of course i read what you say :D i quote it dont i?

No i have witnessed (im guessing you mean seen God) God. Its an example.

you know that the guy killed someone, but they said he was innocent (but he wasnt) does that mean he didnt kill anyone? no. You saw him do it. You said christians were ignorant cause they dont change there mind when other say its not true... or prove it wrong. But the guy killed someone, you know he did, and yet the court says they have enough proof to let the guy go.... you dont change your mind just because the court said he was innocent do you? Hope that clears it up.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
you know that the guy killed someone, but they said he was innocent (but he wasnt) does that mean he didnt kill anyone? no. You saw him do it. You said christians were ignorant cause they dont change there mind when other say its not true... or prove it wrong. But the guy killed someone, you know he did, and yet the court says they have enough proof to let the guy go.... you dont change your mind just because the court said he was innocent do you? Hope that clears it up.

But you base my unwillingness to change my mind implicitly on my witnessing the murder, i.e. I have proof (if only for myself). So it is nothing like Christianity for which you have no proof. Your comparison is flawed.

I havn't said Christians are ignorant because they don't change their mind when others say it's not true; I say Christians are deliberalety keeping themselves ignorant, sometimes through denial and/or distortion of facts and speculations against their religion.

Originally posted by InsaneSith
i personally find it humorous that people think that when they die they continue to live in another plane of existence, instead of rotting in the ground. but still even if there was a life after death i think that would be terribly boring after a while.

Its called faith and the hope for something more. You have no proof thay there isn't life after death. So why do you find it humorous? I find it sad that people dont believe in any "life after death". And if there is life after death then I'm sure it wouldnt be boring.

But if theres life after death, is there life after that life???!!!
Bah, all too spiritual and philosophical for me.
;)

No, if you check youir bible, it says your in heaven for eternity.

I dont c how anyone would go insane, i mean, your not going to be alone, and its not like you stand around and do nothing all day.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
I dont c how anyone would go insane, i mean, your not going to be alone, and its not like you stand around and do nothing all day.

Am I to assume then that you've never experienced anything at such length or for so many times that it's become tedious for you? I'll take a chance and say that you have, so imagine how many experiences will have become tedious to you after 1,000 years....After 1,000,000 years....After 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years.

Granted, there are many experiences to be had, but they will be exhausted at one point and relived so many times that they will become frustratingly unbearable in your evergrowing ability to predict them further and further ahead, leading to a state of comatose or raving madness or incoherent babble of the mind.

One shouldn't just adhere to the dogmatic statement of eternal bliss without thinking it through.

Additionally, one should consider the perfectly rational and logic reason to why we are not immortal by nature instead of making up some utopian afterlife out of fear of death. Accept your mortality, ladies and gentlemen....Your children are your legacy; concentrate on them instead of your selfpity. Exploration to enlightenment is the way ahead, not refuging to ignorance.

Originally posted by Jubatus
Am I to assume then that you've never experienced anything at such length or for so many times that it's become tedious for you? I'll take a chance and say that you have, so imagine how many experiences will have become tedious to you after 1,000 years....After 1,000,000 years....After 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years.

Granted, there are many experiences to be had, but they will be exhausted at one point and relived so many times that they will become frustratingly unbearable in your evergrowing ability to predict them further and further ahead, leading to a state of comatose or raving madness or incoherent babble of the mind.

One shouldn't just adhere to the dogmatic statement of eternal bliss without thinking it through.

Additionally, one should consider the perfectly rational and logic reason to why we are not immortal by nature instead of making up some utopian afterlife out of fear of death. Accept your mortality, ladies and gentlemen....Your children are your legacy; concentrate on them instead of your selfpity. Exploration to enlightenment is the way ahead, not refuging to ignorance.

In heaven your not going to count years, your going to be overfilled with joy and a permanent "high" that it wont matter.

But...if you go to hell then it WILL seem like eternity.

I think the general misguided attitude is part of the problem with the whole "Political Correctness" movement that seems to have had such a big splash in America in the last few years or so...

Basically the assumption is made that whatever the "majority" is seen to accept is free for slander, bad jokes, etc.

It's assumed that making fun of minority groups is bad and wrong, and to "make up for it" they turn their attention towards "majority" type stuff.

Now don't get me wrong, being non-judgemental about many cultural or ethnic stuff is probably a good idea in polite society, but I frankly think its a double-standard.

For example, the majority in the US right now is at least nominally Christian, but that may not always be so. Likewise, "white" is considered the largest racial group in the US, but that is rapidly diminishing in favor of "hispanic." Some stats say that by 2050, hispanics will be the largest racial group in the US. Does that mean that hispanic jokes will suddenly become acceptable? Somehow I doubt it.

Another pet peeve is mine is when people call women a "minority." Yet I keep hearing over and over again that women outnumber men by 1% (not sure if that's just in the US or everywhere). Just being part of a group doesn't pre-destine you to anything that I can see. If you want to take pride in your origins, that's fine, but I don't expect a person to treat me any differently because of where my ancestors were born or what color my skin is.

Let's think about an example of "cultural diversity" and see what the problems might be....

BET.

There is a channel on cable called "Black Entertainment Television." Okay, no problem right? It's just a channel with programming Black people might like. Seems harmless right?

But wait.. is that saying that being black means you are only entertained by certain things (different things than white, or yellow, etc?)? Frankly I've heard plenty of black people complain about the bad programming on BET. And what would people say if there was a channel called "WET" ("White Entertainment Television)?

That is why I think we should not pre-judge a person based soley on their group affiliation, but instead on their words and actions. Give them the benefit of the doubt.

I would want them to treat me the same way, so why would I attack them for no reason?


I have been called many nasty names by people online, who never met me, and don't know who I am or what I believe. There is a lot (sadly) of small minded, bigotted, stupid, or just flat out mean people on the internet, or folks who simply "don't care" and hide behind the anonyimity the medium grants them. I don't mind a little good natured humor or teasing now and then, but a lot of it is just uncalled for.

As to the religious issue, I don't judge anyone professing Christianity out of hand, because, as a student of religion, I know that even though Christianity is the world's largest religion, there are (nearly) an equal number of Muslims and Atheists/Agnostics in the world. I also know that there are over 30,000 denominations of Christianity, covering a spectrum of beliefs.

Christians come from all social classes, sexual orientations, races, nationalities, ages, genders, etc. So how can a person judge them based solely on a religious category? Answer: you can't.

Non-Christians as well, can't be easily categorized, since most religions have their various sects, off-shoots, denominations, philosophies, etc. (people have forgotten that a lot with regard to Islam after 9/11 for example). Atheist and Agnostics run a vast spectrum of beliefs and attitudes as well.

Some of the debates and challenges on here sound threatening at first, but they are good because they can help smooth over misunderstandings and allow people to confront the fact that we are not a bunch of living stereotypes and automatons.

Sadly, there will always people people out there, that instead of listening to what people have to say and honestly thinking about it, would rather just spout off and ignore, while waiting for their turn to slam strawmen to make themselves look good. ; p

I think that civil discussion IS possible, and most of the time on these forums I think people do try. You just have to keep an eye out for the folks who don't follow the rules of politeness.

Originally posted by Thrackan Solo
In heaven your not going to count years, your going to be overfilled with joy and a permanent "high" that it wont matter.

So your mind will remain stagnant in how it perceives things for all eternity, and this will be done by God "drugging" you. Sounds like God's the biggest pusher of them all.

Originally posted by Thrackan Solo
But...if you go to hell then it WILL seem like eternity.

No doubt, and you will go utterly insane just like in Heaven. Unless of course Satan too keeps your mind stagnant.

I guess this whole debate is pointless. I see everything here repeats itself as in philosophy thread. It's like neither christians nor agnostics nor realists can convince each other of anything. As Jub would love to say: everything that is left here is to satisfy your own ego by not letting go. And as I notice most of the chat here is not about "ok to bash christianity" but an old world view debate.

This thread should have been a total psychology thread from the beginning and the matters that should have been followed were to be: why we try to satisfy our egoes by bashing christians and not why bashing christianity is justifyed or not justifyed.

Originally posted by Thrackan Solo
In heaven your not going to count years, your going to be overfilled with joy and a permanent "high" that it wont matter.

But...if you go to hell then it WILL seem like eternity. well if i have weed that'd be no problem. i'd do eternity if i had weed.

oh and muslims outnumber christians. it's just not in any of your W.A.S.P media.

i am a christian, yet i have no faith. But i have alot of respect for those who do. Why is it ok to bash christainty? it is as ok to 'bash' someone for there religion as it is to 'bash' some one for there colour or there nationality. It is unexcetable. To use your faith in an arguement isnt right either. You shouldnt force your opinion or your religion on some one, or try and make them see your way. I also feel that just beacause you feel differently to someones religes(sp) belifes or teachings you can insult there faith or there God. It would be like, for a extreme example, a white man, bob, killing a black man,Bob2, for the reason that Bob2 is black and Bob feels blacks are wrong ((Names were never mystrong point, also i hope this post does not offend anyone, its just an example;))). Its pointless and stupid. I just hope everyone thinks about this and trys and stop the bashing of christianity
:)

but i would go insane i mean we'd eventually run out of things to do there.

I doubt it. Remember, being perfect means having no needs. I mena, theres nothing wrong with you. Maybe you cant get bored.

I know catholics who would argue that catholism is the christian faith and that all other denominations are false.

I don't see a difference in your claim or theirs.... the root word of "christian" is "christ." Both cults, yours and catholicism, acknowledge christ as a messiah/savior. Both cults center around the teachings of this alleged messiah.

Say what you will.... but I say you are religiocentric.

Christian, means christ like.. or being like christ. How are they being like christ? Anyways, the rules for christianity have been set, no doubts there. No one can say they havnt, i mean... over half the New Testament is teaching how to run a church, how to be a christian. Do catholics follow any of that?


acknowledge christ as a messiah/savior.

As for that, i explained it. You can call anything christ, does it mean it is christ?

I can cal my PC skinwalker, does it mean that your my pc now? of course not.



So the idea of Satan being a horned and tailed red fellow sitting on a throne overseeing Hell is just pure nonsense, yes?

yeah im pretty sure it is. I mean, considering youve only read one book of the bible, you obviously cant base your entire opinion of the bible on one vision, can you?

I cant see him being the way people describe him, because afterall, he was the highest ranking angel. I doubt God would make an angel look bad. Unless his apperance changed. Of course, i dont know what satan looks like.



and would therefor not be grateful to God, who is not balanced.

