a thread for "Jesus Talk"....

[Qdrop]

Keep it in here......and out of other threads.


go ahead, debate all the jesus/bible/hell/evil/"historical fact" crap you want.


just keep it in here.........

[GreenEarthAl]

Idea fails in

3....

2....

.

[Qdrop]

probably......but they're highjacking every fuckin thread...

it's fucking bullshit.

[GreenEarthAl]

It's kind of annoying, but many people in here base their political ideology on their perception of the Bible. It makes debating difficult becayse it's like you're trying to hold a debate when you speak two different languages. But hey...


That's how it goes. Life is messy.


Say 15 minutes from now Paul Nice came by and said, okay this 1 thread is for all of your America sucks posts. Keep them all in here. How do you suppose the posters might react?

[GreenEarthAl]

Jesus was either a Liar, a Crazy Man, or He was Lord. You have to pick one.
He did exist that is a proven fact. He rose, that is a proven fact. (You can't deny 500 witnesses)


There are many other possibilities:
He was not crazy, simply mistaken.
His life and times were greatly exagerated by his storytellers.
etc.

What's to stop us from denying 500 witnesses? When may we question them?

[Qdrop]

yeah...but there has to be SOME kind of order to this...

EVERY thread gets taken over by the "jesus folk"....they strive to turn every debate into a religious one.

they are self-serving, and self indulgent......

[Matt]

The Bible is considered a true source of history. No one has proven other wise.

Jesus was either a Liar, a Crazy Man, or He was Lord. You have to pick one.
He did exist that is a proven fact. He rose, that is a proven fact. (You can't deny 500 witnesses)

Jesus said He is Lord, so he is either lying, or He thought He was Lord, or He really is Lord. You have to pick one. If you don't pick Lord, then you have to explain a lot of things.

How is a book with no author consitered a true scorce of history?

and you can say 500 witnesses, but I'll never believe you unless you give the names of every one of them.

I don't believe in God. I believe that He was invented becuase people are generally insecure and needed to know that there was something better than this shitty place we call earth. They wanted someone to tell them that they will live on forever, instead of rotting in the ground. So God was invented, and so Heaven came to be, and so did Hell. Hell was to keep people in line. You're bad, you go to Hell.

If you believe, thats just fine. I envy you for having the conviction, and for having something to believe in. And if you can provide STONE COLD SOLID PROOF that God and Heaven and Satan and Hell exist, I would reconsiter my posistion on the issue. But the Bible isn't enough. not by a long shot.

[GreenEarthAl]

yeah...but there has to be SOME kind of order to this...

...because you wish it?

EVERY thread gets taken over by the "jesus folk"....they strive to turn every debate into a religious one.

If you can no longer tollerate their Bible based arguments, start skipping over them. Respond to the arguments that you DO find interesting, and engage the debaters that you DO respect. Do you think you are the first person to tell gmsisko1 to go away? restrict his posting? spell correctly?

they are self-serving, and self indulgent......

I've never seen any one post here for long who does not have a self serving agenda. That's pretty much how agenda's work.

[adam_f]

Is it stupid that I didn't see the Passion of the Christ because I know how it ends?

[Lindsey_1535]

Is it stupid that I didn't see the Passion of the Christ because I know how it ends?
I say no
I didn't go either

[yeahwho]

People who think this way are not the least bit interested in closing cultural gaps. Theirs is a world in which there is only Good and Evil, God and the Devil, Righteousness and Sin -- and the righteous do not compromise with sin! If there is any reaching out to be done from this perspective, it is only for the sake of converting the misguided to the Truth -- that being, of course, the way the righteous think about things.

Bush winning this last election to many of the Jesus Freaks is a statement of Biblical proportions and a reprieve of a nation squaundering itself away from family values.

They are for the most part, morons.

Nary the slightest clue how evil this current administration has been and eagerly continues to be. If Bush says he's doing Gods will, if Bush says he's a Born Again Christian....no matter how much his actions misrepresent Christianity, they defend his actions.

Most have no clue what a Military Industrial Complex is and the how and why it functions.

Of course, there is always the ignore button.

[cookiepuss]

5 people would have a hard time telling a story the same way. But 500 people told this story. There were no contradictions.

seriously..how can you beleive this? it's not even logical. you just said that 5 people would have a hard time telling the same story the same way. I.e. you don't believe 5 people could get it right..but somehow..because your preacher told you so..you have no problem beleiving that 500 primative people got it right. I'm sorry but you don't make sense to me.

[Qdrop]

5 people would have a hard time telling a story the same way. But 500 people told this story. There were no contradictions.

you are so full of shit, i can smell it through the computer.

you, yourself, could punch holes in every argument you make.....yet you turn a blind eye to your own intellect out of stubborness.

[GreenEarthAl]

5 people would have a hard time telling a story the same way. But 500 people told this story. There were no contradictions.

Your argument is self-referential.

Sort of like the book Dianetics that the scientologists believe in. It's true because the book says it's true.

[Whois]

Your argument is self-referential.

Sort of like the book Dianetics that the scientologists believe in. It's true because the book says it's true.

No, it's true because L. Ron Hubbard says it's true... ;)

"Let me tell you a little story about Xenu, it starts 75 million years ago..."

[Cashew]

The Bible is considered a true source of history. No one has proven other wise.

Jesus was either a Liar, a Crazy Man, or He was Lord. You have to pick one.
He did exist that is a proven fact. He rose, that is a proven fact. (You can't deny 500 witnesses)

Jesus said He is Lord, so he is either lying, or He thought He was Lord, or He really is Lord. You have to pick one. If you don't pick Lord, then you have to explain a lot of things.

Actually it is not. If you ask any egpytologist, they will tell, the bible is full of holes, it only goes so far and can only match certain events, There was a show on the discovery channel not to long ago, "Rameses: Wrath of God? or Man?" I suggest you check it when they replay it.

Oh and according to your book, God struck down a very small child for being born to man and being a certain ethnicity. Nice guy.

[Vladimir]

sisko, you are completely missing the cornerstone of all these people's arguments. The point is that the fact that the Bible says something happened doesn't mean it happened, because it was not written as a historical document, it was written as a peace of religious dogma, or propaganda, depending on how you look at it. It's like a fable; a story told to communicate a moral, without necessarily being fact. The fact that the Bible says 500 people agreed on this doesn't mean anything - there's no reason to think that the people who wrote the Bible didn't just lie, or distort the facts to fit their political and religious agenda. Unless you believe that God wrote the Bible, in which case I have nothing more to say because I think you're a lunatic.

