The difference is with the ticket, you're essentially giving him money, which is perfectly legal. The fact that he never directly receives it because it goes to the government is irrelevant.

Jesus pad the price AND went to death to deliver check himself for us.

It's actually pretty easy. I'll bet you can come up with the answer on your own.

Here's a hint: empathy.


When was that?

My point was that humans are capable of preventing harm to other humans, and my optimism is largely based on this ability. I said absolutely nothing about the harm being necessarily CAUSED by other humans.

I am not getting your hint, spell it out for me jumbo.

Death is what he was destroying. Can't be resurrected unless you die first.



Jesus pad the price AND went to death to deliver check himself for us.

But why did he have to pay the price? God, who makes the rules, could easily have just declared by fiat "your sins can now be forgiven."

Could he, yes, or no? And if not, what law is there that not even God is above, and where did such a law come from?

It's actually pretty easy. I'll bet you can come up with the answer on your own.

Here's a hint: empathy.

When was that?

My point was that humans are capable of preventing harm to other humans, and my optimism is largely based on this ability. I said absolutely nothing about the harm being necessarily CAUSED by other humans.

God DID invent empathy, thats why you can have it and know what it is.

I don't know what Bottle's plan would be, but one major thing that would eliminate almost all human caused cruelty? Eliminate scarcity. Most of the time, when humans do bad things to other humans, its because they want their stuff. If everybody could get all the stuff they wanted, or even needed, then there'd be very little problem.

Also, I'd tell my followers to knock it off with religious persecution/telling lies to the poor (example: condoms are actually COATED with AIDS! Really! It's a conspiracy to kill all Africans!). That wouldn't be interfering with free will, but it'd be telling them they'd better do what I say or else I'd be damn pissed. Aside from wanting each other's stuff, religion is another major cause of human-inflicted suffering.

Yes, except in the US there is plent of resorces, and people still steal and kill.

Yes, except in the US there is plenty of resources, and people still steal and kill.

Except that those resources aren't universally accessible. If you have bread, what need have you to steal bread from the local baker? If, on the other hand, the baker has bread, but you lack the ability to legally acquire the bread, you may be driven to take it by force in desperation.

God DID invent empathy, thats why you can have it and know what it is.
Right. So, since we have empathy, and we also still have free will, empathy obviously doesn't eliminate free will, right?

Okay, now take the next step.

She never said that there's nothing good in the world, so stop claiming she did.

She said that there's plenty of things that are really, really bad. And God, being omnipotent, could easily-- no, trivially-- stop these things with no negative consequences for his doing so, even without interfering with free will. The fact that he consciously chooses not to, if he exists, indicates that he enjoys it. Now, saying that such a being is the epitome of goodness, well, that's sick in the head.
See? An honest reading of what I typed. Now how hard was that. :D

But why did he have to pay the price? God, who makes the rules, could easily have just declared by fiat "your sins can now be forgiven."

Why did he need to? God can choose for himself which kind of assistance he gives to us. If the bridge god builds over the chasm of death to lead us back across to him is red or blue it makes no difference. The fact that the bridge is Jesus is important. The fact that Jesus had to come over to our side of death is simply because that's how bridges are made, it has to have an end on both sides.

Could he, yes, or no? And if not, what law is there that not even God is above, and where did such a law come from?

The fact that God doesn't make four cornered triangles does not prove that triangles are not real nor does it prove that God didn't make a triangle for us... In other words, your question was a false dichotomy, the answer is something different then the choices given.

God DID invent empathy, thats why you can have it and know what it is.

[citation needed]

Why did he need to? God can choose for himself which kind of assistance he gives to us. If the bridge god builds over the chasm of death to lead us back across to him is red or blue it makes no difference. The fact that the bridge is Jesus is important. The fact that Jesus had to come over to our side of death is simply because that's how bridges are made, it has to have an end on both sides.



The fact that God doesn't make four cornered triangles does not prove that triangles are not real nor does it prove that God didn't make a triangle for us... In other words, your question was a false dichotomy, the answer is something different then the choices given.

You're avoiding the question. It's not a false dichotomy to ask if God could have forgiven sins without a scapegoat. Either he had the ability, or he did not. To extend your example, a bridge would NOT need to have an end at both sides: an omnipotent being could just poof people across with his magic.

God, in this case, could just have decided to forgive people, since he's the judge, jury, witness, executioner, and really everything except for the accused.

All of your questions will be answered with this code, if you can unlock its secrets that is. Alpha omega bravo delta beta gamma

My main problem with you, beside your bigotry, is your atrocious spelling.

Edit: Although, I must congratulate you on acting civil, most of the anti-christian nut jobs around here don't even do that.

And my main problem with you, is that instead of answering any of the questions I had written, not just to that particular poster, but to any christian willing to answer them, is that like a typical christian, you completely ignored them, and instead, attacked my spelling, wich is in no way "atrocious".

Christians like you and Balderdash continue to act this way, and wonder WHY so many of us are "anti-christian"?

Instead of engaging us in rational conversation, you call us "bigots", or insist that we are "nutjobs".

With living examples such as you, its a small wonder.

And my main problem with you, is that instead of answering any of the questions I had written, not just to that particular poster, but to any christian willing to answer them, is that like a typical christian, you completely ignored them, and instead, attacked my spelling, wich is in no way "atrocious".

Christians like you and Balderdash continue to act this way, and wonder WHY so many of us are "anti-christian"?

The funny thing is, I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-"Christian." You know, the "Christians" who profess deep and powerful faith in the Christian God, while engaging in blatantly un-Christian behavior. Like, for instance, lying.

...
Christians like you and Balderdash continue to act this way, and wonder WHY so many of us are "anti-christian"?

Instead of engaging us in rational conversation, you call us "bigots", or insist that we are "nutjobs".

With living examples such as you, its a small wonder.

Oh the irony...

The funny thing is, I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-"Christian." You know, the "Christians" who profess deep and powerful faith in the Christian God, while engaging in blatantly un-Christian behavior. Like, for instance, lying.

Oh, you mean like the LIE you said when you said that I must like to watch people suffer and I must be sick in the head. Pure unadulterated personal attack from you on me and yet you are playing the victim. lol :rolleyes:

Sometimes the irony is just too much ... How can you guys even keep a straight face?

Oh the irony...



Oh, you mean like the LIE you said when you said that I must like to watch people suffer and I must be sick in the head. Pure unadulterated personal attack from you on me and yet you are playing the victim. lol :rolleyes:

Sometimes the irony is just too much ... How can you guys even keep a straight face?

It has already been explained to you how you are incorrect about your allegation that she lied. Whether or not you choose (or are able to) grasp this explanation is none of our concern.

Oh the irony...



Oh, you mean like the LIE you said when you said that I must like to watch people suffer and I must be sick in the head. Pure unadulterated personal attack from you on me and yet you are playing the victim. lol :rolleyes:

Sometimes the irony is just too much ... How can you guys even keep a straight face?

Well, you believe that the epitome of goodness not only refuses to get rid of virtually all suffering (despite the fact that it's easily within his power...), but he actively adds to it, both in this life, and by sending people to infinitely unbearable torture of infinite duration. So, I can see how that would come across from you...

Oh, you mean like the LIE you said when you said that I must like to watch people suffer and I must be sick in the head.

(bold mine) = Lie.

Seriously, post where I said that you must like to watch people suffer and you must be sick in the head. I'll wait.

Actually, you know what? Never mind. You'll just lie again. Let me answer my own question, in the interests of honesty:

The post you're thinking of is the one where I started every sentence with MAYBE. Maybe, a word which means something slightly different than "must."

I've also never said you were "sick in the head." I absolutely do think that some of your beliefs and much of your behavior would qualify as "sick," but I think you are choosing to engage in this behavior consciously. I don't think you can blame any mental illness or disability for your poor choices.

Pure unadulterated personal attack from you on me

Lie.

and yet you are playing the victim.

Lie.


Sometimes the irony is just too much ... How can you guys even keep a straight face?
Who's keeping a straight face? I've been openly laughing at you for at least two pages now.

*jumps up and down, waving hand*

Oh! Oh! Pick me!

In your one second of omnipotence, you make it so that everybody really does feel the pleasure or pain that they inflict on other people. Am I right? Do I get a cookie?
Let there be cookies.

And it is good.

Right. So, since we have empathy, and we also still have free will, empathy obviously doesn't eliminate free will, right?

Okay, now take the next step.

*jumps up and down, waving hand*

Oh! Oh! Pick me!

In your one second of omnipotence, you make it so that everybody really does feel the pleasure or pain that they inflict on other people. Am I right? Do I get a cookie?

See Bottle's post. She seems to be saying that she's one of the people that think this life isn't worth living... In fact, she seems down right angry about it.

Bottle? Angry about life??? *roflmao
Not really, no.


Even the non-religious have to know that Life comes from death. Life is sustained by the consumption of itself... Try sustaining yourself by eating something that wasn't alive once.

It's how life works. If we can like it, then why can't we be thankful for it. IF we are thankful for it, we can thank the creator of it.

Why do you assume I've got a problem with death? I don't. It's part of the deal, you live, you die. End of story.

Let there be cookies.

And it is good.

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with Bottle and the word was 'cookies'. :)

And my main problem with you, is that instead of answering any of the questions I had written, not just to that particular poster, but to any christian willing to answer them, is that like a typical christian, you completely ignored them, and instead, attacked my spelling, wich is in no way "atrocious".

Christians like you and Balderdash continue to act this way, and wonder WHY so many of us are "anti-christian"?

Instead of engaging us in rational conversation, you call us "bigots", or insist that we are "nutjobs".

With living examples such as you, its a small wonder.

First, its "which" not "wich". Second, I don't wonder WHY you are anti-christian I know why, you hate the thought that sin exists and that you have to be accountable for your own actions. Third, it is you who call US bigots and wacko nutjobs I simply call you few posters here bigots because, with your postings how you could get anything other than hatred and bigotry is beyond me. And anyway I only call the few of you posters bigots, there are many nice tolerant athiests and muslims in the world, unfortunately you are not among them.