How is God imbalanced.. you mean no sin or something?

On the same note, why is it with Christianity, like with practically all major religions, so, that all the big miracles and divine events happened many hundreds of years ago and none happen today?

Heh, that question gets asked a lot. Maybe, since most of the world has lost its faith. Sure there are platny of christians out there, but how many are really truly trying to follow Christ's commands?


Then what of all the images of the revelations presented to John? The Son of Man in all his fiery Sunlike grandeur, multiple-headed beasts, God surrounded by strange beastmen creatures, scorpion monsters? Must have just been some funky shroom trip if such concepts are pure nonsense, no?

I didnt say that was fake, but remember it was a vision, it means something. Anyways, the bible doesnt say satan is red and has horns.. and all this other stuff. He could... but i guess it really doesnt matter. I know this much, he doesnt sit around ruling Hell though. Even the bible says he will be tourtured, just like everyone else there.

Anyways, its supposed to be a vision of the future, so all of that stuff would be things john has never seen. Imagine, bringing ssomeone who died maybe 300 years ago to our time. I think he would be amazed. Just seeing things flying around would amaze him. Maybe John couldnt describe what he saw.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
yeah im pretty sure it is. I mean, considering youve only read one book of the bible, you obviously cant base your entire opinion of the bible on one vision, can you?

I cant see him being the way people describe him, because afterall, he was the highest ranking angel. I doubt God would make an angel look bad. Unless his apperance changed. Of course, i dont know what satan looks like.

Never said I believed he looked like that; I was using your argument against you with the revelations of John...Though for some reason you decided to split it up in 2 parts even though they were connected.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
How is God imbalanced.. you mean no sin or something?

He created the world and life.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Heh, that question gets asked a lot. Maybe, since most of the world has lost its faith. Sure there are platny of christians out there, but how many are really truly trying to follow Christ's commands?

Or perhaps people aren't as gullible in today's world? And you're absolutely right about a vast majority of socalled Christians being hypocrites, and many of them are so selfdeluded they don't even know they're hypocrites.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
I didnt say that was fake, but remember it was a vision, it means something. Anyways, the bible doesnt say satan is red and has horns.. and all this other stuff. He could... but i guess it really doesnt matter. I know this much, he doesnt sit around ruling Hell though. Even the bible says he will be tourtured, just like everyone else there.

And he can't be tortured and be free enough to rule at the same time? He did a pretty good job at having time to tempt Jesus in the dessert.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Anyways, its supposed to be a vision of the future, so all of that stuff would be things john has never seen. Imagine, bringing ssomeone who died maybe 300 years ago to our time. I think he would be amazed. Just seeing things flying around would amaze him. Maybe John couldnt describe what he saw.

There's nothing to say Armageddon hasn't already happened if you read Revelations close enough. As for John and what he could or could not understand of what he saw, it was merely a counterargument for that irrelevant argument about the perception of Satan you seemed to suddenly grabbed out of thin air.

-----

Now, this argument about the truth of Christianity has relevance to the original topic of this thread, but it's not the topic, as pointed out in a few posts above this. I've indulged you enough in your weakbased arguments, and will therefor simply refer you to my oppinions stated in my original answer to this topic and let you know that you can't argue anything to change them.

As admitted in an earlier post of mine, Christianity is merely a symptom of a disease, so it is indeed not Christianity in itself I bash, but the mentality behind it.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Christian, means christ like.. or being like christ. How are they being like christ? Anyways, the rules for christianity have been set, no doubts there. No one can say they havnt, i mean... over half the New Testament is teaching how to run a church, how to be a christian. Do catholics follow any of that?

I think it's all superstitious poppycock, but here's what catholics have to say about the subject:

Catholicism is the oldest Christian religion in the world. With over one billion people, the Catholic religion remains a strong force despite opposition. Catholicism is over 2,000 years old. Through the years, the religion must be more than a human organization, but a holy one.

Catholicism is the only Christian religion that started during Christ's time. All other Christian religions stemmed from it. The name "the catholic church" first started in the year 107 when Ignatius of Antioch used the title to describe Jesus' church. The term was old even then so it was probably known in the apostle's time. Catholicism has four main qualities. They are one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

One - Jesus designed only one church with one set of doctrines. These doctrines are often examined, but their true meaning always stays in tact. Jesus has one body so He only has one Church.

Holy - Jesus has made the church holy. No, not all the members act holy, but the church itself remains holy.

Catholic - The word Catholic means universal. Jesus told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of everyone. The Catholic religion is found all over the world.

Apostolic - Catholicism is apostolic because Jesus appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church. Successors were the future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops. Since the first century, there has been an unbroken chain of bishops that pass down the traditions and Scriptures.

You want a so-called christian group to be afraid of, try the cult that calls itself The Potter's House (http://www.rickross.com/reference/door/door6.html?FACTNet)

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
As for that, i explained it. You can call anything christ, does it mean it is christ?

I can cal my PC skinwalker, does it mean that your my pc now? of course not.

Why doesn't that apply to your own cult? What gives your own cult validity while excluding older cults like catholocism?

I think it's all superstitious poppycock, but here's what catholics have to say about the subject:


What?? I said the apostles, christ, and other godly men wrote down how the church should be ran. Yeah, catholics are probably in the bible, just not called that. Paul, and possibly a few others wrote a few times that false prophets had entered the churches. So if you have a person teaching false things, some people will believe it, and others will stick with the original, thats how i think different denominations were formed. Another thing, how can the catholic church be over 2000 years old, when Christ was born 2006 years ago? The bible doesnt teach any of what they practice, its there own rules. I could care less what they call it.

Alright, lets look at it from a christian point of view here, the world sees catholics as the main group of christianity, even if it isnt christianity. On judgement day, do you think God will care what its called?

You want a so-called christian group to be afraid of, try the cult that calls itself The Potter's House


Afraid? Where do you get that idea, if i were afraid, do you think i would post this stuff? Ive broken Roman Catholic law, the penalty is death.


Why doesn't that apply to your own cult? What gives your own cult validity while excluding older cults like catholocism?

A cult, is a group that diseaves people, how is my 'cult' decieving anyone. Dude, you dont even know a thing about me, or my so called cult. Do you even know if i go to church?

Ok i do, i was there an hour ago, but still...

Alright... 1 we actually follow God's law, in other words, the bible. 2 we dont set up our own laws. 3 we dont kill you if you disagree with us. 4 we dont try to set up a big show to impress the followers, EX: catholic costumes. 5 We dont make up a whole load of crap. 6 The man in charge of our church doesnt declare that he is God.

Catholicism is the oldest Christian religion in the world. With over one billion people, the Catholic religion remains a strong force despite opposition. Catholicism is over 2,000 years old. Through the years, the religion must be more than a human organization, but a holy one.

Catholicism is the only Christian religion that started during Christ's time. All other Christian religions stemmed from it. The name "the catholic church" first started in the year 107 when Ignatius of Antioch used the title to describe Jesus' church. The term was old even then so it was probably known in the apostle's time. Catholicism has four main qualities. They are one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

One - Jesus designed only one church with one set of doctrines. These doctrines are often examined, but their true meaning always stays in tact. Jesus has one body so He only has one Church.

Holy - Jesus has made the church holy. No, not all the members act holy, but the church itself remains holy.

Catholic - The word Catholic means universal. Jesus told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of everyone. The Catholic religion is found all over the world.

Apostolic - Catholicism is apostolic because Jesus appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church. Successors were the future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops. Since the first century, there has been an unbroken chain of bishops that pass down the traditions and Scriptures.


Look, this is an example of the crap im talking about, that doesnt counter, or prove me wrong in 1 way. If anything it proves me even more right. Over 2000 years... man... Under Roman Catholic law, they have the right, to kill Christ, Paul, Peter, and everyone of the Apostles, and billions of people throughout history.

I think... that may just prove my point. If you want to know why, its because Christ said, you WILL go to heaven, as long as you do what your supposed to, EX: accepting him, repenting..... the list goes on....

Roman Catholic law says, if you have assurance that you will go to heaven just like christ said you do, then you should die.

What kind of church would make a law that says there founder should die????

And you still call it christianity.

Just doesnt seem very christ like to me.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
A cult, is a group that diseaves deceives people...

Cults like to trick their followers to believe that everthing else is a cult... usually with outright fabricated definitions. Beware the Kool-Aid.

Cult: Definition:
_
1. (n) _an interest followed with exaggerated zeal; "he always follows the latest fads"; "it was all the rage that season"
2. (n) _a system of religious beliefs and rituals
3. (n) _adherents of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices

Found at HyperDictionary (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=cult), but check Webster's College Dictionary and you'll find a very similar definition.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Alright... 1 we actually follow God's law, in other words, the bible.

A 2000+ year old document that has no verifiable sources.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
2 we dont set up our own laws.

Perhaps... but your cult definately sets up its own rules about other cults.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
3 we dont kill you if you disagree with us.

Perhaps not yet. Perhaps not ever. Time will tell.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
4 we dont try to set up a big show to impress the followers, EX: catholic costumes.

Good. I'm against those cults that take their show on the road... witnessing to needy peasants by offering food/shelter/clothing in exchange for devotion to the cult in question. They call it "missionary" work... I call it exploitation and extortion.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
5 We dont make up a whole load of crap.

See... I thought your cult subscribed to "creation," "Noah's Flood," "imaculate conception," etc. I'm glad to hear that crap isn't a part of your indoctrination.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
6 The man in charge of our church doesnt declare that he is God.

But I bet he/she has had god speak to him/her. Or vice versa.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
And you still call it christianity...
Just doesnt seem very christ like to me.

It's not up to you to decide. Catholics choose to define their religion in the same manner that you choose to define yours. From my outside perspective, it is ironic that one cult points the finger at another to denounce it's validity! Ha!

I disagree with both denominations of christianity and reluctantly offer my opinions here in the form of the fairly insensitive words above. I'm not usually this vocal of my intolerance to religion/cult activity and have very good relationships with many friends and family of many religions. In fact, I find their religions largely fascinating. I so aggressively point out the fallicies of your argument because I despise bigotry and ethnocentrism even more. Your view of other religions is bigoted and ethnocentric. It, no doubt, isn't your fault but rather that of whomever forced you to be indoctrinated in the cult itself.