[D_Raay]

All people are afraid.
No one knows what they're doing.
Everything is getting worse.
Some people deserve to die.
Your money is worthless.
No one is properly dressed.
At least one of your children will disappoint you.
The system is rigged.
Your house will never be completely clean.
All teachers are incompetent.
There are people who really dislike you.
Nothing is as good as it seems.
Things don't last.
No one is paying attention.
The country is dying.
GOD DOESN'T CARE.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.........

[synch]

Is it stupid that I didn't see the Passion of the Christ because I know how it ends?
Same reason I didn't see Titanic.

[Whois]

Notice how Tard ignores any post that he can't argue with?

[Cashew]

What are you talking about here? According to the Bible all people are sinners.
You can't deny that. God came down and lived a sinless life (as Jesus)
He died on the cross to cover our sins. Then He rose from the dead.

NICE GUY!

Ummm, the son of Rameses according to the bible he was very young. (Or according to history he was the one on the chariots chasing the jews and the poor defenseless jews had weapons and killed off all the chariot riders including the son of Rameses.

[Cashew]

Okay my friend! The belief in God takes faith, I will not deny it. Evolution requires more faith. What makes the heart pump and continue to pump until death? Such things point to a Creator.

The Bible predicted many things, and many have come true. None have been proven false. Any true historian would consider the Bible a credible source of history.

I already shot down the heart one man, try again.

[Vladimir]

Evolution requires more faith.
Evolution doesn't require any faith at all - all you have to do is think a little bit. It makes perfect sense, whereas the creation story sounds like a fairy tale with no evidence to back it up.
Any true historian would consider the Bible a credible source of history.
That's pretty funny since next to no "true historians" take the Bible at face value like you do.

[Rosie Cotton]

5 people would have a hard time telling a story the same way. But 500 people told this story. There were no contradictions.

Hmm, the whole "no contradiction" thing is a pretty good indicator that someone was lying. Whenever cops interview eyewitnesses or suspects, they like to interview one person at a time. And before that, they keep the people seperated. Why? because if they didn't THERE WOULD BE NO CONTRADICTION.

[Ace42]

No contradictions, eh?

44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.
45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.
Matthew 27


27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.
Mark 15

And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Luke 23


18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.
John 19

http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/kjv/kjvint.htm


So, Mark and John agree there were two others executed with Jesus. Matthew says that "the thieves" (more than one) both mocked Jesus. Luke says one of them did not, and Jesus said he would go to paradise.

So, which one is wrong? Is it Matthew wrong, and only one of the thieves mocked Jesus? Or is Luke wrong, and both mocked Jesus?

That is a pretty big contradiction to me. And it neatly puts a hole straight through the "The bible is god's infallible and perfect word" argument. If you choose to put it down to human / translation error, then you can likewise do as much to the rest of the book.

QED.

[Matt]

Okay my friend! The belief in God takes faith, I will not deny it. Evolution requires more faith. What makes the heart pump and continue to pump until death? Such things point to a Creator.

The Bible predicted many things, and many have come true. None have been proven false. Any true historian would consider the Bible a credible source of history.

Believe me, ass, I've read the bible, possibly more times that you have. Most Athiests have. I find it full of holes, very contradicting, and for the most part, a dull read (though the book of Revalations had me on the edge of my seat!)

My point is, no one could take this as a true source of history because its so open to interpretation. I forgot exactly what passage it was, but this passage in the bible was used by both the anti-homosexuality front and the pro-homosexuality group to support their causes. The bible can be molded by anyone to further their own agendas.

And quit with the "500 people saw christ rise" because you will win no supporters here. And besides, its a well known fact that everyone was on crack back then. I know this because 500 people told me, and there were no contradictions.

[Dr Deaf]

k (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v105/dirt_mcdirtnap/MormonKnockKnock.jpg)nock k (http://www.haymaker.ca/images/lyrics/team_jesus.jpg)nock

[drobertson420]

EQUADOR 1995:
Recorded by Victor Chiluiza, his friend and his two cousins in Equador, South America. Victor said "At first we just saw it as a red light in the sky and five minutes later, I went out with my video camera and recorded the event." The film was shot at 11:47pm on September 9th 1995. The footage clearly depicts a structured, rotating craft easily visible against the dark night sky. Victor described the object as being like a six point star that was slowly rotating whilst making no noise what-so-ever. Allegedly, there were about 500 other people who were witnesses to this event on that particular night from the city.




Must be Jesus. ;)

[Matt]

500 Helens Agree...

[Qdrop]

Sisko is the antithesis of Ace42.....

they are the ying-yang of this board.....complete opposites......save the arrogance and stubborn nature.

if you put them together in a room....they would bubble and fizz like baking soda and vinegar....


sisko ol' boy: try this for starters (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html)

as far as why the human heart beats and why it continues to....
pick up a fucking junior high science textbook.

you really scare me...what kind/level of education do you have?....from what school?

how did this happen?....how did YOU happen? how can you be so ignorant to common scientific knowledge?

baffling.


jesus won't save you from sickness, science will.
jesus only helps rappers win awards and proffesional athletes win games.

[Monsieur Decuts]

e = mc squared.

If energy can neither be created, nor destroyed.

Where did it come from?

There's your science.

[Qdrop]

e = mc squared.

If energy can neither be created, nor destroyed.

Where did it come from?

a more difficult answer.......but i can fill you in if you wish.....


see, you could look this up yourself...if you really wanted to challenge yourself....

instead, you make people like me be your fucking internet errand boy and find blog after blog to explain your questions or spend 20 min writing an explanation out.

stop being so fucking intellectually lazy.......
look it up.

[Monsieur Decuts]

no body knows that's the point captain cranky

[100% ILL]

No contradictions, eh?



http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/kjv/kjvint.htm


So, Mark and John agree there were two others executed with Jesus. Matthew says that "the thieves" (more than one) both mocked Jesus. Luke says one of them did not, and Jesus said he would go to paradise.

So, which one is wrong? Is it Matthew wrong, and only one of the thieves mocked Jesus? Or is Luke wrong, and both mocked Jesus?

That is a pretty big contradiction to me. And it neatly puts a hole straight through the "The bible is god's infallible and perfect word" argument. If you choose to put it down to human / translation error, then you can likewise do as much to the rest of the book.