I wouldn't normally do this, but if we're going to be snobbish about the use of English...

First, its which not "wich". Second, I don't wonder WHY you are anti-christian I know why, you hate the thought that sin exists and that you have to be acountable for your own actions. Third, it is you who call US bigots and wacko nutjobs I simply call you few posters here bigots because, with your postings how you could get anything other than hatred and bigotry is beyond me. And anyway I only call the few of you posters bigots, there are many nice tolerant athiests and muslims in the world, unfortunately you are not among them.

Firstly, it should really be 'firstly' instead of 'first', 'secondly' instead of 'second' etc. but this isn't too major. 'It's' needs an apostrophe because it's a abbreviation.

The next sentence needs a comma after 'anti-christian' (Christian should be capitalised by the way), the comma after 'why' should be a colon and there are two 'c's in 'accountable'.

'Call' should be 'calls' (you started off using second person singular, but you changed to third person when you used 'who'), 'US' in the third sentence needs to be changed to 'USians' or 'Americans', and you need a semi-colon after 'nutjobs'. You should either get rid of the comma after 'because' or add another one after 'postings'.

Starting a sentence with 'And' is usually a bad idea, get rid of it and put a comma after 'anyway'. Change 'the' to 'a' and the comma after 'bigots' should be a semi-colon as it's joining two independent clauses. 'Atheist' is an exception to the 'i after e, except after c rule' because its roots are Greek (a=without, theos=god); presumably the 'athiest' is much 'athier' than everyone else. 'Muslims' should be capitalised.

Remind me: what was it Jesus said about hypocrites?

Firstly, it's which not "wich". Secondly, I don't wonder WHY you are anti-Christian, I know why: you hate the thought that sin exists and that you have to be accountable for your own actions. Thirdly, it is you who calls Americans bigots and wacko nutjobs; I simply call you few posters here bigots because, with your postings, how you could get anything other than hatred and bigotry is beyond me. Anyway, I only call a few of you posters bigots; there are many nice tolerant atheists and Muslims in the world, unfortunately you are not among them.

I wouldn't normally do this, but if we're going to be snobbish about the use of English...

People toss around the word "owned" a lot these days, sometimes a bit too carelessly, but I think there are still situations that call for that particular term.

:D

"It's" isn't an abbreviation. It's a contraction for it is.
Not to be confused with its, which, despite lacking an apostrophe, is the correct possessive modification for "it."

Example:

It's obvious that the turtle didn't like its food.



The English language is silly.

'It's' needs an apostrophe because it's a abbreviation.


"It's" isn't an abbreviation. It's a contraction for it is.

I wouldn't normally do this, but if we're going to be snobbish about the use of English...



Firstly, it should really be 'firstly' instead of 'first', 'secondly' instead of 'second' etc. but this isn't too major. 'It's' needs an apostrophe because it's a abbreviation.

The next sentence needs a comma after 'anti-christian' (Christian should be capitalised by the way), the comma after 'why' should be a colon and there are two 'c's in 'accountable'.

'Call' should be 'calls' (you started off using second person singular, but you changed to third person when you used 'who'), 'US' in the third sentence needs to be changed to 'USians' or 'Americans', and you need a semi-colon after 'nutjobs'. You should either get rid of the comma after 'because' or add another one after 'postings'.

Starting a sentence with 'And' is usually a bad idea, get rid of it and put a comma after 'anyway'. Change 'the' to 'a' and the comma after 'bigots' should be a semi-colon as it's joining two independent clauses. 'Atheist' is an exception to the 'i after e, except after c rule' because its roots are Greek (a=without, theos=god); presumably the 'athiest' is much 'athier' than everyone else. 'Muslims' should be capitalised.

Remind me: what was it Jesus said about hypocrites?


There is a difference between spelling and grammar. Anyway, if people are going to spew at me for spelling I will do the same for them.

People toss around the word "owned" a lot these days, sometimes a bit too carelessly, but I think there are still situations that call for that particular term.

:D

Yea...and the people who do say that tend to be snotty 12 year old brats.

There is a difference between spelling and grammar. Anyway, if people are going to spew at me for spelling I will do the same for them.
This whole thing started because of a post in which you blew off a thoughtful, detailed post by BackwoodsSquatches by saying, "My main problem with you, beside your bigotry, is your atrocious spelling."

Do you really think everybody else here is unable to read the thread and see this for themselves? Do you actually think anybody will be fooled? Even if you do, why would you choose to act in such an obviously unChristian manner? What do you seek to gain? What did you hope to achieve with your original petty comment in response to BackwoodsSquatches' post?

Not to be confused with its, which, despite lacking an apostrophe, is the correct possessive modification for "it."

Example:

It's obvious that the turtle didn't like its food.
Yes, of course.



The English language is silly.

quite.

Yea...and the people who do say that tend to be snotty 12 year old brats.
Again, I must ask what your goal is with this comment. Do you feel your God would be proud of you for saying this? Do you feel your behavior is in keeping with the tenets of Christianity? Do you feel you are living up to the ideals of your faith? If so, please explain. If not, please explain why you feel compelled to act in a manner that does not fit with your religious beliefs.

This whole thing started because of a post in which you blew off a thoughtful, detailed post by BackwoodsSquatches by saying, "My main problem with you, beside your bigotry, is your atrocious spelling."

Do you really think everybody else here is unable to read the thread and see this for themselves? Do you actually think anybody will be fooled? Even if you do, why would you choose to act in such an obviously unChristian manner? What do you seek to gain? What did you hope to achieve with your original petty comment in response to BackwoodsSquatches' post?

Im not sure if I understand your post. What are you trying to say exactly?

Again, I must ask what your goal is with this comment. Do you feel your God would be proud of you for saying this? Do you feel your behavior is in keeping with the tenets of Christianity? Do you feel you are living up to the ideals of your faith? If so, please explain. If not, please explain why you feel compelled to act in a manner that does not fit with your religious beliefs.

Im not sure why it would be against christianity to say something I have found to be true most of the time. Would you rather have me lie?

Im not sure if I understand your post. What are you trying to say exactly?
I guess that's my answer: you either feel that your God approves of your continued rudeness and dishonest behavior, or you simply don't care.

Either way, we're done. :)

I guess that's my answer: you either feel that your God approves of your continued rudeness and dishonest behavior, or you simply don't care.

Either way, we're done. :)

I admit I may have been rude at times, although I try not to be. But I have not been dishonest. Anyway you "bottle" were quite rude as well.

I admit I may have been rude at times, although I try not to be. But I have not been dishonest. Anyway you "bottle" were quite rude as well.

Bottle isn't the one claiming to belong to a certain religion that promotes treating others as you would like to be treated.

Bottle isn't the one claiming to belong to a certain religion that promotes treating others as you would like to be treated.

Well you are treating me that way so I see no problem.

Well you are treating me that way so I see no problem.

I am not treating you any way. I was just trying to clarify for you.

Jesus said that you should love your enemies and turn the other cheek. Jesus said that being nice only to people who are nice to you is worthless because even the sinners do that. Jesus said you should be kind to your enemies.

Do you think that Jesus likes it when you act this way? Do you think Jesus thinks it's justified?

I don't know what Bottle's plan would be, but one major thing that would eliminate almost all human caused cruelty? Eliminate scarcity. Most of the time, when humans do bad things to other humans, its because they want their stuff. If everybody could get all the stuff they wanted, or even needed, then there'd be very little problem.


I think that is, by definition, impossible. The entire concept of economics is based on the idea that peoples wants are infinite while the supply limited.
You could, in theory, make sure everyone is fed, lives in a house, gets medical care, has clean water, etc. But that won't keep people from wanting more stuff.

(bold mine) = Lie.

Seriously, post where I said that you must like to watch people suffer and you must be sick in the head. I'll wait.

Actually, you know what? Never mind. You'll just lie again. Let me answer my own question, in the interests of honesty:

The post you're thinking of is the one where I started every sentence with MAYBE. Maybe, a word which means something slightly different than "must."

Using the word 'maybe' does NOT remove the implication of the name calling on your arguments part. You gave two options, either enjoy watching human suffering and be sick in the head, Or, not like watching human history. And since you already knew that I stated that watching the history of humanity in all of it's tragedy and triumph was worthy of something, you thus limited me to no choice but to be a sadist and something wrong in my head.

Another option here is that you presented us with a false dichotomy of choices? Are there more options than the one you presented for me in your argument? If not, then you didn't use the word maybe in a manner that leaves another option...

I've also never said you were "sick in the head." I absolutely do think that some of your beliefs and much of your behavior would qualify as "sick," but I think you are choosing to engage in this behavior consciously. I don't think you can blame any mental illness or disability for your poor choices.

Yes, yet again you like to try and paint me as a a sick person who makes sick choices, yes, we've been through this before. Yes you like to make insults through implication. Please try a new tactic sometime, this gets boring.
[/QUOTE]



I am not treating you any way. I was just trying to clarify for you.

Jesus said that you should love your enemies and turn the other cheek. Jesus said that being nice only to people who are nice to you is worthless because even the sinners do that. Jesus said you should be kind to your enemies.

Do you think that Jesus likes it when you act this way? Do you think Jesus thinks it's justified?

Sometimes it's hard even for Jesus to act the way you think he said we should...

Matthew 3:7
...he said to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Matthew 23:15
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.

Sometimes it's hard even for Jesus to act the way you think he said we should...
not, how I think, how it says in that book

Matthew 5:43-48 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shall love thy neighbor, and hate your enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

I think that is, by definition, impossible. The entire concept of economics is based on the idea that peoples wants are infinite while the supply limited.
You could, in theory, make sure everyone is fed, lives in a house, gets medical care, has clean water, etc. But that won't keep people from wanting more stuff.

But there is an amount that you could give everybody that would eliminate almost all incentive to try to take other people's stuff. A point where people have everything they need, and just about everything they could want, to the point where it's just not worth it to steal/kill/whatever for more.

Sure, a few people still might, but it wouldn't be anywhere near the levels we have now, where some people do those things just to get the basic requirements for survival. After all, the survival instinct is incredibly strong, and will drive people to do things that they wouldn't do just for a slight increase in comfort.