And, just to be sure, I don't "call it christianity," the majority of the rest of the world does. Despite the prejudices and misconceptions you obviously have about Catholism (as well as the apparent hatred), it is regarded as the christian faith by most of the world. It's poppycock too, but its christian poppycock.

there have been some baptists and protestants here that have killed people because the people they killed didn't believe what they believed. and those militias in montana are baptist and protestant. just so you guys know.:)

You assume too much skinwalker. No one in my church even talks about this, its based from well known facts, and my own observations.

I do not hate catholics, people have mentioned crimes committed by christianity, in just about every thread about religion. Im saying, it was catholics, ive proven, they cant be christians, there bibles, and mine say you have to accept christ to be a christian. If you havnt, you arent a christian. It has to be of your own choice. No one has forced me to do anything (if they did, why am i talking to you about it?)

Cults like to trick their followers to believe that everthing else is a cult... usually with outright fabricated definitions. Beware the Kool-Aid.

Kool-Aid?

Umm, anyways, no one in my church has told me anything about this.

1. (n) _an interest followed with exaggerated zeal; "he always follows the latest fads"; "it was all the rage that season"
2. (n) _a system of religious beliefs and rituals
3. (n) _adherents of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices

And thats christianity? I believe christ said that your supposed to pray different things, not keep the same prayer. Same beliefs, but we dont do the same thing.

Youve assumed a lot, when you dont know a thing about me or my church.

Perhaps... but your cult definately sets up its own rules about other cults.

What rules, i stated what they do, compared it with what Christ and his followers said, and you can see a huge difference. I looked this up in books, and put 2 and 2 together and found out there own rules contradict there entire system.

Its a fact, they say you dont have assurence of Heaven, its a fact Christ said you do. Its a fact, there law says you are damned as a heretic if you say that.

See... I thought your cult subscribed to "creation," "Noah's Flood," "imaculate conception," etc. I'm glad to hear that crap isn't a part of your indoctrination.

lol, you know Noah's Flood is said to have affected that carbon dating method you guys have. Of course i believe in that (remember, if its in the bible, i believe it)

what is imaculate conception????

Good. I'm against those cults that take their show on the road... witnessing to needy peasants by offering food/shelter/clothing in exchange for devotion to the cult in question. They call it "missionary" work... I call it exploitation and extortion.

Ah, well we do both, sort of... with out the exchange part. We pray, thank God for the food (or whatever)

Anyways, i thought missionarys came to the people, to TEACH them, i havnt heard of anything of what your talking about.


Ill get back to you later....

Man, I wanted to let this thread die... but Pat Robinson gets under my skin and (walks?) is a good reason to bash christianity. With leaders like Pat, christianity doesn't need any enemies.

Pat Robinson recently launched a "call for prayer" as a result of some recent Supreme Court decisions. He wants certain justices to resign and he wants god to convince them with your help! LOL. Pat said: "Would you join with me and many others in crying out to our Lord to change the Court?" He continued with a few fallicies:

Robertson said: "In 1962, they ruled prayer out of the public schools."

Not so. Students remain free to pray in schools. What was ruled out was government-mandated, teacher-led prayer.

Robertson said: "In 1963, they ruled the Bible out of public schools."

Not so. The Bible is studied as literature in many schools. What was ruled out was government-mandated Bible preaching.

Robertson said: That it is now "illegal for little elementary school children to give thanks over their milk and cookies at snack time."

Not so. Little school children may still pray over lunch. What was recognized as illegal was state-mandated, teacher-led prayers.

Robertson said: "Now, the Supreme Court has declared a constitutional right to consensual sodomy and, by the language in its decision, has opened the door to homosexual marriages, bigamy, legalized prostitution, and even incest."

Not so. No door has been opened to bigamy, legalized prostitution, or incest. Quite the opposite--the Supreme Court confirmed the constitutional right to privacy behind closed doors.

Robertson said: "The framers of our Constitution never intended anything like this to take place in our land."

Not so. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," had many of these ideas in mind. Other framers had other ideas, such as the continuation of slavery, the continued disenfranchisement of those without property, and the continued denial of rights to women.

Robertson said: "No culture has ever endured which has turned openly to homosexuality."

Not so. The implication that turning openly to homosexuality destroys cultures is false. No culture has ever endured, as all cultures die eventually. But there's certainly no evidence that acceptance of homosexuality ever caused the downfall of any culture.

Clearly, this deluded, self-righteous, and bigoted individual is reason to bash christianity. The pope is running a close second in his recent support of the Vatican document (12 pages long) that is entitled “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons.” It encourages lawmakers and religious leaders alike to oppose extending marriage rights to same-sex couples.

So there you have it.... two very good reasons to bash christianity. And LukeS.... don't even bother with the anti-catholic "they're not christian" BS.... you and your particular denomination are the only ones that subscribe to that propaganda. And that's just what it is... propaganda designed to ensure the survival of the cult. The Moonies, Jehovah's Witnesses, Heaven's Gaters, Potter's House, and the Scientologists have been doing the same thing forever.

Scientologists? Did I say scientologists? No... you keep those lawyers away... I'm sorry... I ..... aaahhhhggg.

Why is it OK to bash Nazism?

Good. I'm against those cults that take their show on the road... witnessing to needy peasants by offering food/shelter/clothing in exchange for devotion to the cult in question. They call it "missionary" work... I call it exploitation and extortion.

Hear! Hear!

Originally posted by InsaneSith
there have been some baptists and protestants here that have killed people because the people they killed didn't believe what they believed. and those militias in montana are baptist and protestant. just so you guys know.:)

If that's true, they are far from being baptsists/protestants. A true Christian never kills any one, except in self-defense. There are some who call themselves "Christians", and then torture and kill other people until the believe in Christ. WTF?! That's more like Satanity, not Christianity!

Ive said it before, ill say it again, my denomination hasnt said anything to me about catholics. I used to think they were christians, till one day in one of these threads i met one, and he told me stuff, i realised it was less and less christian. Dude, say what you want, but even what you posted has even helped me prove they arent christians. Another thing, all the denominations you listed were not christian either. So you think ive sat here and made up a whole load of crap about catholics, lies what ever.... READ YOUR BIBLE! there cheap, maybe 5 dollars, you know the best selling book of all time! READ AND COMPARE!!!


SkinWalker, I dont think you really know or understand christianity, or what it is! Your not born into it. You dont just walk into a christian church, and then your a christian. Your parents, or your brothers or sisters can be a christian, but that doesnt mean you are. Its not what you think, far from it. To be christian you need a personall relationship with Jesus. Simply going to church on sunday doesnt mean a thing. The truth is, most denominations have the same bible. If you read in it, your not a christian untill you accept Jesus Christ as your savior, you must repent your sins.


Everything he said (i havnt even heard of the guy, i dont think) can very easily be misinterpreted. What are you mad about? It has no effect on you. Yes we are allowed to pray, read our bibles, and its against the law to stop us. He was talking about what you said. Just because the teacher prays, does the student have to say amen? You know he/she doesnt.

SkinWalker, have you met a true christian? How many true christians have bashed people? Heh, they tell it like it is. People hate that, sounds like this patterson guy talks the truth.

Dude, you dont know what denomination im in. Im in the nazarine denomination (i was born into a methodose church, judging by how the world perceives things, because my grandparents went to a methodose church) Maybe you should research the denomination (nazarine) or perhaps you already know about it. Another thing, i wasnt even in a denomination, or in a church the first 3 years i was a christian.

Dude, ask yourself, why am i even bothering to talk to you. You say i should be bashed because i believe in something. You say im in a cult for proving crimes against christianity false, and showing where the blame truly lies. You dont know me, and yet you pass judgement.

Tonight im ganna go blow up a car in the name of skinwalker (for the example, no im not ganna do that) then im ganna blow up building, kill hundreds of people in your name. Are you to blame? No. If anyone else does something in your name, are they to blame for my actions? No.

By saying you can bash someone for they believe in shows how self centered you really are, and you say i hate, and im prejeduce? Yet for some reason, God is still willing to forgive you, if youll let him. Ask any christian, when is it too late for God to accept you? Never, unless you have comitted the one unfogivable sin (wont get into that)

How many true christians have bashed people? Heh, they tell it like it is. People hate that, sounds like this patterson guy talks the truth.

How many times have I heard people say, both online and off, words along the lines of "I'm not insulting you, I'm telling it how it is!"

Sorry, but if I'm a homosexual and a christian comes up to me and tells me I'm a god hating sinner who deserves to burn in hell, and then turns around and says "I'm not bashing him, I'm just telling it how it is!"... I'd be pretty pissed.

Who's to say all the christians who get insulted when people bash their religion have a right to? Perhaps Skinwalker, 'Jais, and others are simply "telling it like it is."

Hey... "dude," I'm just tellin' it like it is. The only real opinion that I have about the whole thing is that there probably isn't a god. I used to subscribe to all that christian hocus pocus.... then I started thinking for myself. A combination of education and experience tells me that my opinion about god is the most likely.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Another thing, all the denominations you listed were not christian either.

I never implied that they were. I only stated that they are just as valid as christianity. Actually, Budism seems more valid, though I think its a superstition as well.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
READ YOUR BIBLE! there cheap, maybe 5 dollars, you know the best selling book of all time! READ AND COMPARE!!!

Actually, I've probably logged more hours in that book than you. I only say that because I'm a bit older and read it from cover to cover in 1991. I'm not worried about the price... threw mine in the garbage years ago. I had already read it.


Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
SkinWalker, I dont think you really know or understand christianity, or what it is!

And I don't think you understand christianity. Okay.. so I've got two opinions :p .

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
To be christian you need a personall relationship with Jesus.

Then there are no christians. It is impossible to have a personal relationship with someone who no longer exists if he did at all.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Everything he said (i havnt even heard of the guy, i dont think) can very easily be misinterpreted. What are you mad about? It has no effect on you.

You're kidding, right? I'm not actually mad or even angry, though I suppose it can be difficult to discern over the internet. I am concerned, however, that such a well known leader of the so-called "religious right" can perhaps influance so many people with his biggoted views. And those comments that he made were not at all open to much interpretation. They were pretty clear.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Just because he teacher prays, does the student have to say amen?

I went to a small high school in West Texas... it was illegal to make kids pray. We said the Lord's Prayer at EVERY assembly, regardless of your denomination or religion. If you didn't, you were punished. Period. It was wrong. I haven't forgotten the look on the face of my Native friend when I asked if he believed in the lord's prayer... He was of a traditional Native family... of course he didn't. But he was forced to.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
SkinWalker, have you met a true christian? How many true christians have bashed people?