QED.

The answer is simple, and there is no contradiction. The gospels supplement one another. Matthew and Mark both say the two thieves railed on him.

Matthew 27:44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth

Mark 15:32 And they that were crucified with him reviled him

John mentions that he was crucified with two thieves and gives no further details.

John19:18 Where they crucified him and two other with him, one on either side and Jesus in the midst.

Luke is the only gospel that give the account of the repentance of one of the thieves

Luke 23:39-43 One of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him saying, If thou be the Christ, save thyself and us But the other answering rebuked him, saying Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condition............And he said unto Jesus, Lord remember me when thou commest into thy kingdom.

It is also important to note that each of the gospels reveals a different aspect of the character of Jesus Christ.

In the book of Matthew he is the covenanted King from the line of David.
Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David

The book of Mark shows the servant character of Jesus
Mark 10:45 FOr the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister.......
It is interesting to note that there is no geneology of Christ given in the book of Mark, for who would give the geneology of a servant?

In Luke he is the human divine one Luke 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. Hence the reason the account of the repentant thief is given in the gospel of Luke. Luke generally relates to how entirely human he was. His geneology is traced to Adam the first man, and the most detailed account is given about his mother, his infancy and boyhood.

In John he is the Son of God, The eternal Word, God himself manifested in Jesus Christ.
John 1:1&14 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.........And the Word became flesh and dwelt amoung us...

So the accounts given in the four gospels are simply showing a different side of the character of Christ and are supplemental to one another.

[synch]

So quoting bits of it makes no sense then?

[Qdrop]

no body knows that's the point captain cranky

you allude to the fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and it always "has been".
according to Scientific law and theory, this is true.

that takes God out of the picture, doesn't it?

it was never created....no need for God.


see, your question is flawed. if something has always been, why do you ask where it came from?
try again.

[Qdrop]

There's your science.

MY science?

Do you go to the doctor?...receive any medical care? use any form of technology?

it's your science too.....you use it everyday in everyway.

when you take a prescription, start your car, or turn on the TV...you a praying to your "other" god- science.

science provides all of those things....using the same procedures and theories that stand behind evolution and the law of thermodynamics....it is YOU who are stuck in quite the hypocritical quandry.

you can't have your cake and eat it too.....

[little j]

p.s. erm
religious 'debates' are rather pointless because there is no right or wrong answer.
although i guess that is teh case in most debates.
hmm

i'll just say the following:

i believe in god

i believe that the bible is part historical documentation and part stories, like folk stories that get passed down from generation to generation. esp. teh old testament, the stories in that part of the bible have a different feel and read differently than the ones in the new testament. the old testament books are more like stories you'd read about history anywhere. they aren't written to anyone, but more about people. the new testament, to me, reads more like a news story. and it is more written to the people reading it, than about the people in it. as seen from the formats the chapters take in the most part letters from a desciple to the churches around.

i have always found it hard to believe that human beings evolved from unicelled organisms...but not so hard to believe that we are different now than we were when created. so i believe in a kinda creationism evolutionism...thingism. :D i think with the modern advances of technology and science and medicine and how the environment has changed of course humans have changed. even over teh past few hundred years we have physically chang.

i do not and will not ever believe in teh 'big bang theory' just because life comes from life. energy from energy but energy doesn't = life. one cannot create a living thing from a non living thing through a spontaneous explosion. (that is big bang right? )

having said that my religious beliefs have not changed per say, but have evolved in the past few years. i think there is a HUGE difference between personal faith and 'religion' i think religion and church is greatly corrupt and your faith should be between you and god. not you and the pastor your bank and the church.

[synch]

Some times one verse is supposed to be read as one verse. Other times you have to take it all in context.

Check out these sites.

www.johnankerberg.com

www.billygraham.org
Could you be a teensie bit more specific? What am I supposed to see on there?

I clicked around a bit but didn't get anything other than a feeling of nausea.

Oh and Mr Graham should choose his campaign names more carefully, a "Crusade" has a bit of a nasty aftertaste.

[Monsieur Decuts]

see, your question is flawed. if something has always been, why do you ask where it came from?
try again.

In the context of the big bang doesn't it sound like science is pushing the creation of energy on us but at the same time saying you can't create it?

You can see the event horizon of the creation of our universe...but at the same time saying it couldn't have been "created" because its energy?

Or was all the energy in the world for some unexplainable reason concentrated in a teeny tiny ball?

[Monsieur Decuts]

science provides all of those things....using the same procedures and theories that stand behind evolution and the law of thermodynamics....it is YOU who are stuck in quite the hypocritical quandry.

you can't have your cake and eat it too.....

I have a few science degrees and have witnessed its beauty in many different forms. I've proven theories in labs and have created new life on my own. One thing all of this taught me, is that this wonderful dance that our universe needs to dance to survive leads to more questions than answers.
One's that could never be answered by science.

Remember in science all you need is a hypothesis and then to be able to argue better than the next guy that your resuts prove your hypothesis.

Science = Politcs = Captalism... which is why you can get a better boner but you can't cure your HIV.

[synch]

I have some supporters here (not very many but some)
I don't site here and talk about Jesus because it's good for my health. I actually care about you and everyone. I care about where you spend forever!
God Bless My Friend and Merry Christmass!! (The day Christ was born)
I appreciate what you are trying to do but to be honest I'd rather take my chances in the afterlife than getting lectured in my actual life.

Which reminds me of a quote from a tv series:
"If I believe in the afterlife? I'd settle for a life in this one."

Some times one verse is supposed to be read as one verse. Other times you have to take it all in context.

Check out these sites.

www.johnankerberg.com

www.billygraham.org
Those two sites illustrate perfectly what is wrong with your statement. The way the bible is supposed to be read is not the way someone tells you to, you are supposed to come to your own conclusions based on your values, not those of someone else.

I decided at early age (not sure how old I was but I reckon I was around ten) that I wasn't sure of the existance of god, but that if he existed... churches and priests had nothing to do with his will. I still believe that to be true. Faith is something between you and god, and no man in a fancy suit or a dress should be telling you how to interpret things. The words of the bible can be molded to make any point and they get used for that exact purpose. That is what annoys me about the bible, the way that it's abused and not the actual book itself.

[Monsieur Decuts]

the man question it boils down to is:

Do you believe that because scientific laws exist, that the laws are self governing and co-incedental, or you believe that there they are administered and purposfully created to enable human life to exist?