I wouldn't normally do this, but if we're going to be snobbish about the use of English...

First, its "which" not "wich". Second, I don't wonder WHY you are anti-christian I know why, you hate the thought that sin exists and that you have to be accountable for your own actions. Third, it is you who call US bigots and wacko nutjobs I simply call you few posters here bigots because, with your postings how you could get anything other than hatred and bigotry is beyond me. And anyway I only call the few of you posters bigots, there are many nice tolerant athiests and muslims in the world, unfortunately you are not among them.

Firstly, it should really be 'firstly' instead of 'first', 'secondly' instead of 'second' etc. but this isn't too major. 'It's' needs an apostrophe because it's a abbreviation.

The next sentence needs a comma after 'anti-christian' (Christian should be capitalised by the way), the comma after 'why' should be a colon and there are two 'c's in 'accountable'.

'Call' should be 'calls' (you started off using second person singular, but you changed to third person when you used 'who'), 'US' in the third sentence needs to be changed to 'USians' or 'Americans', and you need a semi-colon after 'nutjobs'. You should either get rid of the comma after 'because' or add another one after 'postings'.

Starting a sentence with 'And' is usually a bad idea, get rid of it and put a comma after 'anyway'. Change 'the' to 'a' and the comma after 'bigots' should be a semi-colon as it's joining two independent clauses. 'Atheist' is an exception to the 'i after e, except after c rule' because its roots are Greek (a=without, theos=god); presumably the 'athiest' is much 'athier' than everyone else. 'Muslims' should be capitalised.

Remind me: what was it Jesus said about hypocrites?

I really shouldn't find grammar Nazism funny, but that cracked me up. :D

not, how I think, how it says in that book

Matthew 5:43-48 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shall love thy neighbor, and hate your enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

And if Kontor loves his enemies, blesses those that curse him, does good for those that hate him and prays for those that persecute him, how does it mean that he can't get angry? What in this thread proves that he doesn't do those things on a regular bases.

Can a Christian father get angry with his children? Can a Christian mother get angry with her husband and still be a good Christian? Yes, to both questions. This is not to imply that Kontor is a father or a mother, or in a position of authority, but only that he is capable of doing all the things in that verse and STILL get angry. If he goes too far, he should apologize, should he learn to act better, yes, of course, ALL of us can always learn to act better.

But even Jesus makes and uses a whip from time to time...

So, my thread has succeeded in inciting some angry Christians, my job is done then...

And if Kontor loves his enemies, blesses those that curse him, does good for those that hate him and prays for those that persecute him, how does it mean that he can't get angry? What in this thread proves that he doesn't do those things on a regular bases.

Can a Christian father get angry with his children? Can a Christian mother get angry with her husband and still be a good Christian? Yes, to both questions. This is not to imply that Kontor is a father or a mother, or in a position of authority, but only that he is capable of doing all the things in that verse and STILL get angry. If he goes too far, he should apologize, should he learn to act better, yes, of course, ALL of us can always learn to act better.

But even Jesus makes and uses a whip from time to time...

can a person be angry without being rude and calling names? I think so. It's very possible to be angry and still treat people in a loving way.

Using the word 'maybe' does NOT remove the implication of the name calling on your arguments part. You gave two options, either enjoy watching human suffering and be sick in the head, Or, not like watching human history. And since you already knew that I stated that watching the history of humanity in all of it's tragedy and triumph was worthy of something, you thus limited me to no choice but to be a sadist and something wrong in my head.

That's not how I wred it. Rather, you seemed to be saying "wouldn't it be great to be God and watch this amazing drama of human life" and Bottle was replying "What's so great about a God who watches the suffering part of it but chooses not to fix anything?"

Go back and read your own post, put Bottle's in context of that. You aren't being accused of being that sadist god yourself, any more than Bottle is describing life. Both of you are adopting a hypothetical viewpoint.

I think you're rushing it a bit and not taking the meaning too well.

can a person be angry without being rude and calling names? I think so. It's very possible to be angry and still treat people in a loving way.

Which I think means being very careful in how one expresses anger. When one is angry with anothers behaviour or words, it is easy for that person to feel personally threatened, even if one is being scrupulous not to personally criticize them or hit them with a fist.

I describe this from the point of view of the angry person, because it is their responsibility to not let their anger itself hurt another. Anger is but a badly-chosen word away from actual harm.

I play it safe and try to avoid what makes me angry. When angry, my first priority is to calm down, which usually means "wait it out."

So, my thread has succeeded in inciting some angry Christians, my job is done then...
No, what you've done is simply pissed off everyone. Well played, squire, we all really care about your opinion, and value you as a person for this. Here, have the attention you obviously seek to improve your presumably pitiful life :fluffle:

can a person be angry without being rude and calling names? I think so. It's very possible to be angry and still treat people in a loving way.

Yes, I agree. BTW/FYI, I want to assure you that I’m not attacking your position entirely, I agree with it more than I don’t. What I am questioning is the definition of that position. Defining what is permissible to do and still hold that position is not always white and black.

I do not think that 'name calling,' in every scenario, is always rude or always unnecessary. Jesus did do it from time to time himself.

Yes, I agree. BTW/FYI, I want to assure you that I’m not attacking your position entirely, I agree with it more than I don’t. What I am questioning is the definition of that position. Defining what is permissible to do and still hold that position is not always white and black.

I do not think that 'name calling,' in every scenario, is always rude or always unnecessary. Jesus did do it from time to time himself.

FWIW I don't really care either way, I was bored and trying to entertain myself.

That's not how I wred it. Rather, you seemed to be saying "wouldn't it be great to be God and watch this amazing drama of human life" and Bottle was replying "What's so great about a God who watches the suffering part of it but chooses not to fix anything?"

Go back and read your own post, put Bottle's in context of that. You aren't being accused of being that sadist god yourself, any more than Bottle is describing life. Both of you are adopting a hypothetical viewpoint.

I think you're rushing it a bit and not taking the meaning too well.


Go back and read what I said then,... here: I think this life is good enough to be worth living now, AND I can imagine it being even better. As I read about human history, I have no reason to think that I would not have loved to watch it in action as God can/does. Generation after generation of human life in all of its triumph and tragedy, what a wonder to behold.

I never said life was all hunky-dory. Bad things happen, bad things end us, bad things occur to good people. Life is as life is. We can enjoy the ride or not. Material things won't make us happy forever and the lack of material things doesn't create a misery that lasts forever either.

Humans are wonderful, humans are grand creations, humans are, even in their tragedy, awesome things to behold and worthy of the effort to read the stories written about them.

Go back and read what I said then,... here: I think this life is good enough to be worth living now, AND I can imagine it being even better. As I read about human history, I have no reason to think that I would not have loved to watch it in action as God can/does. Generation after generation of human life in all of its triumph and tragedy, what a wonder to behold.

OK. I went back and wred it again. I think I wred it right the first time. Just to be sure, let's quote the whole post and try to identify the viewpoint you take, and whether it can realistically be called your view.

Maybe you think this life is so bad it isn’t worth living at all. Or, Maybe you think it’s so good that you can’t imagine it being even better.

I think this life is good enough to be worth living now, AND I can imagine it being even better. As I read about human history, I have no reason to think that I would not have loved to watch it in action as God can/does. Generation after generation of human life in all of its triumph and tragedy, what a wonder to behold. Since God knows that we are born into death he sent us his Son so that we can be born into eternal Life with him, this a great gift, it is not a curse that we are born while needing to be saved from death.

John 11:25
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,

If you want to deny God's help because you are angry with his world and creation itself, did you save yourself from death? No, you will die anyway. God knows you will die, you know you will die, denying that God exists does not change reality one bit.

He didn't just get mad and go kill his kid, he sent his Son on a suicide mission to save us, and his son agreed to do it. Additionally, they reward us with eternal life, because he is the God of the living, not the God of the dead. Jesus still lives, and so do those who died of this life while in him.

Matthew 22
31And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living."

I've bolded the same part you just did. Indeed the statement "As I read about human history" is made from a sound personal viewpoint, and to attack that would be to attack your understanding, and oblige Bottle to put a contrary view.

"As I read about human history" is not "from what I've read of human history" ... in fact, it presupposes knowledge of that history from before you wred it ... a peculiar conceit I would be uncomfortable to have myself.

Are you are saying that the more you read, the closer to the omniscience of God your view becomes?

Now consider this. In two sentences, you go from "I think" to "I would .. love" (removing the double negative if that's OK with you.) You are quite explicitly sublimating your own experience by speaking of God, a process which ends in the ringing phrase "what a wonder to behold."

Yes, I grant you made a statement from your own view-point, acknowledging your limited means to know things (the limits of memory and of time to study, which bind us all.) But the context of the line you are pleased to quote makes it very clear that you have expectations about the knowledge you don't yet have, that it will be more glorious and, well, BETTER, from God's superior vantage.

Perhaps you yearn to BE God, but that is neither here nor there. Your God can surely see things you cannot even imagine, nor read in any book: God's intentions among them. Can you have any doubt that this is so?

I never said life was all hunky-dory. Bad things happen, bad things end us, bad things occur to good people. Life is as life is. We can enjoy the ride or not. Material things won't make us happy forever and the lack of material things doesn't create a misery that lasts forever either.

Humans are wonderful, humans are grand creations, humans are, even in their tragedy, awesome things to behold and worthy of the effort to read the stories written about them.

I am troubled still by your perspective. "Behold" is a word with Biblical overtones, expressing deeper belief and understanding which is available in books or by the normal use of the senses. "Awesome" as well implies that your own understanding is unfit for the spectacle you describe -- you are "awed" by it.

This is not a criticism so much as an observation, and I differ from Bottle's vehemence in rejecting the Godly or partly-sublimated-by-association-with-God view. I don't find it useful personally to see things through glory-coloured glasses, any more than through the blood-coloured ones. But if it works for you, fine.

I am merely making a case that your statement is not one of empirical truth, of truth that can be conveyed entire to another poster without that poster relying on faith. And all the colourful language, by valuing your God above yourself, makes it very easy to read your statement not as a personal view but as God's view.