There are no true christians if they never bash people. Including you. You have bashed the catholic, original christians, denomination time and again, then deny that it is bashing. But I was once as "true" a christian as you. I grew up.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Heh, they tell it like it is. People hate that, sounds like this patterson guy talks the truth.

You're right... people do hate that. I've been telling it like it is for nearly a year now.... ;)

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Dude, you dont know what denomination im in.

It's the only correct one I'm sure.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
You say im in a cult for proving crimes against christianity false, and showing where the blame truly lies.

Actually, I say you are part of a cult based upon the definition that Webster's College Dictionary provides.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
By saying you can bash someone for they believe in shows how self centered you really are, and you say i hate, and im prejeduce?

By believing in the biggoted views that so-called christians of the world spout from their mouths... yeah, they're fair game for bashing. But as a group/cult, not individuals... I wouldn't dare insult you personally... it is your beliefs that I find disagreeable.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Yet for some reason, God is still willing to forgive you, if youll let him. Ask any christian, when is it too late for God to accept you?

What god? See... there you go. Religiocentric views... the hindu gods are just as valid as the christian gods. The greek gods are just as valid. In fact, if there can exist one God, then that proves that it is possible for an omnipotent being to exist. If that's possible, then it is possible for multiple ominipotent beings to exist. So, therefore, the polytheist view is more valid than the monotheist one of the christian religion.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Never, unless you have comitted the one unfogivable sin (wont get into that)

Oh... blasphemy of the holy spirit... Yeah... right.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
READ YOUR BIBLE! there cheap, maybe 5 dollars, you know the best selling book of all time!

According to the Herald Tribune, the Harry Potter Series has sold more books than the King James Bible. Read and compare.

SkinWalker:
Oh... blasphemy of the holy spirit... Yeah... right.

Does that mean you've SINNED. Horrible. Confess now or.... You might get 2 tickets on Robbie Williiams later ;)

Originally posted by ET Warrior
We have no proof of God. But we have no proof of NO God either. Therefore, your opinion is JUST as valid as ours.

Recommended reading: Intellectual Impostures (written by a guy named Sokal).

Intellectual Imposters Sokal & Bricmont 2003. The attack on French postmodernism that became a bestseller. When Intellectual Impostures was published in France, it sent shock waves through the Left Bank establishment. When it was published in Britain, it provoked vicious debate. Sokal & Bricmont – examine the canon of French Postmodernists - Lacan, Kristeva, Baudrillard, Irigaray, Latour, Virilio, Deleuze & Guattari – and systematically expose their abuse of science.

------------------

It's available at Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312204078/qid=1060155336/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-9892590-2411225?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) and I've been keeping an eye out for this one at Half-Price Books...

Heh. Put your trust in SkinWalker to dig up the facts that you are too lazy to check... Nice work. Actually they write a lot of general things about the rules of science and logic as well... One of them being that it is a fundamental rule of logic that you cannot draw a positive conclusion from exclusively negative parameters. This means that if you use only negations as parameters, then you can draw only negations as conclusions. Which invalidates ET's argument.

Oh, and BTW, Skin, your Inbox is full.

Originally posted by Jubatus
But that's exactly the point I'm trying to get across here; these beliefs are harmful, because they keep mankind delusionally persistent about the justification of its continued existence. These beliefs are obstructions against any further evolving of insight. They say "So it is, let us question nothing beyond their boundaries." What they represent, the submission to ignorance through subconscious fear, is the uttermost crime against mankind.

This may not exactly be a casebook study of diplomacy, but nevertheless is fundametally correct. Notice by the way that this is an attack on the faith of some people, not an attack on those people.

Can I somehow get it in e-text and actually buy it?

I dont understand exactly how this affects humanity as a whole. It seems like it would help a lot, because this prevents people from completely despairing and killing themselves.

Help? Hah! Exactly how did the confinement of Gallilei help Humanity? And the persecution of Copernicus? Selling a walking cane to a cripple is OK, but convincing perfectly healthy people to buy a cane is immoral. And forcing perfectly healthy people to use a cane is doubly so.

Even if it's all wrong and their is no God, believing in a God is what keeps some people alive.

Yeah, and what keeps alot of Muslim civs very, very dead.

heaven-live in peace forever knowing your sins are forgiven

Hah! Humans cannot be perpetually happy, because happiness is caused by accomplishment or satisfaction of desire. Any single accomplishment and satisfaction will always grow boring over time, and thus new accomplishment must be sought. And with accomplishment comes challenge. And with challenge comes failure. And with failure comes unhappiness. Q.e.d.

BTW, if humans could be perpetually happy, we would never have gotten down from the trees.

Oh, and even if God makes a miracle that makes you happy for ever, then it would not be happiness, because happiness is defined in relation to the world around us, just as we define ourselves in relation to the world around us. So if someone/something would completely change the natural laws of your world, then you would cease to exist.

So were weak... but were willing to die for God?

What's more important: Are you willing to kill for God? Are you willing to usurp power unrightfully because of divine mandate? Are you willing to abandon democracy for religious virtue? These are the important questions. Think well before you answer them. Because if any of the answers is "yes", then you are a potential traitor and terrorist.

Kurgan: You forget that criticism of Christianity is entirely justified. And you forget that being religious is something that you choose, quite unlike skin colour.

I also feel that just beacause you feel differently to someones religes(sp) belifes or teachings you can insult there faith or there God. It would be like, for a extreme example, a white man, bob, killing a black man,Bob2, for the reason that Bob2 is black and Bob feels blacks are wrong

Except that belief is an action, just like murder is an action. Whereas skin colour is an inherited trait, just like eye colour is an inherited trait.

And I don't think you understand christianity.

I just explained what it is under that sentence ;)



Yeah, and what keeps alot of Muslim civs very, very dead.

Dude, the muslim law says they can kill christians ;)

What's more important: Are you willing to kill for God? Are you willing to usurp power unrightfully because of divine mandate? Are you willing to abandon democracy for religious virtue? These are the important questions. Think well before you answer them. Because if any of the answers is "yes", then you are a potential traitor and terrorist.

Willing to kill for God? He never commands this. He wouldnt command this. If he did it contradict the entire bible, because the God who cammands us not to sin, would tell us to sin.

Hah! Humans cannot be perpetually happy, because happiness is caused by accomplishment or satisfaction of desire. Any single accomplishment and satisfaction will always grow boring over time, and thus new accomplishment must be sought. And with accomplishment comes challenge. And with challenge comes failure. And with failure comes unhappiness. Q.e.d.

Well of course, to an imperfect being ;)

I went to a small high school in West Texas... it was illegal to make kids pray. We said the Lord's Prayer at EVERY assembly, regardless of your denomination or religion. If you didn't, you were punished. Period. It was wrong. I haven't forgotten the look on the face of my Native friend when I asked if he believed in the lord's prayer... He was of a traditional Native family... of course he didn't. But he was forced to.


Well, i cant argue with that, it is wrong (even the bible says it is, i think... id need to look some stuff up) I think it is wrong to take it completly out of our schools. Its wrong to force people to do something. But its also wrong to 'bash' people for something.



So if someone/something would completely change the natural laws of your world, then you would cease to exist.

Its not our world ;)

Actually, I've probably logged more hours in that book than you. I only say that because I'm a bit older and read it from cover to cover in 1991. I'm not worried about the price... threw mine in the garbage years ago. I had already read it.


I see. You may have... but i read mine every day, ive read cover to cover (just about, may have missed a chapter or 2)

Help? Hah! Exactly how did the confinement of Gallilei help Humanity? And the persecution of Copernicus? Selling a walking cane to a cripple is OK, but convincing perfectly healthy people to buy a cane is immoral. And forcing perfectly healthy people to use a cane is doubly so.

Dude, what are you talking about?

It's the only correct one I'm sure.

No, follow the bible, and you dont need to be in a denomination. Church isnt even required, just most every christian goes to church. If you follow your bible and obey christ you are a christian, no matter what denomination. Christians are not supposed to sin (doesnt mean they wont) there are millions of false prophets out there. How can you tell which are christian (has a relationship with christ) by there actions. If they are killing people, tourturing people, then they are obviously not following the examples and commands from the bible.

Look, some people, in this thread and the other thread that i talked about catholics, accused christians of comitting crimes. I was clearing christianitys name. Catholics, are Catholics. Christians are christians. The catholics killed people, not to mention other so called christian denominations. I dont care what they are considered, ive told you (from what the bible has tought me) how to become a christian. If they havnt, then they are not a christian. Its that simple. How did i bash them. I gave you a history lesson.




but Pat Robinson gets under my skin

I'm not actually mad or even angry, though I suppose it can be difficult to discern over the internet.

;)


catholic, original christians, denomination time and again

original, they said that they are the oldest christian denomination. They said they have been around over 2000 years (according to your post) But christ (if it wasnt for him, there would have never been christianty correct?) Christ was born around 4, or 3 BC (or BCE whatever you use) it is the year 2003, mean that he was born (ill just use 4 bc) 2007 years ago. But the catholic religion started over 2000 years ago. lets just say its 2001 years old. So Christ was 6 years old when it started? Its a well known fact that there were Baal worshipers, its a well known fact that Egypt had its Gods (osiris, isis, horus, the list goes on) its a fact that the way egypt and the catholics worship is very simular. Even the confession thing came from Babylon. It was there to control the people, and help stop blackmail (or start it?)

Now then, youve read your bible, thats what im comparing to what they do (isnt the bible the christian rules?) so if there christian, they should be following the rules, should they not? You know what it says, look at what they do, and tell me am i making all of this up? Theres no reason to bash them, my point is, dont confuse the two. Why is mine more christian? Because we follow the rules. We do what christ commands. Dont you understand what im saying??? If you dont understand by now, then you probably wont ever :|

According to the Herald Tribune, the Harry Potter Series has sold more books than the King James Bible. Read and compare.

Harry Potter?? Who cares. Umm, read what and compare what?

Hey... "dude," I'm just tellin' it like it is.[/QUOTE

read your next sentence, you say my opinion, how many times do i say my own opinion? If your tellin' it like it is, then it must be true. But you say, your opinion. Thats not 'how it is' thats 'how it is, TO YOU' ;)

[QUOTE]Oh... blasphemy of the holy spirit... Yeah... right.

:confused: Yeah right? Do you understand why its so important?