Both can be argued to the ends, but what else in life just "exists" without creation. Why should one believe everything just "is" when nothing else in life can just "be" without some outside influence.

[Qdrop]

i believe that the bible is part historical documentation and part stories, like folk stories that get passed down from generation to generation. esp. teh old testament, the stories in that part of the bible have a different feel and read differently than the ones in the new testament. the old testament books are more like stories you'd read about history anywhere. they aren't written to anyone, but more about people. the new testament, to me, reads more like a news story. and it is more written to the people reading it, than about the people in it. as seen from the formats the chapters take in the most part letters from a desciple to the churches around.


seems like you are talking yourself right out of believing in the accuracy of the bible.....keep going. finish your thought.....


i have always found it hard to believe that human beings evolved from unicelled organisms...


your innability to understand does not make it untrue....that's called an argument from incongruity...."i don't understand it, so i don't believe it"
can you explain to me, scientifically, how a plane flies?..but yet it does.


but not so hard to believe that we are different now than we were when created. so i believe in a kinda creationism evolutionism...thingism. :D i think with the modern advances of technology and science and medicine and how the environment has changed of course humans have changed. even over teh past few hundred years we have physically chang.

then why is a total belief in evolution such a big leap for you?
you're saying you believe in micro evolution (change within a species) but not macro evoltion (one species evolving from another)...this a classic creationist cop-out. a cop-out not driven by scientific beliefs, but rather dogmatic religious ones. and the fear of congnative dissonance (hypocracy of the brain). you feel that evolution makes sense....but to totally believe in it would make your religion false- and you can't have that!!...so you believe in "just enough" of evoltion to make you feel smart and not ignorant.


i do not and will not ever believe in teh 'big bang theory' just because life comes from life. energy from energy but energy doesn't = life.

you fail to give an example why.....just that "i don't believe...SO THERE!"


one cannot create a living thing from a non living thing through a spontaneous explosion. (that is big bang right? )

no....you're all mixed up. "a living thing from a non living thing" is called abiogenesis. and it is possible:

"Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.) "
- www.talkorigins.org

keep reading, keep learning.......it'll come.

[Qdrop]

In the context of the big bang doesn't it sound like science is pushing the creation of energy on us but at the same time saying you can't create it?

You can see the event horizon of the creation of our universe...but at the same time saying it couldn't have been "created" because its energy?

Or was all the energy in the world for some unexplainable reason concentrated in a teeny tiny ball?

the "world"?...you mean the universe.

you have several science degrees? really?
from where?
indulge me.

all current studies and populare scientific opinion point towards a big bang or an initial explosion from a singularity that expanded to all the current matter an energy in existance today.

but this does not preclude that THAT big bang was the first, or the last!

big bang, big crunch (matter all comes back together back into a singularity), then big bang, then big crunch.
a never ending cycle without end or beginning.
no god necessary.

read some stephen hawkings......

so i take you're an "intelligent design"er....eh?

[little j]

^ actually the life begets life (living things come from other living things) comes from my biology class.

im not talking myself out of anything. simply stating what i believe.
im sure there is a scientific explanation as to why planes fly. you should definitely look that up.
its not that i dont understand evolution. its not that i haven't seen cells split and multiply. that i haven't measured the skulls of apes and humans and chimps.
what im saying is that if humans evoloved from unicellular organisms, why are there still unicellular organisms around? what i think is that god created everything. he created bacteria and protists and fungi and plants and animals and humans and through the years everything has grown and changed. some things haven't changed since creation, and some things have, just according to environmental needs. that is my theory.

its called the theory of jessica

its the hottest new thing.

[Monsieur Decuts]

the "world"?...you mean the universe.

you have several science degrees? really?
from where?
indulge me.

all current studies and populare scientific opinion point towards a big bang or an initial explosion from a singularity that expanded to all the current matter an energy in existance today.

but this does not preclude that THAT big bang was the first, or the last!

big bang, big crunch (matter all comes back together back into a singularity), then big bang, then big crunch.
a never ending cycle without end or beginning.
no god necessary.

read some stephen hawkings......

so i take you're an "intelligent design"er....eh?

Ya his theory of in a nutshell boook or whatever is one that has made me question even more because everything ends on a cliff hanger..."the theory of everything will answer that" sort of thing.

What happens to life when the universe begins to shrink again? Does entropy reverse and complex molecules begin flying apart..does all matter revert back to H molecules? Then what another period of evolution?

Just cause Hawkings wrote it doens't make it true...these theories are all just that...very very hard to prove..hypothesis.

I respect your intellect in this discussion..you seem well versed with thought out opinons...no one can knock that.

[racer5.0stang]

1 Corinthians 2:14

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[Ace42]

The answer is simple, and there is no contradiction. The gospels supplement one another. Matthew and Mark both say the two thieves railed on him.

con·tra·dic·tion Audio pronunciation of "contradiction" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kntr-dkshn)
n.

Inconsistency; discrepancy.

If one person says "Two people did something" and another says "one person did it, the other person did the exact opposite" only one of them can be right. Hence there is a "discrepancy" between the accounts.

So the accounts given in the four gospels are simply showing a different side of the character of Christ and are supplemental to one another.

And to do this, two different books say two contradicting and mutually exclusive things. One says both did, the other says only one did. They cannot both be literally true.

The only conclusion can be: Pieces of the book are wrong.

And if pieces are wrong, that makes it impossible for the whole text to be literally true.

You are quite right that because the books are trying to tell us different things about Jesus, they might well tell us different things about him. But when two accounts are in direct conflict with each other, that can only tell us *IT IS NOT LITERALLY TRUE*.

Whether Luke added his little story to make Jesus seem nicer, or Matthew decided to say they BOTH rebuked Jesus because he wanted to make Jesus seem more persecuted, they both cannot be right.

That makes fundamentalism clearly nonsense, as it the only way it can thus be valid is if you treat it as a metaphor or allegory. Which means it IS open to interpretation, and is not "the pure divine word of God, uncorrupted by human hand"

[Ace42]

1 Corinthians 2:14

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Heh, again, an easy cop out, Racerstang. Your book cannot be literally true, because it has inherant contradictions. For example the one I clearly outlined. Now you can either persist in believing it literally, and ignoring the fact that two of the Gospels give accounts which cannot BOTH be true, or you can accept that it cannot be taken literally true, and certainly cannot be the "pure unadulterated word of God" and start taking an active and intellectual interest in your religion, instead of blindly following the stupid.