I cannot and will not defend Bottle's reply to your post. I hope I have managed to make it a little clearer that there is a viewpoint which is not yours in the post, and that Bottle may have been attacking that when she carelessly hit you with this:

*...*

Personally, I think it's beyond fucked up to claim that anybody with any shred of empathy or human decency would look at the suffering of their fellow humans and be delighted. It makes my stomach turn to hear you talk about how much you would love to watch the misery of millions of humans, and how you think their suffering is some kind of glory to your God.

*...*

First, its "which" not "wich". Second, I don't wonder WHY you are anti-christian I know why, you hate the thought that sin exists and that you have to be accountable for your own actions. Third, it is you who call US bigots and wacko nutjobs I simply call you few posters here bigots because, with your postings how you could get anything other than hatred and bigotry is beyond me. And anyway I only call the few of you posters bigots, there are many nice tolerant athiests and muslims in the world, unfortunately you are not among them.

Seeing as how you have such a small post-count, Im going to guess you havent been around here for very long.
Given that, I myself, have been absent from these forums for several months, and in all likelyhood, you havent read many of my postings concerning religion or anything else, Im just going assume you have no clue what youre talking about.

Seeing as how the only posts of mine concerning this topic are in two threads, one of wich, you didnt bother to post in, how on earth could you rationally decide how tolerant I am or not?

At no point have I ever judged anyone for what they believe. i prefer instead to pose questions to them that faith alone cannot answer.
If your faith is too weak to answer these questions, then I suppose its no wonder that you see me the way you do.

Youre making assumptions of my character that you have no basis for arguement. You want to debate me on the virtues and logic of religion?
Fine...lets do it, but making rash accusations make you look like an asshat.

As much as I blast Mormons, I really have no problem with them believing that. I may find it amusing, but meh, it's not a great evil to vanquished from the land. That said, they are evangelicals(in the movie), most definitely, and I do, most assuredly, have a problem with this camp.
Evil-gelicals?

I find it very funny that the people basically constructed an Idol, which they damn near worship no less, out of Bush.It might appear that his scriptwriters have some culpability in that ...
I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.
.
The greatest freedom we have or one of the greatest freedoms is the right to worship the way you see fit.
On the other hand, I don't see how you can be president at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without a relationship with the Lord.
.
I trust that God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job.

I seem to remember something about this in something called the commencements.... or the commendments... no... commemorations... not it... contentions? I don't remember, there were 10 of them, that's all I know. :pNah, there were 15 of them. The third tablet was dropped. :p

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 Then the men of Judah went with the Simeonites their brothers and attacked the Canaanites living in Zephath, and they totally destroyed [c] the city. Therefore it was called Hormah. [d] 18 The men of Judah also took [e] Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron—each city with its territory.

19 The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots.
Gonna see this on a few more t-shirts, you betcha.

It's not surprising that the argument against sanctification through the crucification is attacked, its the same naysaying as has been around for millennia as well...

1 Corinthians 1
20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

But its not just the crucification, it’s the resurrection in which Christians are saved.

1 Corinthians 15
...that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,...

This doesn't do a fucking thing to illuminate the "wisdom" of that bloodthirsty prick Yahweh.
Further ...
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/1-27.htm
Phail.

Seeing as how you have such a small post-count, Im going to guess you havent been around here for very long.
Given that, I myself, have been absent from these forums for several months, and in all likelyhood, you havent read many of my postings concerning religion or anything else, Im just going assume you have no clue what youre talking about.

Seeing as how the only posts of mine concerning this topic are in two threads, one of wich, you didnt bother to post in, how on earth could you rationally decide how tolerant I am or not?

At no point have I ever judged anyone for what they believe. i prefer instead to pose questions to them that faith alone cannot answer.
If your faith is too weak to answer these questions, then I suppose its no wonder that you see me the way you do.

Youre making assumptions of my character that you have no basis for arguement. You want to debate me on the virtues and logic of religion?
Fine...lets do it, but making rash accusations make you look like an asshat.

Well then could you please reiterate your question. When I read your original post I did not get any questions from it. Also please come up with a better name than "asshat" I hope your immagination is not that lacking.

He who does not work, neither shall he eat. - Vladimir Lenin

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. - Paul (II Thessalonians 3:10)

Coincidence? I bring up more quotes if you like.

I don't know any Christians personally who believe that the apocalypse is upon us.

so you can can it.

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3172479.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=0874C32348254FE4025CAD9F07734ED8A55A1E4F32AD3138

He who does not work, neither shall he eat. - Vladimir Lenin

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. - Paul (II Thessalonians 3:10)

Coincidence? I bring up more quotes if you like.
Oooh! I like your moxie. :)

I am not treating you any way. I was just trying to clarify for you.

Jesus said that you should love your enemies and turn the other cheek. Jesus said that being nice only to people who are nice to you is worthless because even the sinners do that. Jesus said you should be kind to your enemies.

Do you think that Jesus likes it when you act this way? Do you think Jesus thinks it's justified?

Im not your enemy...I hope, I did not realise that you took these arguments so far. I am not perfect, I sin just like the next guy although I try not to. I have never claimed to be perfect

Excuse, but Eureka Australis, it is very rude of you to refer to St. Paul the Aposlte as some "drug fuelled [ranter]"Doin' the best with what we gots.


This is the kind of ignorance that will lead to the end of world,

Yay! New poster with sigworthy jive! WooT!

Well then could you please reiterate your question. When I read your original post I did not get any questions from it.

Why place so much stock in a few books that have unknown origins, unknown authors, and have been mistranslated several times, and in all likelyhood, lost quite a bit of thier original context?



Also please come up with a better name than "asshat" I hope your immagination is not that lacking.

Nah, anything causing me to really work at name calling, would cause your christian ears to burn, and likely get me banned.
Im just not in the mood. "Asshat", is all you get.

Actually my broader criticism of Christianity is it's obsession with immaterialism and spiritualism, when it was clear that Jesus was a materialist, if not then he wouldn't have cared about helping people and would have just been 'saving souls' his entire time on earth. Faith (ideals) is nothing without work, and in that way Jesus was against the formalist revisionism of organized religion. Socialism is the fullest expression of Christianity, and Christianity the fullest expression of socialism.

Why, I'd willingly die to save my kids too, I'm surprised you wouldn't.

No, no ... it's willingly killing your kid to save your own twisted version of "honour".
You're not paying attention.

How is it ad hominem? I did not attack her, I attacked the point of view that started from the position of saying life is not good enough and it's God's fault.

Again, you weren't paying attention.

He who does not work, neither shall he eat. - Vladimir Lenin

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. - Paul (II Thessalonians 3:10)

Coincidence? I bring up more quotes if you like.



Gas, Grass, Or Ass - No One Rides For Free! - Thomas Aquinas

Any God who would be delighted with the fate of his human children as it has played out is a sick fucker who absolutely does not deserve worship of any kind.
...
Worshipping a sadistic pervert who glories in the brutalization of my fellow humans is a fate worse than death, to me.
...
So the best solution your God could come up with was more torture and more killing. Pathetic, if not down right evil.Amen.
*bows*

Why place so much stock in a few books that have unknown origins, unknown authors, and have been mistranslated several times, and in all likelyhood, lost quite a bit of thier original context?




Nah, anything causing me to really work at name calling, would cause your christian ears to burn, and likely get me banned.
Im just not in the mood. "Asshat", is all you get.

Awww your immagination really is dead, im sad for you:(.

Anywho, have you seen the dead sea scrolls? I have, they are quite fasinating you know, another interesting thing is that they are the same as the OT. As for the NT the people who were there witnessed it and wrote it down. How exactly do you know they were misstranslated or taken out of context? Bibles are strangly..uniform in writing, you would think that if they were misstranslated or taken out of context some of them would be different, wouldnt you?

But that requires an epiphany or at least therapy to be cured, arguments from me aren’t going to help her see the world through less blood covered glasses.

How about excrement-covered glasses, as God wants?
http://bible.cc/malachi/2-3.htm
It would appear you really, really do have a *big* problem assigning anger to other people instead of focusing on the source of yours, hmmm?

Death is what he was destroying. Can't be resurrected unless you die first.Or, as has been qualified 100% of attempts in controlled conditions, you can't be resurrected AT ALL after real death. The real one. Not the "metaphorical" one that works great in poetry but has quite little to do with the real, actual incidence of death, from which you merely move on to feeding other creatures of varying degrees and make approximately *zero* choices of your own.
If he "destroyed" death, seems still to be a lot of dying going on. Must be a metaphorical thing or something.
Which, if popular and classical literature and music is to be believed, has also not come to an end.
Not even close.

Jesus pad the price AND went to death to deliver check himself for us.
Based on your reading? So you've read the Gospel of Jesus, right?

Awww your immagination really is dead, im sad for you:(.

Anywho, have you seen the dead sea scrolls? I have, they are quite fasinating you know, another interesting thing is that they are the same as the OT. As for the NT the people who were there witnessed it and wrote it down. How exactly do you know they were misstranslated or taken out of context? Bibles are strangly..uniform in writing, you would think that if they were misstranslated or taken out of context some of them would be different, wouldnt you?


Wow. you dont really study your bibles do you?

You havent read anything mentioning the fact that between translations from its original hebrew, or Aramaic, to greek, to english, that entire parts have been mistranslated?
In fact, the very Dead Sea Scrolls you mention, when closely examined, reveal that entire SECTIONS have been completely removed.

As far as the NT goes, its unlikely anyone who was present was even alive, considering that some of the books were written as late as 180 a.d.
Even the earliest of them was likely written no earlier than 90-120 a.d, eliminating the possibility of any first hand accounts.

See, Ive actually done quite a bit of reading, and research on the subject, especially for your average atheist.

So, again, why place so much stock on books that people claim to be "the word of God", when they are poorly translated, unknown authorship, and even the dates of authorship, are unknown?

Why wouldnt this give a rational person cause to take thier contents with a grain of salt or two?

Could he, yes, or no? And if not, what law is there that not even God is above, and where did such a law come from?
His twisted ego, and need to save "face"?