This is why i say, you dont understand christianity. Why must you people hear the gospel 2, 3, 4, 5 times.. or more before you understand. When others can hear it once and understand, and accept it?

If you comitt this sin, then its like cutting the branch of under your feet. The Holy Spirit is your connection with God. With out him, you dont have a connection with God.

Sorry, but if I'm a homosexual and a christian comes up to me and tells me I'm a god hating sinner who deserves to burn in hell, and then turns around and says "I'm not bashing him, I'm just telling it how it is!"... I'd be pretty pissed.

*SIGH* Christians are not supposed to handle things in that matter. Christians cant say YOU ARE GOING TO HELL. Ill just say if you keep doing whatever, and you dont accept christ and ask for his forgivness then you will. You cant just walk up to someone and say go to hell, because I dont know. Yes, homosexuality is wrong. I cant see how your born like that. But im not the judge, i cant just pass judgement like that.

Then there are no christians. It is impossible to have a personal relationship with someone who no longer exists if he did at all.

Have you really read your bible? Well, 1991 was a while back. Maybe im wrong, i assumed you all knew what a christian is, what it means to be christain, how to become. C'Jais did... i think.

Its not impossible, this is what seperates christianity from other religions, or completly from religions itself. Its what make christianity more than religion, its what makes it a personall relationship with Christ. Granted, there are people, who get on TV, or go wherever, they call themselves christians, and they do all kinds of things. Go out onto the street, just ask people what religion are you. I bet a lot will say christian. But they just say im a christian, because. Yeah because, nothing other than that. They acknowledge Jesus, God, Satan (and everyone else involved) but they dont really know, or understand, or have that relationship. You know about them, but does that make you a christian? no.

Check thist email i got. Its got stuff to do with this topic



Thought you might enjoy this interesting prayer given in KANSAS at the
opening session of their Senate. It seems prayer still upsets some people.
When
Minister Joe Wright was asked to open the new session of the Kansas Senate,

everyone was expecting the usual generalities, but this is what they
heard:

Heavenly Father, We come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to
seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, "Woe to those
who call evil good," but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost
our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We confess that:
We have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word and called it
Pluralism.
We have exploited the poor and called it the! Lottery.
We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.
We have killed our unborn and called it choice.
We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.
We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building
self-esteem.
We have abused power and called it politics.
We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.
We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it
freedom of speech.
We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called
it
enlightenment.

Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Guide and bless these men and women who have been sent to direct us to the center of your will and to openly ask these things in the name of your Son, the living Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.

The response was immediate. A number of legislators walked out during the

prayer in protest. In 6 short weeks, Central Christian Church, where
Reverend Wright is pastor, logged more than 5,000 phone calls with only 47
of those
calls responding negatively. The church is now receiving international
requests for copies of this Prayer from India, Africa, and Korea.
Commentator
Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program "The Rest of the Story"
and
received a larger response to this program than any other he has ever
aired.
With the Lord's help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and
wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called, "... one nation under God..."

If possible, please pass this prayer on to your friends. Think about this:
If you forward this prayer to everyone on your email list, in less than 30
days it would be heard by the world. God Bless gutsy Joe Wright!


Anyways, notice how he refers to Jesus, living savior.

I got another one:



In light of the many perversions and jokes we send to one another for a
laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke, it's
not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane
Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?"
(regarding the attacks on Sept. 11).
Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said
"I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years
we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our
government and to get out of our lives.
And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How
can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand
He leave us alone?"

In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I
think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body
found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we
said OK.

Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school .... the Bible
says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as
yourself. And we said OK.
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they
misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might
damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an
expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.


Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they
don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill
strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it
out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."
Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the
world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but
question what the Bible says.

Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like
wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people
think twice about sharing.


Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through
cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and
workplace.



Are you laughing?


Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on
your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they
WILL think of you for sending it. Funny how we can be more worried about
what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no
one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit
back and complain about what bad shape the world is in!



I got em from my pasters wife.

Before you say 'what God?' look at it through a christians perspective. I do agree with you skinwalker, to force someone to pray is wrong, or to do anything.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Ive said it before, ill say it again, my denomination hasnt said anything to me about catholics. I used to think they were christians, till one day in one of these threads i met one, and he told me stuff, i realised it was less and less christian. Dude, say what you want, but even what you posted has even helped me prove they arent christians. Another thing, all the denominations you listed were not christian either. So you think ive sat here and made up a whole load of crap about catholics, lies what ever.... READ YOUR BIBLE! there cheap, maybe 5 dollars, you know the best selling book of all time! READ AND COMPARE!!!


I agree about that, Catholics are not Christians. Christians are supposed to be humble, Catholics have large, fancy pews and towers. And the pope is all important and fancy dressed, although the priest must be as humble as the people. Not to mention we've seen several stories in the paper of Catholic priests raping boys! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by joetheeskimo5
If that's true, they are far from being baptsists/protestants. A true Christian never kills any one, except in self-defense. There are some who call themselves "Christians", and then torture and kill other people until the believe in Christ. WTF?! That's more like Satanity, not Christianity! uhm.. satanists don't believe in killing people. please read up on things before you bash them. also Paul the apostle started the catholic church. :)

"To be christian you need a personall relationship with Jesus."
those killing christians have a personal relationship with god, those militias have church services everyday, the militia people have crosses and other christian artifacts all over their houses. they spend hours a day reading the entire bible, then praying to god and talking/praying to jesus, then they do "jesus" things. that whole deal. then "they kill them some ******s".(pardon my talking like them)

Originally posted by joetheeskimo5
I agree about that, Catholics are not Christians. Christians are supposed to be humble, Catholics have large, fancy pews and towers. And the pope is all important and fancy dressed, although the priest must be as humble as the people. Not to mention we've seen several stories in the paper of Catholic priests raping boys! :rolleyes: here in texas there have also been baptist and protestant figure heads that have raped little boys and girls, so it's not just catholic priests.

Originally posted by InsaneSith
uhm.. satanists don't believe in killing people. please read up on things before you bash them. also Paul the apostle started the catholic church. :)


Ok, I apologize for bashing catholics...in fact, there are some catholic churches that are good, i'm being a little too generel.

However, at the catholic curch i went to, the only message the pastor got throgh was "We've been vbad, let's try to be better, and worship God more than ever." That is nto true Christianity. No one on the face of the earth can do anything without God. We can't even beleive in him without his help. Most catholics I know go against this.

And, Paul did start the church, but it wasn't catholic. Back then, there as no such thing as protestants and catholics being seperate groups. There were either believers, or non-believers. The modern world has torn the church into two groups, and the catholics nowadays are usually on the wrong path.

catholic means universal. it was called the universal church of Jesus Christ. or the catholic church as many call it.

oh and islam prohibits murder. They only allow killing in the name of Defense of LIFE.

Noble Verse 5:32 "...if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people..." In this Noble Verse we clearly see that Allah Almighty honors all the innocent souls that He created. Killing any innocent soul is so hated by Allah Almighty that He considers it as a crime against all of Mankind.

and Islam would never condone the murder of christians. They do however condone self defense from all people, christians included. This means during the crusades, and ONLY the crusades, they were told to kill all who were christian and carried arms. this was only so their family's were not slain. Islam is about family and community not just faith. in the family of islam ALL are the children of Allah(the arab name of god, therefore the same god christians believe in.) Allah was basicly the head of the family that is Islam. do not bash what you do not even take the time to study. by study i mean engulf yourself in the works and books of islam until you have you are not permitted to bash, so says me and all that visit this forum.

I have studied christianity and all it's brotherly texts, I have also studied many other religions(sometimes makes it a little hard for me to remember what was for what, seeing as i'm only 16 and I have the association skills of a 80 year old alzheimer "victim")
therefore my statements are valid enough to be considered.

sorry i made a mistake it was the universal church of jesus christ not god pardon me.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
I just explained what it is under that sentence ;)

Yes, a personal relationship with Christ. Call it whatever you want, it doesn't make it any different from Catholocism, no matter how loud and proud you keep saying it.

Could you please elaborate on this "relationship" with someone called Jesus Christ? By relationship, I'm infering that you sit down from time to time and have a little chat with him about how your life is going. And that by this, you actually talk to this man. You're a buddy to a dead guy, who you believe still lives? Is this how it goes?

Here's an analogy fpr comparison's sake-

A man visits a professional psychiatrist. There, he tells the good doctor that he's lately been talking to an invisible, immaterial being (perceivable only to him). This being talks to him in his dreams, and guides him through his daily life. But not only this, the invisible "thing" is no less than the consciousness of the man's dead grandfather. This consciousness exist in another dimension, and has revealed that the sun orbiting the earth is in fact his cosmic willpower shining down on him, and that he created lightwaves so that everyone on earth could see his grandson. Oh, and while this man subscribes to the notion that his grand-daddy will invade the earth with his army of grotesque creatures and take him away to safety the day he dies on earth, the psychiatrist subscribes to the notion that this man is insane. Yet, the doctor was a Christian himself.

Did you spot the hypocrisy?

Let's try with something deductive-

Man is fallible, no? No matter someone's sincere intentions, sometimes they are just not well-placed, right or true in a given context. Man can fail.

Did God write the Bible? No he did not - Man did. While you may believe he inspired the authors, for all we know it was written by humans, like you.

Was Jesus a human? Yes he was - again, while you may believe whatever you want, you cannot deny that you can only really be sure of the fact that he was a human.

So, Man is fallible = the Bible could be wrong. Everything that has been said about Jesus' miraculous powers could be false.

Willing to kill for God? He never commands this. He wouldnt command this. If he did it contradict the entire bible, because the God who cammands us not to sin, would tell us to sin.

You're telling us that nowhere in the Bible does God recommend violence against "infidels"? I find that hard to believe.

Its not our world ;)

Your point being? It is still *the* world, no?

If you follow your bible and obey christ you are a christian, no matter what denomination.

So Catholics are Christians too, aye?

They said they have been around over 2000 years (according to your post) But christ (if it wasnt for him, there would have never been christianty correct?) Christ was born around 4, or 3 BC (or BCE whatever you use) it is the year 2003, mean that he was born (ill just use 4 bc) 2007 years ago. But the catholic religion started over 2000 years ago. lets just say its 2001 years old. So Christ was 6 years old when it started?

Did you ever for a moment stop to think that they were perhaps making empty boasts based on a slight exagerration?

Did you ever for a moment stop to ponder why when a so-called Christian does something terrible, he is not representative of the entire religion of Christianity - but when Catholic priests commit unspeakable acts, they suddenly representative of the entire vile cult of Catholocism?