Or let me guess, you don't take the bible literally when it says something that is self-contradictory. You only take it literally when it is saying something you PERSONALLY agree with.

[Qdrop]

im not talking myself out of anything. simply stating what i believe.
im sure there is a scientific explanation as to why planes fly. you should definitely look that up.

gasp! your sarcasm stings!!

you missed the point.
or you just ignored it.


its not that i dont understand evolution. its not that i haven't seen cells split and multiply. that i haven't measured the skulls of apes and humans and chimps.
what im saying is that if humans evoloved from unicellular organisms, why are there still unicellular organisms around?

see, you DON'T understand evolution....or else you wouldn't be asking that question.


what i think is that god created everything. he created bacteria and protists and fungi and plants and animals and humans and through the years everything has grown and changed. some things haven't changed since creation, and some things have, just according to environmental needs. that is my theory.

yes yes...it's called microevolution, we already established that...and it's not your theory.

you really didn't answer any of my points.
whatever...live your life, blunt your intellect.
cool.

[Qdrop]

Ya his theory of in a nutshell boook or whatever is one that has made me question even more because everything ends on a cliff hanger..."the theory of everything will answer that" sort of thing.

What happens to life when the universe begins to shrink again? Does entropy reverse and complex molecules begin flying apart..does all matter revert back to H molecules? Then what another period of evolution?

Just cause Hawkings wrote it doens't make it true...these theories are all just that...very very hard to prove..hypothesis.

I respect your intellect in this discussion..you seem well versed with thought out opinons...no one can knock that.

well thank you.

but Hawking theories are much easier to swallow then "God made it"

...wouldn't you agree?

(of course you wouldn't)
;)

[Whois]

no body knows that's the point captain cranky

Qdrip thinks every web page is a fucking blog... :rolleyes:

[Qdrop]

Qdrip thinks every web page is a fucking blog... :rolleyes:

yeah yeah......sites and blogs (short for web log) are differant. but most of the links posted on here are basically blogs of some nature.

point taken.

my E-penis
8====D

your E=penis
8===========D

congrats.

[100% ILL]

My point being that in Matthew and Mark the thieves railed on him, in John it says he was hung with two thieves. In Luke we see that one of the thieves repented. It was out lined in Luke to show the Divine Human nature of Jesus Christ compassionate the savior.
The four gospels together give a complete picture of Jesus the King/Messiah from the line of David, The servant/sacrifice, the Son of man which came to seek and to save that which was lost, and The Son of God/God himself manifested as a man.

The chronological order of the events at the crucifixtion: (1) The arival at Golgotha (Matt 27:33; Mark 15:22; Luke 23:33; John 19:17)
(2) The offer of the drink refused (Mt 27:34; Mk 15:23)
(3) Jesus crucified between two thieves ( Mt 27:35-38; Mk 15:24-28; Lk
23:33-38; John 19:18-24)
(4) He utters his first cry from the cross "Father forgive them,"( Luke 23:34 )
(5) The soldiers part his garments ( Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:34;
(John19:23)
(6) The Jews mock Jesus ( Mt 27:39-44; Mk 15:29-32; Lk 23:35-38)
(7) The thieves rail on him, but one repents and believes (Mt 27:44; Mk 15:32 Lk 23:39-43)
(8) The second cry from the cross, "Today thou shalt be with me in paradise" Luke 23:43
(9) The third cry "woman behold thy son" John 19:26,27
(10) The darkness (Mt 27:45' Mk 15:33; Luke 23:44)
(11) The fourth cry, "My God, etc. (Mt 27:46,47; Mk 15:34-36)
(12) The fifth cry, "I thirst" (John 19:28)
(13) The sixth cry, "It is finished" (John 19:30)
(14) The seventh cry, "Father into thy hands." etc (Lk 23:46)
(15) Jesus dismisses his spirit ( Mt 27:50; Mk 15:37; Lk 23:46; John 19:30)
So it is evident by this that all of the gospels share different aspects of the events that took place on the cross, therby manifesting the nature of the Christ.
Some give a more detailed account of his life, and others give a more detailed account of his death,burial and ressurection.

[yeahwho]

Jesus and George Bush are having quite a day, let's start with this statistic (http://www.legalhardware.com/economics/deficits.jpg), which doesn't seem to effect these folks (http://www.conocophillips.com/investor/stock_info/chart.asp) who all seem to make great money while God fearing Christians do their part and help with GWB's American REvolution (http://www.chevrolet.com/).

Of course Bush and Jesus are working on a moral (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/202799_abuse08.html) agenda and spreading these morals around the world (http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/worldwide_pollution_levels.html?12102004) so all can see the good of a Born Again Christian President (http://www.texecutions.com/).

Just thought I'd throw some politics at all you Jesus guys who like to throw some Jesus at all us politics guys.

Much more coming, a whole onslaught of political trolling coming SOON to your Jesus thread.

[Ace42]

(7) The thieves rail on him, but one repents and believes (Mt 27:44; Mk 15:32 Lk 23:39-43)

ONLY Luke says one repents. AND He repents from the outset and rebukes the other thief. He doesn't rebuke Jesus, then repent having done it.

So it is evident by this that all of the gospels share different aspects of the events that took place on the cross, therby manifesting the nature of the Christ.
Some give a more detailed account of his life, and others give a more detailed account of his death,burial and ressurection.

And two say two things which are very very different and mutually exclusive.

One says "both thieves rebuked him" the other says "only one thief rebuked him"

That is very very different. The reasons for the two accounts contradicting each other are irrelevant. It still means that they cannot both be literally true.

[Qdrop]

ace and 100% Ill:

you guys are splitting hairs down to the fuckin molecule.

don't you every get bored of this?

[100% ILL]

ONLY Luke says one repents. AND He repents from the outset and rebukes the other thief. He doesn't rebuke Jesus, then repent having done it.



And two say two things which are very very different and mutually exclusive.

One says "both thieves rebuked him" the other says "only one thief rebuked him"

That is very very different. The reasons for the two accounts contradicting each other are irrelevant. It still means that they cannot both be literally true.

On the contrary sir, two of the books say that he was railed on by the thieves, Luke indicates that one of the thieves repented. It obviously was not from the outset that the one thief repented. If you look in verses 32,33 of Luke 23, you will see that they were crucified together. Then in verses 35-37 he was mocked by the people and the soldiers. It isn't until verse 40 that the thief repents, so it wasn't from the outset. Verse 44 indicates that it was about the sixth hour. Mark 15:25 indicates he was crucified at the third hour so it wan't until three hours after they had been hanging on the cross that the thief repented.