As Judges 1:17-19 testified, he wasn't above the powers of Hephaestus - God apparently isn't above the law of metallurgy.

God DID invent empathy, thats why you can have it and know what it is.
You don't get to keep it ... you have to trade it in for your soul. We've covered this.
It's pretty but don't touch, like apples.

All of your questions will be answered with this code, if you can unlock its secrets that is. Alpha omega bravo delta beta gamma

...so dark the con of man?
:p

Wow. you dont really study your bibles do you?

You havent read anything mentioning the fact that between translations from its original hebrew, or Aramaic, to greek, to english, that entire parts have been mistranslated?
In fact, the very Dead Sea Scrolls you mention, when closely examined, reveal that entire SECTIONS have been completely removed.

As far as the NT goes, its unlikely anyone who was present was even alive, considering that some of the books were written as late as 180 a.d.
Even the earliest of them was likely written no earlier than 90-120 a.d, eliminating the possibility of any first hand accounts.

See, Ive actually done quite a bit of reading, and research on the subject, especially for your average atheist.

So, again, why place so much stock on books that people claim to be "the word of God", when they are poorly translated, unknown authorship, and even the dates of authorship, are unknown?

Why wouldnt this give a rational person cause to take thier contents with a grain of salt or two?


So much of what the bible says is true today, the jews regaining their homeland, the hatred the Christians by the world, prohecies that have come true. Such as daniel 9 24:27

I don't know any Christians personally who believe that the apocalypse is upon us.
Good. I would keep that circle, instead of philosophies of powerful republicans, for example.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/5/1/215939.shtml?s=ic

So much of what the bible says is true today, the jews regaining their homeland, the hatred the Christians by the world, prohecies that have come true. Such as daniel 9 24:27

Nonsense.

The same can be applied to Nostradamus' prophecies.
Its all so open and vague, that practically any interperetation can be applied.

BTW, you havent answered any of the questions.

Afraid of the answers?

Nonsense.

The same can be applied to Nostradamus' prophecies.
Its all so open and vague, that practically any interperetation can be applied.

BTW, you havent answered any of the questions.

Afraid of the answers?
You know, that particular application of christian philosophy makes them trolls.

Wait ... do i hate the itch, love the itcher?

You know, that particular application of christian philosophy makes them trolls.

Wait ... do i hate the itch, love the itcher?

Wait..I thought living under bridges, and eating billy goats made them trolls....

When did the rules change??

Wait..I thought living under bridges, and eating billy goats made them trolls....
Sorry, i meant more like the "forum" type of troll. But to be fair, they're quite similar in nature and residence in the imagination. :p

When did the rules change??Didn't you get the memo?
I would never tell you anything that wasn't absolutely true,
That didn't come right from His mouth,
And He wants me to tell you.

Sorry, i meant more like the "forum" type of troll. But to be fair, they're quite similar in nature and residence in the imagination. :p

Dang. Sarcasm is very hard to display via text.



Didn't you get the memo?

I never get the memo....I doubt the existance of the memo.
See, the origins of the Book of Memos is dubious...so...err..

Dang. Sarcasm is very hard to display via text.I'm not a good example of sensible text, grammar and wit. :p

I never get the memo....I doubt the existance of the memo.
See, the origins of the Book of Memos is dubious...so...err..Good point. It was spoken word, for the most part ... around the water cooler ... with occasional cryptic scribblings on stickynotes and such, but all the emails have been deleted by Karl Rove.

Kontor I am more of a Christian than you will ever be, I recognize the innate material dialecticalism of Christ's message and his rejection of dogmatism instead of good works.

So much of what the bible says is true today, the jews regaining their homeland, the hatred the Christians by the world, prohecies that have come true. Such as daniel 9 24:27

*lol
There is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy, you know?
Such as people believing in the bible helping Jews to "regain their homeland"... and truth be told, the "hatred" the world has for "Christians" is something those Christians seem to be actively working for. You know, behaving like complete antisocial dicks and all that. It doesn't really make you popular.

In my answer to your post I didn't attempt to assign a position to you, I attempted to assign two options for you, a half full or half empty scenario. When I summarized your answer I was simply defending myself from the ad hominem accusation, and I apologize if I summarized you position poorly.

What ad hominem would that be, then?

But I think you may still be misunderstanding both myself and Bottle here.
Neither of us is a theist. But both of us had a good long hard look at Christian scripture.
Me, I came to the conclusion that for my life, it doesn't make the least bit of difference if god exists or not, and due to lack of evidence I just assume he doesn't.
If I should ever be proven wrong, so be it, I wouldn't have any problem with that, either. It would not change the least little thing about how I live my life.
See, I would have a massive problem worshipping a mass-murdering, authoritarian, lying, genocidal, misogynic being, no matter what his powers. I happen to believe that in order to have the authority to lay down a moral code, you have to follow it yourself.
In short, if paradise is spending eternity with the god of the bible, someone else can have my place there, I'll happily give it up.
But all evidence points to there not being an afterlife at the moment, so why worry about it?

In fact, the very Dead Sea Scrolls you mention, when closely examined, reveal that entire SECTIONS have been completely removed.

You really think so? Perhaps you would like to show some evidence. The research I've seen seems to say the exact opposite.

...As far as the NT goes, its unlikely anyone who was present was even alive, considering that some of the books were written as late as 180 a.d.

Really? Which ones? Perhaps you would like to explain why none of the NT books mention any historical facts that occurred after 70AD then? None, not one iota, not one word mentioning that the entire temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed or that Christians in Rome were being blamed for the fire and were being hunted down etc,. It would be like talking about the Twin Towers in New York City after 9/11 and not bothering to mention that they weren't standing anymore. Much more likely that the books were written before the destruction events, not after them.

...Even the earliest of them was likely written no earlier than 90-120 a.d, eliminating the possibility of any first hand accounts.

You sure come up with a lot of dates that are irreconcilable with other facts.... Like the fact that Paul was dead before that, if your dates are correct he sure wrote a lot of books for a dead guy then didn't he?

See, Ive actually done quite a bit of reading, and research on the subject, especially for your average atheist.
...

Apparently not enough reading...

What ad hominem would that be, then?

Not from you... this one:
Nice argumentum ad hominem.

I was responding to that.

But I think you may still be misunderstanding both myself and Bottle here.
Neither of us is a theist. But both of us had a good long hard look at Christian scripture.
Me, I came to the conclusion that for my life, it doesn't make the least bit of difference if god exists or not, and due to lack of evidence I just assume he doesn't.
If I should ever be proven wrong, so be it, I wouldn't have any problem with that, either. It would not change the least little thing about how I live my life.
See, I would have a massive problem worshipping a mass-murdering, authoritarian, lying, genocidal, misogynic being, no matter what his powers. I happen to believe that in order to have the authority to lay down a moral code, you have to follow it yourself.
In short, if paradise is spending eternity with the god of the bible, someone else can have my place there, I'll happily give it up.
But all evidence points to there not being an afterlife at the moment, so why worry about it?

I understand your point of view and where you are coming from and I recognize that whatever I say to you you are not likely to be convinced nor even swayed. However, when you post negative commentary, like the above quote about God not being worthy of worship etc., I am abliged to counter your claim for the other readers here who might be swayed or negatively influenced by your argument if it should stand unchallenged.

No, no ... it's willingly killing your kid to save your own twisted version of "honour".
You're not paying attention.

No, no ... Jesus willingly sacrificed himself. I've already shown many quotes/verses from Jesus saying so. You're not paying attention.

Jesus was black. *nods*

IT IS DOOOOOOM
YOUR DOOOOOOM
YOUR DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM.


DOOM.


Naw, kidding. But I'd like to bring up that not all of these apolcalypitc theories are Christain. I'm Christain, woot. No theories here.

Take Nostradamus though. That man was a little bit crazy in the noggin there. He's the one who said the world is going to end and the human race will go extinct in 2017. Yeahhh, 2017. So conspiracy? Think abot it, are we all dying in T-minus 10 years?

How is it ad hominem? I did not attack her, I attacked the point of view that started from the position of saying life is not good enough and it's God's fault.

It wasn't an ad hominem attack (even though it was patronising in its own high and mighty i know how the universe works and you're ungrateful to jebus way) but it was an appeal to the person rather than a response to the questions posed. Seems to me if you can't defend the position you have taken then you shouldn't bother replying.

So much of what the bible says is true today, the jews regaining their homeland, the hatred the Christians by the world, prohecies that have come true. Such as daniel 9 24:27
You think Christians are hated in today's world? Are you fucking kidding me? Christians are the ones, for the most part, in charge! You guys are the ones who oppress anybody who doesn't agree with you, then whine whenever you're told you're not allowed to oppress people.Quoth one of the Christian organizations on campus: "Waaaaah, we're being discriminated against because they're telling us that we can't discriminate! We should get special exemption from that rule! Waaaaah!"
And the worst part is, the university fucking bought it. If any other group tried to pull that, even another religious group, they'd probably get told "no, you can't violate our non-discrimination policy. If you want to, well, then tough shit."

*lol
There is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy, you know?
Such as people believing in the bible helping Jews to "regain their homeland"... and truth be told, the "hatred" the world has for "Christians" is something those Christians seem to be actively working for. You know, behaving like complete antisocial dicks and all that. It doesn't really make you popular.
Indeed. Ever notice how many of the Bible prophecies are "fulfilled" this way. The thing is, some of these people want to bring about the end of the world because it will be glorious for them.


You really think so? Perhaps you would like to show some evidence. The research I've seen seems to say the exact opposite.

Okay, let's see then...


Really? Which ones? Perhaps you would like to explain why none of the NT books mention any historical facts that occurred after 70AD then? None, not one iota, not one word mentioning that the entire temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed or that Christians in Rome were being blamed for the fire and were being hunted down etc,. It would be like talking about the Twin Towers in New York City after 9/11 and not bothering to mention that they weren't standing anymore. Much more likely that the books were written before the destruction events, not after them.