Even the confession thing came from Babylon.

The Bible has copied many Babylonian myths. The flood story is a near exact replica of another, older, myth.

We do what christ commands.

Do you? What makes you so sure?

Yes, homosexuality is wrong.

Where in the Bible does it say that?

Does it overrule the more important belief that we as humans should love each other? Do you not think that God has unconditional love for everyone? Why does it matter a hoot if two people love each other, when even now, you are regarding us as lost? Why is more lost to love?

Before you say 'what God?' look at it through a christians perspective.


We did. We are, all the damn time.

When is it your time to look at it from ours?

How can you look through our eyes when you dont understand what we believe?

So Catholics are Christians too, aye?


Lol, have you read everything? they dont follow the bible!

Was Jesus a human? Yes he was - again, while you may believe whatever you want, you cannot deny that you can only really be sure of the fact that he was a human.

The bible tells us, he is fully God, and fully man.


Your point being? It is still *the* world, no?

Our world is earth, is heaven on earth?

The Bible has copied many Babylonian myths. The flood story is a near exact replica of another, older, myth.

Dude, Noah's sons built the city of babylon after the flood ;)

Did God write the Bible? No he did not - Man did. While you may believe he inspired the authors, for all we know it was written by humans, like you.

Of course, look at the Apostles! They were fishermen, tax collecters, and other things! Normal men. Nothing more. Paul wrote most of the new testament in letters, did he know they would be put into a book oneday? No. The old testament was seperate books too, it was like there history books. Of course, Paul and many of the deciples were inspired by the holy spirit, how can a man write such an amazing moral code?

Could you please elaborate on this "relationship" with someone called Jesus Christ? By relationship, I'm infering that you sit down from time to time and have a little chat with him about how your life is going. And that by this, you actually talk to this man. You're a buddy to a dead guy, who you believe still lives? Is this how it goes?

Ever heard of prayer? Ever heard what happend three days after Christ was hung on the cross? Jesus is alive. Over 500 men and woman saw him, touched the holes in his fingers, the hole in his side. Of course, you can say they were halucinating, but its impossible for 2 people to have the same halucination. I think i misspelled it :|

The relationship, praying, talking, yeah, just simply talking with christ, you dont need a paster or be in a church to do it. Anytime you want. Of course youll call me insane, but its what millions believe, if i am, then millions are too. I cant see over 100 million (or more) people being insane.

This consciousness exist in another dimension, and has revealed that the sun orbiting the earth is in fact his cosmic willpower shining down on him, and that he created lightwaves so that everyone on earth could see his grandson.

Dude, the bible tells us the sun doesnt evolve around the earth ;)

anyways, ive run out of time, ill post more tommarrow because theres a lot to talk about.

So basically, everything you are saying revolves around "Because the bible says so."

It seems to me that you entire religion is based upon a book which people said was inspired by God. This book has very little fact to back it up, and much of it's history cannot be verified (I didnt say all, as some of it is historically true).

Furthermore, the books were written by men, who, by their very nature, are flawed. They have their own means, their own agendas, and their own biases.

How are we to believe these men are divinely inspired? Suppose I came to you with a 100 page book that I claim God inspired me to write. Would you add this to your pages in the Bible and live by it as well?

I doubt it. But how am I any less believable than these 2000 year old men?

I'm not believable. And neither are they. but to base your entire belief system and, for some, way of life, on a book with so little backup and so much left to question, seems..... (and dont take this as insult)... foolish! At least from a neutral point of view.

So presenting a statement and then claiming that "The bible said so" is proof of that truth of the statement means absolutley nothing to me, or many people here.


On a personal rant, I'm bashing Christianity right now because of my girlfriend. She was a non-practicing Christian with an interest in the book of Revelations. So I bought her the first book of the "Left Behind" series.

Now she got all religious on me and decided "No sex before marriage, period." Nevermind that we're practically married, and the only reason I havent proposed is because I'm still in school and cant afford a ring.... But nope, "No sex before marriage."

Now I get no nookie because of a friggin formality! Argh!
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[end rant]

Where in the Bible does it say that?

In the book of Leviticus, it condemns homosexuality. But it also says that fresh children and the like should be killed (or something to that affect). So taking that book seriously.... eh.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Dude, the muslim law says they can kill christians ;)

Really? Cite a reference please. Because, just as I've read the Bible cover-to-cover, I've also read much of the Koran. I don't recall that message. Or did your little wink smiley indicate that you were making it up... hard to discern across the internet.....


Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Willing to kill for God? He never commands this. He wouldnt command this.

God orders the sons of Levi (Moses, Aaron, and the other members of their tribe that were "on the Lord's side") to kill "every man his neighbor." "And there fell of the people that day about 3000 men." Genesis 32:27-28

And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. -- Deuteronomy 7:2

Oh... and:

Deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle. -- Jeremiah 18:21

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
I see. You may have... but i read mine every day, ive read cover to cover (just about, may have missed a chapter or 2)

Hopefully I've caught you up on the "chapter or 2" that you missed then :cool: . I actually went to an online bible and searched for keywords like smitten, smote, and sword... I remembered the books, just not the actual chapter/verse. Sammuel and Corinthians are violent books too....

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Catholics, are Catholics. Christians are christians.

And I'm saying that I see nothing different in that statement than if you said, "blacks are blacks. People are people."

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
The catholics killed people, not to mention other so called christian denominations.

The death of man at the hand of man is a matter of history. It has occured in all denominations throughout the history of the world. I would bet that there have even been deaths as direct result of the hand of the Church of the Nazarene, which incidently began around the turn of the century just down the street from me.

Speaking of your denomination.... it is direct result of a split from the Methodist faith, and the Nazarene Manual is merely a minor rewrite of the Methodist version. It appears that some turn-of-the-century Methodists were unhappy with increasingly liberal politics of the church and decided to split.

The Methodists are also a split from the Episcipal/Anglican Church... otherwise known as the Church of England. I don't suppose I need to tell you how this so-called christian bunch started... but I will remind you that it was when King Henry VIII wished to obtain a divorce from Queen Catherine of Aragon for not producing a male heir. The Pope would not grant it. The king lobbied long and hard to change the Pope's mind to no avail, and the king ran out of patience and proclaimed himself Supreme Head of the Church of England and the Church began its separate existence from Rome. Divorce became legal and "moral."

So, as you can see... you're not so far removed from Catholocism. The catholic church has long since acknowledged that many of it's previous actions were wrong (i.e. the inquisition, etc.) The catholic church has just as many failings and superstition as every other christian and non-chrisitan cult.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
I dont care what they are considered, ive told you (from what the bible has tought me) how to become a christian.

If you are convinced that you interpret this out-dated work of literature correctly, and they are sure that they interpret it correctly, what gives you more validity than they?

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Because we follow the rules. We do what christ commands. Dont you understand what im saying???

Sure I do... and from the catholic perspective, they follow the rules as well. That's the major failing with the "bible" that so many christians deny: it's inconsistant and open to multiple interpretation! In short... it's about as reliable as a guide to living one's life as Shakespeare. Don't get me wrong, I think the latter is valid... just open to multiple interpretation.... to be, or not to be...

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Harry Potter?? Who cares. Umm, read what and compare what?

He was saying that Harry Potter outsold the bible (and had less time on the best seller list!) and to read the source he cited and compare to your statement.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
This is why i say, you dont understand christianity. Why must you people hear the gospel 2, 3, 4, 5 times.. or more before you understand. When others can hear it once and understand, and accept it?

We utilize critical thinking skills.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Yes, homosexuality is wrong. I cant see how your born like that.

You can't see a lot of things... each post you make shows that you are religiocentric. There exists more than one perspective in the world. Why is homosexuality wrong?

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Have you really read your bible? Well, 1991 was a while back.

Yeah.. I reallyread it. And most of the Koran, some of the Torah... and a smattering of the Bhagavad- Gita, Pistis Sophia, Book of Mormon, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, and Confucian, Buddist, Taoist, and Zen texts. While I understand that in 1991 you probably weren't far from training wheels on your bike, I was eating sand in Kuwait and passing the time by reading everything I could get my hands on.


Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
The response was immediate. A number of legislators walked out during the prayer in protest.

And well they should have... there is a separation of church and state... people should not be subjected to the cult practices of others.


Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
With the Lord's help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and
wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called, "... one nation under God..."

Interesting, considering it used to be over 500 nations under Wakan-Tanka.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like
wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people
think twice about sharing.

Nobody likes spam.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and
workplace.

Not so. People are free to discuss god in either place... but it is immoral and unlawful to force someone to be indoctrinated in any religion against their will. If you preach christian nonsense in a school, you are blatantly ignoring the rights of those who prefer islamic, hindu, or pagan nonsense. In short, it's bigotry.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Before you say 'what God?' look at it through a christians perspective.

Oh, I do.... but I say "what god?" only to make a point that there are many religions with many views that are just as valid as christianity. Those who say christianity is the most valid are christians. Muslims say the same about islam, and so on with nearly every other religion. Buddism is, perhaps, the only religion I've encountered where the religious leaders accept the validity of other religions. Buddism is, in many ways, more christian than christianity...

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
-- Steven Weinberg

How are we to believe these men are divinely inspired? Suppose I came to you with a 100 page book that I claim God inspired me to write. Would you add this to your pages in the Bible and live by it as well?

There is more to that. How many so called heresies containing the words of Christ had not been included in the Bible. I read some, and sometimes he says there more clearly than in Bible. I guess this is all a conspiracy, and everything in Bible is intentiously made that way so that noone could actually question anything there. It's all BLUR.

Luke, take it easy. Think of not whose turn is now to understand one another, but who can be the first. You always say of us here not understanding you and christianity. Maybe at least (if you consider us such kids) you would turn to understand our point (not the one of bashing christianity of course).

Originally posted by joetheeskimo5
And, Paul did start the church, but it wasn't catholic. Back then, there as no such thing as protestants and catholics being seperate groups. There were either believers, or non-believers. The modern world has torn the church into two groups, and the catholics nowadays are usually on the wrong path.

Meaning that there was also no US of A before the Civil War? Same diff.

He was saying that Harry Potter outsold the bible (and had less time on the best seller list!) and to read the source he cited and compare to your statement.