[synch]

So the discussion is now about how many thieves made fun of Jesus?

Mkay...

Have fun!

[Ace42]

It isn't until verse 40 that the thief repents, so it wasn't from the outset. Verse 44 indicates that it was about the sixth hour. Mark 15:25 indicates he was crucified at the third hour so it wan't until three hours after they had been hanging on the cross that the thief repented.

And yet:

39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

"one of them railed on him"

Not "And they both railed on him, and then one changed his mind"

The fact that there were hours inbetween is neither here nor there. You could likewise argue that in those three hours, God said to everyone "watch out for Paul, he'll say he is a believer, but he's an intollerant cunt!"

Doesn't the bible say "If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book"

How is adding, despite there being no indication whatsoever, that Luke meant (despite the language suggesting otherwise) "then one of them changed his mind" not "adding to these things" ?

Well, adding "but in the middle, some other stuff happened" is adding to the bible, and thus literally wrong.

[100% ILL]

And yet:



"one of them railed on him"

Not "And they both railed on him, and then one changed his mind"

The fact that there were hours inbetween is neither here nor there. You could likewise argue that in those three hours, God said to everyone "watch out for Paul, he'll say he is a believer, but he's an intollerant cunt!"

Doesn't the bible say "whosoever adds to this account blah blah woe unto them." ?

Well, adding "but in the middle, some other stuff happened" is adding to the bible, and thus literally wrong.

Clearly Matthew and Mark indicate that he WAS railed on by both thieves, and Luke gives the more detailed account of the repentant thief.
I am not adding to the account just clearly pointing out that the accounts are supplementary to each other, not contrary.
Likewise in the books of Matt Mark and Luke when Jesus is praying in the garden of Gethsemane, he prays for the Father to allow this cup to pass from him; In the book of John that prayer is not recorded because in his character as The Son of God he does not make that request, instead we see the prayer of intercession given on our behalf to the Father indicating a heavenly relationship between the two.

[100% ILL]

So the discussion is now about how many thieves made fun of Jesus?

Mkay...

Have fun!


The discussion is more along the lines of is the Bible infallible? We are discussing the significance of the different accounts given in the four gospels of Jesus' crucifixtion. See Post #41 ect. And yes an intillectual debate is enjoyable, as opposed to the "Your and idiot" posts

[yeahwho]

Jesus (http://www.wiseass.org/html/content-jesus.html) is no George W. Bush.

[Qdrop]

The discussion is more along the lines of is the Bible infallible? We are discussing the significance of the different accounts given in the four gospels of Jesus' crucifixtion. See Post #41 ect.

yes, but you are both splitting hairs.....

obviously the bible is fallable.......

technically speaking, the bible could not be entered into a court of law on numerous grounds.....

one could have a very quick "list of points" post which prove this .

plus, at this point....you could take this discussion off-line.
but i think you guys just like seeing your posts.....

[Ace42]

Clearly Matthew and Mark indicate that he WAS railed on by both thieves, and Luke gives the more detailed account of the repentant thief.
I am not adding to the account just clearly pointing out that the accounts are supplementary to each other, not contrary.

And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

*ONE* of the malefactors railed on him. Not "both of the malefactors railed on him." Not "One of the malefactors then went further in his railings against him."

Not "one of the malefactors in his railings said - to which the second thief took exception."

If by "supplementary" you mean one states quite clearly that *ONE* (not two, ONE) of the thieves railed against him, and another gospel clearly says BOTH railed against him, then, yes, they supplement each other.

Also contradict. There is NO evidence whatsoever to indicate that BOTH thieves in Luke were railing. So far the only thing you have to offer is "they had been on the cross for a few hours by then."

To interpret Luke saying "One of the malefactors railed on him" as "One of the malefactors continued the ongoing process of ridiculing him" is perverse to say the least.

Now, tell me, what is the passage fundamentalists always like to quote when it comes to the word of God not being open to interpretation?

"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." - That is the version of 2 Tim 3:16 that Racerstang likes to band about. Interestingly enough, the KJA version has quite a different take on this, thus permitting interpretation. However, as a fundamentalist, I am assuming you read it as the same as quoted here.

If you believe the bible is the literally truth, then read it literally, instead of adding your supposition (that the words mean other than their literal gramatical usage) to it. Something fundamentalists are fundamentally against.

[yeahwho]

Jesus Song for the Jesus Thead. Singalong now (http://jesuspenis.ericschwartz.com/media/video/JP_Full2.wmv)

[Qdrop]

"when you sing here, you disrespect other serious posters."





;)

[Ali]

Same reason I didn't see Titanic. Hahahahaahahaha

Made my day (y)

[100% ILL]

*ONE* of the malefactors railed on him. Not "both of the malefactors railed on him." Not "One of the malefactors then went further in his railings against him."

Not "one of the malefactors in his railings said - to which the second thief took exception."

If by "supplementary" you mean one states quite clearly that *ONE* (not two, ONE) of the thieves railed against him, and another gospel clearly says BOTH railed against him, then, yes, they supplement each other.

Also contradict. There is NO evidence whatsoever to indicate that BOTH thieves in Luke were railing. So far the only thing you have to offer is "they had been on the cross for a few hours by then."

To interpret Luke saying "One of the malefactors railed on him" as "One of the malefactors continued the ongoing process of ridiculing him" is perverse to say the least.

Now, tell me, what is the passage fundamentalists always like to quote when it comes to the word of God not being open to interpretation?

"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." - That is the version of 2 Tim 3:16 that Racerstang likes to band about. Interestingly enough, the KJA version has quite a different take on this, thus permitting interpretation. However, as a fundamentalist, I am assuming you read it as the same as quoted here.

If you believe the bible is the literally truth, then read it literally, instead of adding your supposition (that the words mean other than their literal gramatical usage) to it. Something fundamentalists are fundamentally against.
There are a couple different ones actually; I Peter 1:20,21
Knowing this first that no prohecy of the scripture is open to any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they wee moved by the Holy Ghost.

II Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by ispiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
I have added no supposition. I see it as a whole and you see it in part only. The books indicate in two places that both of the thieves railed on him, Matthew and Mark. The book of Luke gives a detailed account of one of the thieves repenting. in Luke his character was to seek and to save that which was lost, so it seems perfectly sound to me that Luke provides the only discription of the repentant thief. The other gospels focus on other aspects of the character of Christ so a more general account of the thieves is given. The fact that one of them repented cannot be denied. The fact that they both railed on him cannot be denied. The four gospels are not a mirror image of each other. Some acts of Jesus are recorded in one, but not the other. The supposed contradiction in the text is merelly an oversight on your part to accurately interpret all the information that is given in the individual gsopels themselves. Togther the gospels set forth not a biography, but a personality.

[D_Raay]

Just cause Hawkings wrote it doens't make it true...
Versus some poster on a board, Hawking IS the definitive truth.

[synch]

Hahahahaahahaha

Made my day (y)
Glad to be of service ;)

[synch]

And yes an intillectual debate is enjoyable, as opposed to the "Your and idiot" posts
An intellectual debate about religion is also nearly as pointless unless the parties involved haven't already made up their mind :)

These threads are about as intellectual as "am not" "am too!" "am not!" "am too!!".

But that's just my opinion of course... :)

[yeahwho]

Jesus would you look at this! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4079201.stm)

[Ace42]

The book of Luke gives a detailed account of one of the thieves repenting.

Detailed in that it is the only one that mentions it, and then only in one or two sentences.

The fact that one of them repented cannot be denied. The fact that they both railed on him cannot be denied.

Although Luke is the only one who says one did (and the word "repented" is NOT used.)

The supposed contradiction in the text is merelly an oversight on your part to accurately interpret all the information that is given in the individual gsopels themselves. Togther the gospels set forth not a biography, but a personality.

"accurately interpret" - I Peter 1:20,21
Knowing this first that no prohecy of the scripture is open to any private interpretation.

And I am just going on what it says literally. Luke says catergorically, "One thief railed"

You are interpreting "one thief railed" as "both thieves railed like it says in the other gospels."

That is NOT what it says. Now, if you choose to interpret it to mean that "one thief railed, and then the other one stop railing" - that is fair enough, I can see why that would be a preferable interpretation. I would interpret it the same way.

However, *I* am not a fundamentalist who believes it has to be taken literally and is not open to interpretation.

If you take it *literally* (IE not using interpretation, which Peter precludes) then your *interpretation* does not hold water.

So, if you are more than willing to "add bits from other books of the bible in to try to get it to make sense" then you could likewise insert Jesus's comments about false prophets following him RIGHT BEFORE ROMANS, and say "Romans is obviously an example of the false prophets spreading hate and intollerance in the name of Jesus"

"The bible is meant to be seen as a whole. So when Jesus says "he who is without sin can cast the first stone", he ACTUALLY meant that in the context of the old testament in that if you have sacrificed a goat in the last few months you should. And it just so happened that no-one in that village had."

Feh. If you are going to change what the words Luke said actually mean just to make it fit in with the other gospels, why not just rewrite the whole damn book from scratch?

[100% ILL]

yes, but you are both splitting hairs.....

obviously the bible is fallable.......

technically speaking, the bible could not be entered into a court of law on numerous grounds.....

one could have a very quick "list of points" post which prove this .

plus, at this point....you could take this discussion off-line.
but i think you guys just like seeing your posts.....


I see three errors here. your use of the word obviously would seem to indicate that it is a foregone conclusion. Mabey to you but certainly not proven

Technically, which would seem to indicate you had done some research on a subject you seem to know nothing about, beyond what I've seen from some of your other more enlightened posts. "God/Jesus, don't exsist" and the profound "you guys are just a bunch of idiots" post; and how can I forget the "OOh Dragons and fairies!........I love stories"
My point being, If you care to discuss I would be more than happy to discuss, but please don't quote me and then break into some rant about how obviously and technically wrong the Bible is.
Thirdly "you think" we like seeing our own posts which would indicate that you know what we both are thinking which I am quite certain you do not. I for one can only speak for myself, I would never be so presumptous as to speak on behalf of Ace 42.
My point being, you had no real point other than to disrupt the discussion. which you did.

[100% ILL]

Detailed in that it is the only one that mentions it, and then only in one or two sentences.



Although Luke is the only one who says one did (and the word "repented" is NOT used.)



"accurately interpret" -

And I am just going on what it says literally. Luke says catergorically, "One thief railed"

You are interpreting "one thief railed" as "both thieves railed like it says in the other gospels."

That is NOT what it says. Now, if you choose to interpret it to mean that "one thief railed, and then the other one stop railing" - that is fair enough, I can see why that would be a preferable interpretation. I would interpret it the same way.

However, *I* am not a fundamentalist who believes it has to be taken literally and is not open to interpretation.

If you take it *literally* (IE not using interpretation, which Peter precludes) then your *interpretation* does not hold water.

So, if you are more than willing to "add bits from other books of the bible in to try to get it to make sense" then you could likewise insert Jesus's comments about false prophets following him RIGHT BEFORE ROMANS, and say "Romans is obviously an example of the false prophets spreading hate and intollerance in the name of Jesus"

"The bible is meant to be seen as a whole. So when Jesus says "he who is without sin can cast the first stone", he ACTUALLY meant that in the context of the old testament in that if you have sacrificed a goat in the last few months you should. And it just so happened that no-one in that village had."

Feh. If you are going to change what the words Luke said actually mean just to make it fit in with the other gospels, why not just rewrite the whole damn book from scratch?
In the Old-testament law the sacrifice was offered as atonement (reconciliation) for sin. Sins were covered by the blood of the sacrificed animal. Hence the High priest had to go into the Holy of Holies once every year to give an offering of atonement for the Isralite people, in addition to the offerings of atonement they had personally given. So that being the case their sins were merely covered, that is why they went down to paradise and not up to heaven.
So the men who were going to cast stones at the women all had sin

Jesus gives remission of sins or removes sin. That is why he is so significant.
Hence the reason for the vail in the temple being ripped in two when he died signifing no more need for sacrifice as he had taken away all sin by his sacrifice.

[yeahwho]

My point being, you had no real point other than to disrupt the discussion. which you did.

And many a poster would agree with you. If one were to perchance go through the threads on the BBMB general political discussion board one would see a definate pattern of serious political topics being co-opted by scripture. Fucking don't need Jesus to reappear to pass a bill in congress. Get it. It isn't about my beliefs, it's about the freedom of beliefs and the right for each individual to have their freedoms.