If you were trying to attribute the work to somebody who was alive before 9/11, or just make it seem like an earlier text, then yes, you would omit mention of it. Or even if you were just writing down an oral account that'd been passed around a bit, that didn't include the destruction of the temple. Maybe they didn't include it because it happened after their story, and they thought everybody'd know about it already.

Also, with Nero, you do know that there's an interpretation of Revelation that says it is about him, but using metaphors to escape detection, right?


You sure come up with a lot of dates that are irreconcilable with other facts.... Like the fact that Paul was dead before that, if your dates are correct he sure wrote a lot of books for a dead guy then didn't he?

You realize that a lot of the books attributed to Paul are believed to be written by other people, such as later disciples of his, right?


Apparently not enough reading...

Or, apparently just not with the Christian bias. ;)

I understand your point of view and where you are coming from and I recognize that whatever I say to you you are not likely to be convinced nor even swayed. However, when you post negative commentary, like the above quote about God not being worthy of worship etc., I am abliged to counter your claim for the other readers here who might be swayed or negatively influenced by your argument if it should stand unchallenged.

I haven't yet seen you do so. So far, all you seemed to be doing was jumping to conclusions about both mine and Bottle's state of mind (depression, guilt complexes and irrational hatred were mentioned in that respect, I believe). But you have not yet replied to my question why an omnipotent and omniscient god would create a world that he knows will be sinfull, then creates his son and kills him off and asks us to be grateful for that.

Or, as has been qualified 100% of attempts in controlled conditions, you can't be resurrected AT ALL after real death.

Of course your controlled conditions failed to substitute for the main ingredients, which should have been the subject of the test, the Only Begotten Son of God and/or The Spirit of God... And since you didn't have them your test failed to reproduce the conditions required.

The real one. Not the "metaphorical" one that works great in poetry but has quite little to do with the real, actual incidence of death, from which you merely move on to feeding other creatures of varying degrees and make approximately *zero* choices of your own.
If he "destroyed" death, seems still to be a lot of dying going on. Must be a metaphorical thing or something. ...

Nope, not a metaphorical thing...

Mark 5
35While he was still speaking, there came from the ruler’s house some who said, "Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the Teacher any further?" 36But overhearing[e] what they said, Jesus said to the ruler of the synagogue, "Do not fear, only believe." 37And he allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of James. 38They came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, and Jesus saw a commotion, people weeping and wailing loudly. 39And when he had entered, he said to them, "Why are you making a commotion and weeping? The child is not dead but sleeping." 40And they laughed at him. But he put them all outside and took the child’s father and mother and those who were with him and went in where the child was. 41 Taking her by the hand he said to her, "Talitha cumi," which means, "Little girl, I say to you, arise." 42And immediately the girl got up and began walking (for she was twelve years of age), and they were immediately overcome with amazement. 43And he strictly charged them that no one should know this, and told them to give her something to eat.

John 11
25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?" 27She said to him, "Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world."...

...39Jesus said, "Take away the stone." Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, "Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days." 40Jesus said to her, "Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?" 41So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me." 43When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out." 44 The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Unbind him, and let him go."

These are not descriptions of metaphorical resurrections. Jesus Resurrection isn't metaphorical either.

Mark 16
4And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back—it was very large. 5And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. 6And he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you." 8And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

And that's what people witnessed to from the beginning, the first things the early Christians did was witness to the fact that Jesus rose from the dead...

Acts 3:15
and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.
Acts 4:2
greatly annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.

And it means the resurrection of the body, not just the spirit, you don't eat and drink with a ghost or apparition...

Acts 10:41
not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

Of course your controlled conditions failed to substitute for the main ingredients, which should have been the subject of the test, the Only Begotten Son of God and/or The Spirit of God... And since you didn't have them your test failed to reproduce the conditions required.



Nope, not a metaphorical thing...

<snip the quotes from the story>

We all know the story. We've all been exposed to it, more often than many f us care to remember.
What was asked is how you yourself - you, as a person, as an individual, with a brain (I hope) and a genetical sense of morality - justify god's apparent cruelty? We know what people 2 millenia ago were saying, we want to hear what YOU say now.

Argument from Bible Quotes. Gotta love it. "Hey, you don't believe in God, so I will quote the Bible-- a book that you do not accept as true-- at you! It's a brilliant argument!"

I haven't yet seen you do so. So far, all you seemed to be doing was jumping to conclusions about both mine and Bottle's state of mind (depression, guilt complexes and irrational hatred were mentioned in that respect, I believe). But you have not yet replied to my question why an omnipotent and omniscient god would create a world that he knows will be sinfull, then creates his son and kills him off and asks us to be grateful for that.

Then you've been selectively reading what I've been writing.

I've said and shown through verses that Jesus wasn't 'killed' by his father. Jesus IS the creator that made AND saved the world. You ask why you should be grateful? It is because you have been given the opportunity to experience existence, life as a human being, even though you die, you live now. God created that opportunity for you. Additionally, he provided a method for you to achieve eternal life as well, but that's between you and him, which you say you are not interested in.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Argument from Bible Quotes. Gotta love it. "Hey, you don't believe in God, so I will quote the Bible-- a book that you do not accept as true-- at you! It's a brilliant argument!"

The argument is about theology and what Christianity says about itself. Bible quotes are evidence. You make a red herring.

People toss around the word "owned" a lot these days, sometimes a bit too carelessly, but I think there are still situations that call for that particular term.

:D

*blushes*

"It's" isn't an abbreviation. It's a contraction for it is.

Guilty. I hand my Grammar Nazi crown to you. :p

working in the mental health field i think christianity in its self can fit the criteria of mental illness

Really?! So you think that people who you don't happen to agree with must then be mentally ill? What would you think if someone accused you of mental illness because they don't agree with you?

I am a Christian, and know many other Christians, and very few of them seem mentally ill. :)

[QUOTE=Cabra West;13215761 a genetical sense of morality [/QUOTE]

May I ask what you mean by that?

Who defines cruelty? Maybe what you call cruelty others would call kindness.

Before you accuse God of cruelty you need to have a definition for cruelty and why it is wrong.

Okay, let's see then...

If you were trying to attribute the work to somebody who was alive before 9/11, or just make it seem like an earlier text, then yes, you would omit mention of it. Or even if you were just writing down an oral account that'd been passed around a bit, that didn't include the destruction of the temple. Maybe they didn't include it because it happened after their story, and they thought everybody'd know about it already.

IF all of the authors in the NT conspired to lie and write books as if they didn't know the outcome of future events... (a conspiracy of impossible collaboration and scheduling problems from trying to do that across the ancient world and no method for them to enforce the rule on each other, but as you say lets assume for a moment that it is plausible) … If none of the NT books were written until long after the events, then what books were being used by the Christians in Rome before Paul went there? What were these ancient Christian communities using to talk to each other (especially since you claim they were so good at conspiracy and the execution of that planning they must have been communicating with some method). So if none of the earliest writings are actually early, you now have created a vast void of information between the communities you claim to be capable of your vast intercontinental conspiracy groups… It seems your theory debunks itself.

Also, with Nero, you do know that there's an interpretation of Revelation that says it is about him, but using metaphors to escape detection, right?

And you know Nero existed before the burning of Rome too, right?

You realize that a lot of the books attributed to Paul are believed to be written by other people, such as later disciples of his, right?

You realize that even the biblical minimalist say Paul authored some of the epistles. You realize that Paul died before the burning of Rome, you realize that the point still stands then that NT books existed before the dating I was challenging then? My point stands.

Or, apparently just not with the Christian bias. ;)

Or apparently not even the ones with a biblical minimalist slant because even their agreements don't so far as the claims I was challenging.

Guilty. I hand my Grammar Nazi crown to you. :p
I have been declared queen of the universe, so you can keep it. ;)

*lol
There is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy, you know?
Such as people believing in the bible helping Jews to "regain their homeland"... and truth be told, the "hatred" the world has for "Christians" is something those Christians seem to be actively working for. You know, behaving like complete antisocial dicks and all that. It doesn't really make you popular.

Anti-social? If thats what you think the christians around you are they are not very good christians at all, we are suposed to tell the world about jesus christ and to a great extent we do.

Nonsense.

The same can be applied to Nostradamus' prophecies.
Its all so open and vague, that practically any interperetation can be applied.

BTW, you havent answered any of the questions.

Afraid of the answers?

I did answer you..twice, what I just said and the PROOF of the dead sea scrolls.

Really? Which ones? Perhaps you would like to explain why none of the NT books mention any historical facts that occurred after 70AD then? None, not one iota, not one word mentioning that the entire temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed or that Christians in Rome were being blamed for the fire and were being hunted down etc,. It would be like talking about the Twin Towers in New York City after 9/11 and not bothering to mention that they weren't standing anymore. Much more likely that the books were written before the destruction events, not after them.

The Gospels are full of references to the Jewish Revolt and the fall of Jerusalem: the rending of the Temple curtain, the Jews' choosing between Jesus and Barabbas, Legion and the pigs, the frequent references to the destruction of the Temple, etc. "You shall hear of wars and rumours of wars but be not afraid, for the end is not yet" sounds as if it was written to calm early Christians who thought that the destruction of Jerusalem marked the beginning of the Apocalypse.

However, you seem to put great store by the writings of the church fathers so allow me to present Irenaeus as additional evidence for a post-siege dating:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

This clearly implies that Mark was written after the death of Peter and Paul, which are traditionally placed in 64 or 67AD. The Temple was destroyed in 70AD, so if we accept Markan priority (as nearly all scholars do) and that Luke and Matthew knew the Gospel of Mark (which is also widely accepted) then it seems unlikely that Matthew or Luke could have been written before Jerusalem's fall (they certainly couldn't have been written before the persecutions in Rome or the beginning of the Jewish Revolt).

I have been declared queen of the universe, so you can keep it. ;)

YAY!!! :D

The Gospels are full of references to the Jewish Revolt and the fall of Jerusalem: the rending of the Temple curtain, the Jews' choosing between Jesus and Barabbas, Legion and the pigs, the frequent references to the destruction of the Temple, etc. "You shall hear of wars and rumours of wars but be not afraid, for the end is not yet" sounds as if it was written to calm early Christians who thought that the destruction of Jerusalem marked the beginning of the Apocalypse.