Actually I was repeating part of what I quoted: Skywalker said that I should read the Book (English for Bible (what a show of wit and originality on part of its authors)), and compare what he stated was the 'best selling book of all times'. So actually, Skywalker, you should have directed your question to yourself: Compare what? BTW: The post I quoted wasn't that old, are you purposefully 'forgetting' your own posts... Because you certainly seem to be repeating yourself alot.

Interesting, considering it used to be over 500 nations under Wakan-Tanka.

Smackdown!

God orders the sons of Levi (Moses, Aaron, and the other members of their tribe that were "on the Lord's side") to kill "every man his neighbor." "And there fell of the people that day about 3000 men." Genesis 32:27-28

And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. -- Deuteronomy 7:2

Oh... and:

Deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle. -- Jeremiah 18:21


O_O im just looking at my bible.. and well... are u sure you have the right verses and chapters?? i mean.. number one moses, nor aron, were alive in genesis also there were no tribes, because israel not a country yet :p My bible says something completly different... maybe im looking at the wrong page :|

About the deuteronomy verse, why was that commanded? They were taking over another country.

About the Jeremiah verse, people were planning to kill him and that was his prayer....

did you read all of these passages?

Really? Cite a reference please. Because, just as I've read the Bible cover-to-cover, I've also read much of the Koran. I don't recall that message. Or did your little wink smiley indicate that you were making it up... hard to discern across the internet.....

Its a well known fact that many muslims have killed christians, just for saying Jesus died on the cross or something. Maybe its not there law, but go up to one and say something about christ, you wont be standing for long.

Allah(the arab name of god, therefore the same god christians believe in.)

actually this is allah

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/images/muslim.jpg)

Through archeology allah has been proven an old idol moon god. It was worshiped by people along the nile river, and by most arab people before Islam. Muhamud knew about all this, but he just wanted to make his own religion. Thats a picture of a statue of allah, proving allah was an idol. Notice the moon on his chest.

Read up on him ;)

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm)

So allah is not the same as the christian God. Allah is a stone statue.

Meaning that there was also no US of A before the Civil War? Same diff.

NO. Theres no difference. You example is flawed. The catholic church is basically the babylonian (church?)

Why is christianity more christian than catholisms? (however you spell it) Because we follow the CHRISTIAN rules. What are the christian rules? The BIBLE. They have bibles, but they dont look at them. For the last time, how can it be christian if it calls the FOUNDER of christianity (Jesus Christ) a heratic!!!!! Its like a muslim saying that muhammed is a heretic, or a buddhist saying that budda is a heratic.

There is more to that. How many so called heresies containing the words of Christ had not been included in the Bible. I read some, and sometimes he says there more clearly than in Bible. I guess this is all a conspiracy, and everything in Bible is intentiously made that way so that noone could actually question anything there. It's all BLUR.

Its not blurred :p What are you having trouble understanding? Give me an example. Is it the parables? What?

The reason you dont understand is because the bible is a spiritual matter. Only a spiritual person can understand. The bible itself tells you this.

Luke, take it easy. Think of not whose turn is now to understand one another, but who can be the first. You always say of us here not understanding you and christianity. Maybe at least (if you consider us such kids) you would turn to understand our point (not the one of bashing christianity of course).

Ah, but bashing christianity is the topic. Look what your standing for.. look whos side your on. Your defending wrong doings ;)


The post I quoted wasn't that old, are you purposefully 'forgetting' your own posts... Because you certainly seem to be repeating yourself alot.

lol. I c what you mean.

Hopefully I've caught you up on the "chapter or 2" that you missed then

Wouldnt do you too good, cause it was the population counts i skipped ;)

I would bet that there have even been deaths as direct result of the hand of the Church of the Nazarene, which incidently began around the turn of the century just down the street from me.

Heh. Are you sure it was down the street?

Speaking of your denomination.... it is direct result of a split from the Methodist faith, and the Nazarene Manual is merely a minor rewrite of the Methodist version. It appears that some turn-of-the-century Methodists were unhappy with increasingly liberal politics of the church and decided to split.

Dude, i really dont care because my bible is my manuel. I attend the church. Im a member. Strange.. i was born methodist, but never learned anything about them.

The Methodists are also a split from the Episcipal/Anglican Church... otherwise known as the Church of England. I don't suppose I need to tell you how this so-called christian bunch started... but I will remind you that it was when King Henry VIII wished to obtain a divorce from Queen Catherine of Aragon for not producing a male heir. The Pope would not grant it. The king lobbied long and hard to change the Pope's mind to no avail, and the king ran out of patience and proclaimed himself Supreme Head of the Church of England and the Church began its separate existence from Rome. Divorce became legal and "moral."


Wow, my bible tells me that the only reason for divorce is adultery. Lets just say methodists do follow the bible. Then other christian denominations wouldnt be too different, because they follow the bible also. BTW, if thats the case why dont we condone it? Of course many people in the US believe you can just divorce for any reason. They did a servey and asked a bunch of women, is it ok to divorce your husband because of his weight.. .a lot said yes.


The death of man at the hand of man is a matter of history. It has occured in all denominations throughout the history of the world.

Id have to agree. But im going with the fact that, the person can be in a denomination, but not be a christian.

Sure I do... and from the catholic perspective, they follow the rules as well. That's the major failing with the "bible" that so many christians deny: it's inconsistant and open to multiple interpretation! In short... it's about as reliable as a guide to living one's life as Shakespeare. Don't get me wrong, I think the latter is valid... just open to multiple interpretation.... to be, or not to be...

your wrong (about the christian part) it is open to multiple interpretation, depending on how God wants you to interprete it, look at revelations, who knows what half of that means? Some of it is very easy to understand, while some isnt. Because its like a code. Hidden from us, untill the actual events take place.

I just stick with, whats written is written, and thats that. If it says dont kill.. .it means dont kill and you cant change it.

Does it overrule the more important belief that we as humans should love each other? Do you not think that God has unconditional love for everyone? Why does it matter a hoot if two people love each other, when even now, you are regarding us as lost? Why is more lost to love?

It doesnt say we shouldnt love them ;) forgetting, Jesus sat at the table to eat with sinners. Why? He was there for the sinners! To help them see the error of there ways. Mathew was a tax collecter, remember, tax collecters back then would charge people more than they really owed, and kept the extra money for themselves. Dudes, Jesus told Peter he would deny him 3 times, it happend. Jesus told Judas what he had done, and will do, and was right! People deny him, betray him, and hes still there for them. Thats love ;)


It seems to me that you entire religion is based upon a book which people said was inspired by God. This book has very little fact to back it up, and much of it's history cannot be verified (I didnt say all, as some of it is historically true).

Alright... umm... ill find stuff, give me a little time ;)

first things first. The Old Testament was the Israelites history book. It had there religious laws, and everything else... even populations. Ever thought that mayb eother countries may have also written about them. I mean, its not like they didnt see them around. They have to war records, things like that.


Think about Egypt here, its a fact, preist then did plenty of... uhh... things. (going back to the Jediism thread) demonic powers would allow them to do these things. 1. they worshiped idols, in other words it was demonic. If God let Moses and Aaron use his power all of the stuff in Exodus would be possible. Who do you think built the pryamids? 2. The Pharoahs were considered god back then. If they said something, it HAD to be done. Obviously, a defeat like the one in the bible would be very embarrasing to the nation of Egypt, so all the pharoah had to say was remove it from the history.

Another thing, during wars back then, they burned everything to the ground. Nothing was left. So, lots of records, of many countries could have been destroyed very easily. The books of the old testament (in new testament times) were published (? or whatever they did) and could obviously be bought. You read in the bible about some guy sitting in a (chariot?) and reading the book of Isiah. So this proves that the Old Testament was copied. So if anything did happen, there would be another copy.

In the new testament, most of the stuff was letters. Paul wrote some in Jail. Think he knew some people would put them in a book and call it the bible? I dont. Those letters were for teaching the current churches.

Even King David has been proven

For example, until 1993 there was no proof of the existence of King David or even of Israel as a nation prior to Solomon. Then in 1993 archeologists found proof of King David's existence outside the Bible. At an ancient mound called Tel Dan, in the north of Israel, words carved into a chunk of basalt were translated as "House of David" and "King of Israel" proving that he was more than just a legend.

“Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated.”

I know your going to say something about that last part :rolleyes: its one of those it cant be disproven, but it cant be proven things. At least you know, most of the people were real, and most of the events were real.

R.D. Wilson who wrote “A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament” pointed out that the names of 29 Kings from ten nations (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon and more) are mentioned not only in the Bible but are also found on monuments of their own time. Every single name is transliterated in the Old Testament exactly as it appears on the archaeological artifact – syllable for syllable, consonant for consonant. The chronological order of the kings is correct.

hmmm... interresting the chronological order itself is amazing

Mesha, king of the Moabites, those distant cousins of the Israelites who lived on the east side of the Dead Sea, is introduced in the Bible in the third chapter of 2 Kings [2 Kgs. 3] as a vassal to the King of Israel, about 849 B.C. With the death of Ahab, Mesha rebelled against this relationship. This prompted Ahab's son, Jehoram, to engage the alliance of Jehoshaphat, the King of Judah, and the King of Edom in a military campaign against Mesha. With the help of prophetic advice from Elisha, the alliance was able to gain a victory over the Moabites. Mesha retreated behind the walls of his citadel, Kir-hareseth, and it was there, upon one of these walls, that he sacrificed his first-born son as a burnt offering in order to invoke the wrath of his god, Chemosh, against Jehoram's army. The Bible tells us that the Israelites were so horrified by this act that they returned home. (See 2 Kgs. 3:27.)

Before you say anything, make you sure read this one properly

Finally let’s look at Jesus. What evidence do we have the he existed? The Roman historian Tacitus writing between 115-117 A.D. had this to say:
"They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh-not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home." From his Annals, xv. 44.
Here is a pagan historian, hostile to Christianity, who had access to records about what happened to Jesus Christ. Mention of Jesus can also be found in Jewish Rabbinical writings from what is known as the Tannaitic period, between 70-200 A.D. In Sanhedrin 43a it says:
"Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, 'He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whoever has anything to say in his defence, let him come and declare it.' As nothing was brought forward in his defence, he was hanged on Passover Eve."
That there is any mention of Jesus at all is unususal. As far as the Roman world was concerned, Jesus was a nobody who live in an insignificant province, sentenced to death by a minor procurator.


i got it from right here

http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q9_historical_proof_bible.html)


some more interesting stuff

The Book of Job is one of the oldest books ever written. In it, God tells Job of his greatness as Creator and describes an animal, called Behemoth, as follows:

Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you; He eats grass like an ox. Behold now, his strength in his loins, And his power in the muscles of his belly. He bends his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are tubes of bronze; His limbs are like bars of iron. (Job 40:15–18)

Marginal notes in most Bibles speculate that Behemoth was probably an elephant or a hippopotamus, but those animals have tails like ropes. Behemoth had a “tail like a cedar.” Any animal with a tail as huge and strong as a cedar tree is probably a dinosaur. Job 40:19–24 describes this giant, difficult-to-capture animal as not alarmed by a raging river. If the writer of Job knew of a dinosaur, then the evolution position is wrong, and man saw dinosaurs.