No, these are references to different things, not a singular event. To address the point though, How could the early Christians think the events (Rome burning and the Temple destruction) were the beginning of the Christian Apocalypse IF the apocalypse wasn't in a teaching that they could know yet? They need the books of the gospels and Jesus words to know that Jesus spoke of the Apocalypse for them to be afraid of it. The writings came before the destruction events so that the events could be mistaken as the beginning of the Apocalypse Jesus warned them about. Writing about the events after the fact would have been used as proof that Jesus prophesy was fulfilled, but they didn't do that. The writing you mentioned which were about different things I’ll address below:

the rending of the Temple curtain: the ending of the old Law upon Jesus death, the Spirit of God leaving the Holy of Holies, and marking the new covenant with his people by tearing up the old one. The ‘temple’ is now ‘in us’ not in Jerusalem anymore.

the Jews' choosing between Jesus and Barabbas: has nothing to do with predicting the burning of Rome or the fall of the Temple. ‘Barabbas’ as the idea of rebellion to get rid of Roman rule, existed before Jesus began preaching, it’s one of the reasons Jesus was not accepted as the Messiah because they wanted a rebellion leader/general/king, not the one they got. No reason this has anything to do with the destruction events of the burning of Rome or of the temple being destroyed.

Legion and the pigs: You forget, the demons in the pigs lose this parable. The Romans won the temple battle. This tale would have to be turned upside down if it were about the Romans in Jerusalem, or Rome. Thus, it is not about them.

the frequent references to the destruction of the Temple: this would have been a great reason to use the knowledge of the actual destruction of the Temple, living proof that their predictions came true. But they did NOT mention it because these predictions and words were recorded before the temple was really destroyed, or else surely they would have gloated, if your linking of them was correct.


However, you seem to put great store by the writings of the church fathers so allow me to present Irenaeus as additional evidence for a post-siege dating:

Originally Posted by Against Heresies 3.1.1
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

This clearly implies that Mark was written after the death of Peter and Paul, which are traditionally placed in 64 or 67AD. The Temple was destroyed in 70AD, so if we accept Markan priority (as nearly all scholars do) and that Luke and Matthew knew the Gospel of Mark (which is also widely accepted) then it seems unlikely that Matthew or Luke could have been written before Jerusalem's fall (they certainly couldn't have been written before the persecutions in Rome or the beginning of the Jewish Revolt).

No, that clearly implies that Irenaeus thinks they were written after the authors departed from Jerusalem, after the day of Pentecost, which they were instructed to wait for. It is not about when they left Rome (as many of them didn't leave Rome but died in it. AND I’m not sure that John was ever said to be in Rome at all for him to leave it, but that’s a different objection), but when they commenced with the great commission and left to begin to tell the whole world of Jesus.

No, these are references to different things, not a singular event. To address the point though, How could the early Christians think the events (Rome burning and the Temple destruction) were the beginning of the Christian Apocalypse IF the apocalypse wasn't in a teaching that they could know yet? They need the books of the gospels and Jesus words to know that Jesus spoke of the Apocalypse for them to be afraid of it. The writings came before the destruction events so that the events could be mistaken as the beginning of the Apocalypse Jesus warned them about. Writing about the events after the fact would have been used as proof that Jesus prophesy was fulfilled, but they didn't do that. The writing you mentioned which were about different things I’ll address below:

I don't see why apocalypticism is dependent on written communication. The idea of the Apocalypse had already been spread by diaspora Jewish communities, and Christian missionaries were spreading their beliefs by word of mouth long before the Gospels were written.

the rending of the Temple curtain: the ending of the old Law upon Jesus death, the Spirit of God leaving the Holy of Holies, and marking the new covenant with his people by tearing up the old one. The ‘temple’ is now ‘in us’ not in Jerusalem anymore.

God no longer resides in the Temple because the Temple no longer exists. It has been destroyed. The Christian theology which you write above likely came about as a result of the Temple's destruction.

the Jews' choosing between Jesus and Barabbas: has nothing to do with predicting the burning of Rome or the fall of the Temple. ‘Barabbas’ as the idea of rebellion to get rid of Roman rule, existed before Jesus began preaching, it’s one of the reasons Jesus was not accepted as the Messiah because they wanted a rebellion leader/general/king, not the one they got. No reason this has anything to do with the destruction events of the burning of Rome or of the temple being destroyed.

I'll grant that that's a reasonable explanation, but in the light of the failure of the Jewish revolt it can also be seen as a smug 'I told you so' to the Jews: they chose to trust in human strength and warfare and the consequences are plain to see.

Legion and the pigs: You forget, the demons in the pigs lose this parable. The Romans won the temple battle. This tale would have to be turned upside down if it were about the Romans in Jerusalem, or Rome. Thus, it is not about them.

Where did you get that idea from?

8For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit.

9And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.

10And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.

11Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.

12And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.

13And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.

14And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done.

15And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.

The demons ask to enter into the pigs and Jesus allows it: they get what they wanted. Just as Jesus permits the demons to run amok amongst the pigs, so (in the view of the writer) did God allow the Romans to run amok amonst the Jews. Presumably the pig's status as an unclean animal in Judaism is a commentary on their having been cast off from God. In the aftermath of Jerusalem's destruction, a roman legion of about 2,000 was stationed in Jerusalem and their standard was in the shape of a pig. This doesn't sound like coincidence to me.

the frequent references to the destruction of the Temple: this would have been a great reason to use the knowledge of the actual destruction of the Temple, living proof that their predictions came true. But they did NOT mention it because these predictions and words were recorded before the temple was really destroyed, or else surely they would have gloated, if your linking of them was correct.

Circular: you're assuming that the references are predictions rather than retrodictions.

No, that clearly implies that Irenaeus thinks they were written after the authors departed from Jerusalem, after the day of Pentecost, which they were instructed to wait for. It is not about when they left Rome (as many of them didn't leave Rome but died in it. AND I’m not sure that John was ever said to be in Rome at all for him to leave it, but that’s a different objection), but when they commenced with the great commission and left to begin to tell the whole world of Jesus.

Sorry, I forgot to include the context of the passage:

For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.

Irenaeus places the writing of Matthew after Pentecost, but Mark is specifically placed after Peter and Paul have preached in Rome; the departure is their departure from this world.

I don't see why apocalypticism is dependent on written communication. The idea of the Apocalypse had already been spread by diaspora Jewish communities, and Christian missionaries were spreading their beliefs by word of mouth long before the Gospels were written.

Christian missionaries were spreading their beliefs by word of mouth, and letters. Paul wrote to the church in Rome, for example, before he visited there the first time. The Roman Church was receptive to letters and had been proselytized very early, but to assume that they had no writing is to assume that Paul wrote to them first? No, that doesn’t seem to make a logical step from what we know about them. Why not just assume the most logical course, which would be, that there was writings between Rome and Jerusalem Christians, including the possibility of the Gospels and letters from the Apostles.

God no longer resides in the Temple because the Temple no longer exists. It has been destroyed. The Christian theology which you write above likely came about as a result of the Temple's destruction.

The Christian theology I write about most certainly came about before the Temple destruction. Paul clearly wrote about the theology I’m talking about and Paul clearly died before the Temple destruction.


I'll grant that that's a reasonable explanation, but in the light of the failure of the Jewish revolt it can also be seen as a smug 'I told you so' to the Jews: they chose to trust in human strength and warfare and the consequences are plain to see.

I agree that the smugness factor should exist, IF it was written with hindsight advantage. In short, there isn’t a flat, in your face, example made of the Temple destruction. There should be if it was written after the event.


Where did you get that idea from?

The demons ask to enter into the pigs and Jesus allows it: they get what they wanted. Just as Jesus permits the demons to run amok amongst the pigs, so (in the view of the writer) did God allow the Romans to run amok amonst the Jews. Presumably the pig's status as an unclean animal in Judaism is a commentary on their having been cast off from God. In the aftermath of Jerusalem's destruction, a roman legion of about 2,000 was stationed in Jerusalem and their standard was in the shape of a pig. This doesn't sound like coincidence to me.

The pigs die. They lose, they are drowned by their own demons, Jesus wins. Clearly they can not be the ‘victors’ who destroy the Temple. IF the Roman legion symbol were a lion, something could be made out of that, if it were a dragon, something could be made out of that, if it were a dog, something could be made out of that. The roman pig symbol was a symbol for that legion for reasons unrelated to the gospel and not recorded in it.

Circular: you're assuming that the references are predictions rather than retrodictions.

They may be prophetic predictions. They may not be. But they are not evident enough to clearly be retrodictions (if I understand what you mean by that word and I think I do)… I think most (if not all) of the references to the destruction of the Temple were actually Jesus talking about his own crucifixion and his body as the Temple being rebuilt afterwards. However, I am open to more data in this specific scenario of options…

Sorry, I forgot to include the context of the passage:

Irenaeus places the writing of Matthew after Pentecost, but Mark is specifically placed after Peter and Paul have preached in Rome; the departure is their departure from this world.

I’ll post the whole thing…

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm or this one http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html

We can see, from reading the entirety of the passage, that Irenaeus is speaking specifically of the topic of when did the Apostles get filled with the spirit and became knowledgable of God's message so that they could write authoritative messages and gospels. He was defending against the accusation that they didn’t know what they were talking about, yet, because the accusers seem to be saying that the gospels were written so early that proper Theology from God wasn’t given yet or not understood properly yet. But Irenaeus says that the authority came to them while they were in Jerusalem (still), the entire first part of his small chapter section here is all about the Pentecost event and the timelines in it are in relevance to that event.

The words, After their departure is showing that they wrote ‘after’ they were authorized by the spirit (Pentecost). The references to Peter and Paul in Rome is separated from the reference to Mark by a period, not a comma. This overall implication is that the main timeframe against the day of Pentecost is being referenced again for Mark and Luke. John is clearly, ‘afterward.’