The next chapter of Job describes another huge, fierce animal, a sea monster named Leviathan.3 It was not a whale or crocodile, because the Hebrew language had other words to describe such animals. Leviathan may be a plesiosaur (PLEE see uh sore), a large seagoing reptile that evolutionists say became extinct 60 million years before man evolved.
Consider the many dragon legends. Most ancient cultures have stories or artwork of dragons that strongly resemble dinosaurs.4 The World Book Encyclopedia states that:

The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth. Dragons were generally evil and destructive. Every country had them in its mythology.5

The simplest and most obvious explanation for so many common descriptions of dragons from around the world is that man once knew the dinosaurs.

What caused the extinction of dinosaurs? The flood. Because dinosaur bones are found among other fossils, dinosaurs must have been living when the flood began. There are dozens of other dinosaur extinction theories, but they all have recognized problems. Most of the food chain was buried in the flood. Therefore, many large dinosaurs that survived the flood probably had difficulty feeding themselves and became extinct.


http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q3_bible_dinosaurs.html#dinosaur) scripture


I even heard that they found thousands of chariots in the red sea, egyptain chariots ;)

Noah's Ark... wouldnt it have broken when the water went down completly? Or even better, maybe after the flood it got really cold because of the water, starting the ice age?

Just some stuff to think about when you say the bible isnt true

Another thing, they list Christs entire family, from the bigginning of the world, all the way to Christ. Even King David was related to him!

another thing, when God stopped the sun, or the Earth:


Fact eight: God, in His infinite wisdom, gave man all kinds of ways to prove the Bible. Joshua’s long day, where God stopped the sun for approximately 24 hours, is proof of the Bible (Josh. 10:12-13). Many ancient cultures record in their histories a time when the world was dark for a day, stayed light for a day, when the sun set for a day or rose in the east and stayed there for about a day.

Fact nine: The Ten Commandments that were written by the Lord on stone, Aaron’s rod that budded, and a jar containing the manna (bread from heaven) were placed in the Ark were constant reminders to the Israelites that these miracles did happen anciently.

A few years back they were even looking for the Ark, but the ruler in the place they were looking wouldnt allow them to dig for it. They think they know where it is, but he wont let them find out.

The Iliad is considered the second most reliable document of antiquity. There are more copies of it in a shorter time span than any other document of antiquity except the New Testament. In the Iliad there are 15,600 lines, at roughly ten words a line. It has a corruption rate of 5 percent. That's considered unbelievably good. The epic from India, The Mahabarata, has 250,000 lines. There are 26,000 lines of discrepancy (lines in question), for a distortion or corruption rate which exceeds 10 percent.

What is the data for the New Testament? There are approximately 20,000 lines in the New Testament. Remember, there are 24,000 copies of the New Testament. Wouldn't you expect, with that many more copies than any other document of antiquity, more lines in question with one another? How many lines in question are there among the 24,000 documents of the 2nd century (New Testament)? The answer is an astounding 40! It is a distortion rate of 0.2 percent, which is 25 times purer than the next reliable book of antiquity. Moreover, in every case without exception, the differences among the manuscripts are spelling, capitalization, and in even rarer cases, punctuation. In The Iliad, you were never told, "this may not be the way The Iliad was written, but we've got copies, discrepancies and textural corruption and this is our best guess." The truth is, among the earliest copies, there are such significant differences (whole episodes) in the storylines that literally a person who writes it today must choose among the various storylines the one they are going to decide to write.

I came to this conclusion - if any book of antiquity was to be trusted, it must be the Bible. The New Testament is by several magnitudes the singular most reliable book of antiquity! It is incomprehensible that so many copies could exist and yet have so few lines of corruption. God, who authored the Scriptures, took at the very least the same care to preserve them as He did to author them.


What about the Old Testament? Until 1947 the Old Testament was considered to be no more reliable than other books of antiquity. There was no scholarly basis to believe that the documents were essentially the same as those which were originally written - until the spring of 1947, when a young shepherd boy named Mohammed was out looking for a lost goat just on the west bank of the Dead Sea about eight miles south of Jericho. He came to a crevice in the rock. Not wanting to take the effort to crawl down in it to see if his goat was there, he took a large stone and threw it into the crevice. He heard the sound of shattering pottery. He climbed down into the crevice and discovered what is considered to be the most significant and remarkable find of antiquity. Down there were a number of huge clay pots which had been sealed perfectly. They had been untouched. In those pots were thousands - 40,000 fragments of literature from antiquity. One of them, the most complete, was a manuscript of the book of Isaiah. It was on a leather scroll that was 24 feet long and 10 inches high. The materials were sold to a Jewish scholar from the Hebrew University there in Jerusalem. With great interest it was shared with the literary world. The previously oldest manuscript of the book of Isaiah which existed prior to these scrolls, which have now been called the Dead Sea Scrolls, was from 900 A.D. Paleographers have dated the Dead Sea Scrolls at between 100 B.C. and 200 B.C. The scroll for Isaiah was dated at 125 B.C.

This forms a wonderful opportunity to compare textural corruption over what amounts to 1,025 years. Scholars immediately went to work to compare these two books to see what differences there might be between them. Would you like to know the results of that find? We'll take one chapter for an example - Isaiah 53. This chapter has 166 words. Comparing the two manuscripts, 1,025 years apart, there are 17 letters that are different. Ten of the letters are spelling, simply because over time, words change their spelling. Four of the letters are stylistic - punctuation and things of this kind. Three of the letters create the word "light," which was added in verse 11. So what you essentially have is that, over a period of more than a millenium, the addition of one word, "light" in verse 11, makes no change in the meaning of the verse whatsoever.


so much more.. guess i should stop or you guys will quit reading, if your even reading now :)

The Iliad is considered the second most reliable document of antiquity.

I think that is the other reason to consider Bible sceptically. Evangeli were something of the same pulp fiction everybody read as Iliad in for 300 after Christ's death. It was very popular and that could also be the reason for the authors to make more and more books about. And now it turns that Bible is a book of historical and religious contradiction, but still the greatest piece of art ever.

lukeskywalker1:
Ah, but bashing christianity is the topic. Look what your standing for.. look whos side your on. Your defending wrong doings

I'm on the side of healthy debate. This one disproves itself to be one.

Its not blurred What are you having trouble understanding? Give me an example. Is it the parables? What?

The reason you dont understand is because the bible is a spiritual matter. Only a spiritual person can understand. The bible itself tells you this.

Unfortunately I need more time to find that book. My room is such a mess:p

I'm pretty much spiritual with Bible. It has marvelous statements, artistically speaking. And mostly it was this book that formed my moral code.

And how do you difine spiritual person?

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Its a well known fact that many muslims have killed christians, just for saying Jesus died on the cross or something. Maybe its not there law, but go up to one and say something about christ, you wont be standing for long.

And it's a well known fact that many more Christians have killed Muslims - what's your point? Oh, but those weren't "true" Christians, right?

Maybe those Muslims weren't "true" Muslims either?



actually this is allah

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/images/muslim.jpg)

Your point again?

Christianity is only a Jewish sect that survived because of Paul, and Judaism can be traced back to idol-worshipping as well.

NO. Theres no difference. You example is flawed. The catholic church is basically the babylonian (church?)

No it isn't. That's the same as saying Protestants are basically the same as Quakers.

Why is christianity more christian than catholisms? (however you spell it) Because we follow the CHRISTIAN rules. What are the christian rules? The BIBLE. They have bibles, but they dont look at them.

They don't? That's horsesh*t. Of course they do.

I seem to remember you recently talking about how you didn't even need to be in a denomination to call yourself Christian. As long as you believed in the Bible and accepted Jesus as your savior- is that not right?

Well guess what, Catholics do just that. Perhaps some of them don't and they aren't really Christians - but the exact same exceptions are found in your community, so don't come here and badmouth Catholocism.

For the last time, how can it be christian if it calls the FOUNDER of christianity (Jesus Christ) a heratic!!!!!

That's bullsh*t.

The reason you dont understand is because the bible is a spiritual matter. Only a spiritual person can understand. The bible itself tells you this.

I'm a spiritual person. I understand the Bible.

I don't believe in any of it.


Wow, my bible tells me that the only reason for divorce is adultery.

Let me explain something to you. It is impossible for someone to love another person as dear as him/herself for their entire lives. There will always be those moments where you resent your lover for a second or two. Sometimes those moments can grow, and create a gap between two persons. Sometimes their love die. But that's natural, not because one of them "failed". That's why we have divorce, so people can get on with their lives.

Lets just say methodists do follow the bible. Then other christian denominations wouldnt be too different, because they follow the bible also.

Including Catholocism.

It doesnt say we shouldnt love them ;) forgetting, Jesus sat at the table to eat with sinners. Why? He was there for the sinners! To help them see the error of there ways.

So homosexuality is an "error"? That's a flame, I'm afraid.

Skywalker, accept and respect that you can be wrong. Yet again, even the Bible was written by people like you.

Think about Egypt here, its a fact, preist then did plenty of... uhh... things. (going back to the Jediism thread) demonic powers would allow them to do these things.

Egyptian priests did not use magic, no.

1. they worshiped idols, in other words it was demonic.

Jesus is an idol for your servitude.

The books of the old testament (in new testament times) were published (? or whatever they did) and could obviously be bought.

No they weren't. The printing press making large-scale manufacture possible wasn't invented until the renaissance.

“Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories.

That's not true. The Genesis, for example, is clearly historically and factually wrong.

The Book of Job is one of the oldest books ever written. In it, God tells Job of his greatness as Creator and describes an animal, called Behemoth, as follows: ...

Not this trite again. It's been proved wrong several times, in this very forum. I'm not gonna do it again, when I know well that you were in Hotrod's thread and reading what i wrote about this back then.