However, lets assume that your opinion is correct for a moment, and say that the After their departure comment is about after the deaths of Peter and Paul in Rome. If so, then the gospels of Mark and Luke could still be completed in two years and John a full three years after that still AND still this could all occur before 70AD and the destruction of the Temple easily enough. So, even if your opinion of the reference to “After their departure” is correct, Irenaeus does not refute my a pre 70AD date for any of the gospels.

I admit that the burning of Rome could be a problem for me though,. However, if Paul and Peter died in 64AD, the same year of the fire, and both Mark and Luke wrote their gospels immediately thereafter, inspired but the loss of their teachers of course they would have begun right away for fear of forgetting something and ‘driven’ by the belief in their cause etc., finish quickly) then writing about Jesus and the Gospel message in the Luke and Mark gospel without mentioning the fire would be understandable for the fire was contemporary with them in the extreme and they were not writing a daily log or journal of themselves, but a history… So I would even with your assumption of the meaning of After their departure, still stand behind the claim that the gospels were pre-70AD writings because they do not include the devastating effects of the persecutions of Christians and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. (Matthew being prior to it and John being authored too far away from the fire event for it to matter to him but still close enough to the Temple that it’s destruction should have made an impact in his gospel if he wrote after it. But it does not so we can assume that he wrote prior to it still).




Side note: have you noticed that every time you and I discuss this topic we scare away the other posters… :p :(

Christian missionaries were spreading their beliefs by word of mouth, and letters. Paul wrote to the church in Rome, for example, before he visited there the first time. The Roman Church was receptive to letters and had been proselytized very early, but to assume that they had no writing is to assume that Paul wrote to them first? No, that doesn’t seem to make a logical step from what we know about them. Why not just assume the most logical course, which would be, that there was writings between Rome and Jerusalem Christians, including the possibility of the Gospels and letters from the Apostles.



The Christian theology I write about most certainly came about before the Temple destruction. Paul clearly wrote about the theology I’m talking about and Paul clearly died before the Temple destruction.



I agree that the smugness factor should exist, IF it was written with hindsight advantage. In short, there isn’t a flat, in your face, example made of the Temple destruction. There should be if it was written after the event.



The pigs die. They lose, they are drowned by their own demons, Jesus wins. Clearly they can not be the ‘victors’ who destroy the Temple. IF the Roman legion symbol were a lion, something could be made out of that, if it were a dragon, something could be made out of that, if it were a dog, something could be made out of that. The roman pig symbol was a symbol for that legion for reasons unrelated to the gospel and not recorded in it.



They may be prophetic predictions. They may not be. But they are not evident enough to clearly be retrodictions (if I understand what you mean by that word and I think I do)… I think most (if not all) of the references to the destruction of the Temple were actually Jesus talking about his own crucifixion and his body as the Temple being rebuilt afterwards. However, I am open to more data in this specific scenario of options…



I’ll post the whole thing…

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm or this one http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html

We can see, from reading the entirety of the passage, that Irenaeus is speaking specifically of the topic of when did the Apostles get filled with the spirit and became knowledgable of God's message so that they could write authoritative messages and gospels. He was defending against the accusation that they didn’t know what they were talking about, yet, because the accusers seem to be saying that the gospels were written so early that proper Theology from God wasn’t given yet or not understood properly yet. But Irenaeus says that the authority came to them while they were in Jerusalem (still), the entire first part of his small chapter section here is all about the Pentecost event and the timelines in it are in relevance to that event.

The words, After their departure is showing that they wrote ‘after’ they were authorized by the spirit (Pentecost). The references to Peter and Paul in Rome is separated from the reference to Mark by a period, not a comma. This overall implication is that the main timeframe against the day of Pentecost is being referenced again for Mark and Luke. John is clearly, ‘afterward.’

However, lets assume that your opinion is correct for a moment, and say that the After their departure comment is about after the deaths of Peter and Paul in Rome. If so, then the gospels of Mark and Luke could still be completed in two years and John a full three years after that still AND still this could all occur before 70AD and the destruction of the Temple easily enough. So, even if your opinion of the reference to “After their departure” is correct, Irenaeus does not refute my a pre 70AD date for any of the gospels.

I admit that the burning of Rome could be a problem for me though,. However, if Paul and Peter died in 64AD, the same year of the fire, and both Mark and Luke wrote their gospels immediately thereafter, inspired but the loss of their teachers of course they would have begun right away for fear of forgetting something and ‘driven’ by the belief in their cause etc., finish quickly) then writing about Jesus and the Gospel message in the Luke and Mark gospel without mentioning the fire would be understandable for the fire was contemporary with them in the extreme and they were not writing a daily log or journal of themselves, but a history… So I would even with your assumption of the meaning of After their departure, still stand behind the claim that the gospels were pre-70AD writings because they do not include the devastating effects of the persecutions of Christians and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. (Matthew being prior to it and John being authored too far away from the fire event for it to matter to him but still close enough to the Temple that it’s destruction should have made an impact in his gospel if he wrote after it. But it does not so we can assume that he wrote prior to it still).




Side note: have you noticed that every time you and I discuss this topic we scare away the other posters… :p :(

Too the last part, im not posting because you do a much better job debating for christ than I do. It is redundant and unnecessary for me to post because you are so great at it.

No, no ... Jesus willingly sacrificed himself. I've already shown many quotes/verses from Jesus saying so.Changing the subject. Jesus isn't Jehovah. That's been covered, clearly. You're clearly not paying attention, or as Bottle pointed out, you're a liar. Keeping up the good service to the commandments, bearing false witness.
Pathetic, at that.

Of course your controlled conditions failed to substitute for the main ingredients, which should have been the subject of the test, the Only Begotten Son of God and/or The Spirit of God......of which there's no proof, which means, no main ingredients. And since you didn't have them your test failed to reproduce the conditions required.And since you don't have them either, you can not possibly substantiate your claim, rendering you ever more ineffectual in this topic. You should consider running away if you have any dignity at all. Seriously. This is humiliating for you. I would almost feel bad except mentalities like the one you're expressing are ... as stated before, quite clearly mentally unsound and, frankly, delusional and dangerous. I'll take it that it's play acting though, for forumplay, since you really couldn't be seriously that whack.



Nope, not a metaphorical thing...Certainly not literal. Prove it.

*blab blabbity blaboo* ka-snip
Again, to argue with the bible as your SOLE ineffable source clarifies your lack of faculty to discuss this issue rationally.
I'll give you props though, because you embody exactly the kind of christian conspiracy the OP is shooting for. Bravo!

Side note: have you noticed that every time you and I discuss this topic we scare away the other posters… :p :(

Again, a huge misconception on your part. You just, as has been pointed out, don't pay attention unless the words are flavoured in a way you like.

You really think so? Perhaps you would like to show some evidence. The research I've seen seems to say the exact opposite.

Well, heres one such study that highlights the dispute of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and pretty much concludes that the "accepted history" of them is likely all false, and several reason why it draws such a conclusion.

Heres a little taste.
The "Qumran-Essene dogma" was originally developed to explain a relatively small number of newly discovered documents, including texts in a previously unknown literary style that apparently represented a divergent, "sectarian" voice within Judaism. Early studies of the DSS identified this voice as Essene, and viewed the Scrolls as a remnant of the sect's library. As the numbers and kinds of scrolls discovered multiplied however, critics argued that the probability all these manuscripts had been collected, copied, and archived by a single Essene community living at Qumran dwindled. Over 800 distinct documents have been identified among the scroll fragments found in the caves of the Judean desert. A large number of these are previously unknown works written in several styles. Hundreds of different scribal hands are found in the manuscripts, including fragments in Greek script. In addition, as Dr. Golb argues, the collection is almost devoid of the type of "historical autographs" – works in an author's own hand, such as personal and official letters, lists of names, inventories, deeds of ownership – that might link a cache of documents with a specific source community. Objective archeological scrutiny of the Qumran site also suggests it may have functioned in ancient times as a military fortress, and not principally or exclusively as a religious and scribal commune. Persuaded by such arguments, several scholars have completely rejected the traditional "story of the Dead Sea Scrolls".





Really? Which ones? Perhaps you would like to explain why none of the NT books mention any historical facts that occurred after 70AD then?

Uhmm..maybe becuase maybe nearly a hundred years after the fact, the destruction of the temple wasnt such a hot topic?




You sure come up with a lot of dates that are irreconcilable with other facts.... Like the fact that Paul was dead before that, if your dates are correct he sure wrote a lot of books for a dead guy then didn't he?

Wow. Catch up with the times, friend.
Heres a quick sample, easily obtained from even Wiki:
Seven of the epistles of Paul are now generally accepted by most modern scholars as authentic; these undisputed letters include Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon. Raymond Brown has this to say about Colossians: "At the present moment about 60 percent of critical scholarship holds that Paul did not write the letter" (An Introduction, p. 610; cited by earlychristianwritings.com). Experts usually question Pauline authorship for any other epistle, although there are a few conservative Christian scholars who accept the traditional ascriptions. Almost no current mainstream scholars, however, Christian or otherwise, hold that Paul wrote Hebrews. In fact, questions about the authorship of Hebrews go back at least to the 3rd century ecclesiastical writer Caius, who attributed only thirteen epistles to Paul (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 6.20.3ff.). A small minority of scholars hypothesize Hebrews may have been written by one of Paul's close associates, such as Barnabas, Silas, or Luke, given that the themes therein seemed to them as largely Pauline.





Apparently not enough reading...


Apprently, more than you think.

Then you've been selectively reading what I've been writing.

I've said and shown through verses that Jesus wasn't 'killed' by his father. Jesus IS the creator that made AND saved the world. You ask why you should be grateful? It is because you have been given the opportunity to experience existence, life as a human being, even though you die, you live now. God created that opportunity for you. Additionally, he provided a method for you to achieve eternal life as well, but that's between you and him, which you say you are not interested in.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

You're still assuming that I believe in any form of god.
And you still didn't answer the question. If god is omnipotent and omniscient and therefore set up the whole world right from the begining, knowing full well what it would turn out like, why would he include an episode that sees his son die? He could just as well have set the whole scenario up entirely different after all, couldn't he?