It is very gratifying for me to post man made political problems on your Jesus thread. Things that need man made solutions, not a vision or premonition, but actually grabbing the hoe. Faith without works is dead.

[100% ILL]

And many a poster would agree with you. If one were to perchance go through the threads on the BBMB general political discussion board one would see a definate pattern of serious political topics being co-opted by scripture. Fucking don't need Jesus to reappear to pass a bill in congress. Get it. It isn't about my beliefs, it's about the freedom of beliefs and the right for each individual to have their freedoms.

It is very gratifying for me to post man made political problems on your Jesus thread. Things that need man made solutions, not a vision or premonition, but actually grabbing the hoe. Faith without works is dead.

Indeed, man made solutions for man made problems. I have no argument with you in particular. But I'm pleased that you are gratified to post on the Jesus thread; which by the way is not mine but Qdrops

[yeahwho]

Indeed, man made solutions for man made problems. I have no argument with you in particular. But I'm pleased that you are gratified to post on the Jesus thread; which by the way is not mine but Qdrops

Yeah...what's up with that, your co-opting Q's Jesus thread. Your a very tricky individual....must be all that prayer. :D

[Qdrop]

If one were to perchance go through the threads on the BBMB general political discussion board one would see a definate pattern of serious political topics being co-opted by scripture.

my point exactly.......thank you.

[yeahwho]

Things are so tight financially Madam Tussaud had to double for this years Nativity (http://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/2004/12/07/nativityscene/) scene. Checkout the 3 wisemen.

[Qdrop]

Things are so tight financially Madam Tussaud had to double for this years Nativity (http://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/2004/12/07/nativityscene/) scene. Checkout the 3 wisemen.

i saw this on the Today show this morning.
great stuff.
Posh spice as Mary. hystarical...

[100% ILL]

Yeah...what's up with that, your co-opting Q's Jesus thread. Your a very tricky individual....must be all that prayer. :D

Must be

[Whois]

http://www.cthulhulives.org/solsticecarol.html

http://www.cthulhulives.org/Solstice/GOOplayer.html

"Eat them up...yum."

[Monsieur Decuts]

^ apreciates the fish head reference

[Rosie Cotton]

Things are so tight financially Madam Tussaud had to double for this years Nativity (http://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/2004/12/07/nativityscene/) scene. Checkout the 3 wisemen.

SOmehow I don't think Joseph was as good looking as Becks.

[D_Raay]

Ok I can't ignore this thread any longer. Like an itch I have to scratch.

We're hoping for miracles, we may not be paying sufficient attention to the here and now — and thinking about what certain actions actually mean. This is how our once free country has degenerated into a corporate zombie plundered by its own leaders.

Much in the same way the Indians sold Manhattan to the Dutch for a bucketful of trivial trinkets, we abdicate our responsibility for controlling the events that shape our lives in exchange either for cash, which we then spend on our own kind of trinkets, or for some nebulous blessings in the spiritual sphere, which have never been known to have any effects at all on events in the real world.

Oh sure, in our frustration with this nasty assembly line of current events in which murder and lies have become the norm rather than the exception, it’s easy to throw up our hands and beg for a miracle. This is just a simple expression of frustrated hope.

But on a deeper level, if we wait for miracles, we guarantee the miracle we seek will not happen. Because the problem that needs fixing with a miracle, whatever it is, will never be fixed until we fix it ourselves. That is the real message in wishing for a miracle. The realization that our fate, whether we know it or not, is in our own hands.

Put it this way. You know how people say, “The truth will all come out in the wash?”

This statement is untrue, demonstrably so. On most occasions, particularly having to do with political assassinations or the real causes of wars, the truth absolutely never comes out. This is the lesson that keeps the power brokers devising and conducting new and more heinous schemes to fleece the stupid populace. They never get caught. Ever.

Think about it. We never solved the assassination of Lincoln, for God’s sake. John Wilkes Booth, according to some, lived out his life on a plush estate in Europe after doing Abe because he printed his own money. Or how about Zachary Taylor? Damn few people even know he was a president, never mind that he WAS assassinated, felled by poisoned strawberries, a gift from bankers who opposed his principled stand against private banks.

Every president who was ever assassinated spoke of the government wresting control of the currency from the international bankers shortly before his demise. Check it out. Taylor, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy.

Then take a look at more recent debacles: Waco, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, Flight 800, Wellstone, 9/11. How about the 2004 election? No, the truth does not always come out in the wash. In fact, it never does. Probably the best, most astonishing story in this category is about World War Two. Who wanted war and who didn’t? Do you think you know?

It’s a great opportunity to gauge the level of your own brainwashing that I’m offering you.

And now, with the world in disarray, with the possibility of solving some problems totally distorted by corporate media which refuse to provide honest, objective accountings of the problems that beset us, with politicians claiming they are representatives of God killing MILLIONS of people — including the very soldiers who are fighting FOR them .... hoping for a miracle is the surest way to make sure these problems are never solved.

The miracle you seek assures your inaction. The real miracle would be if people were to suddenly awaken and really do something about the lies that are being told. But as history shows so clearly and so tragically, this is another miracle that will never happen. And waiting for it is the surest way to make sure it won’t.

Of course, the biggest miracle of all is also the biggest lie, that Jesus rose again from the dead. This so-called miracle provides the template and the conditioning for all these other lies to be accepted. The lie that America is trying to spread democracy throughout the world by stifling the truth about what it’s really doing and snuffing out the lives of all those who simply want their own freedom is directly tied into the myth that Jesus rose again from the dead.

Just listen to the evangelicals if you don’t believe me. Listen to your alleged president. Or worse, listen to the “civilized” Protestants who say, oh, those fools like Bush and Falwell not really Christians, and, in the same ways Jews attempt to distance themselves from Zionists to avoid responsibility for the carnage in Gaza, deny the unsavory fact that Bush and Falwell ARE in fact the real Christians, following their bloody Old Testament orders with that characteristic retributive hatred flaming from their eyes.

If you believe the legend of Christ’s sacrifice then you believe that he told you to accept authority. It follows then that you also believe the legend that Bush talks to Jesus, and the history of hundreds of millions of pagan corpses sacrificed to this same lie should clearly show you what it really means. The miracle of Christianity is not eternal life, it’s mass murder.

Thus is America a Christian nation following the dictates of its messiah. Let the innocent keep dying as the world is bathed in blood. And wishing for an intervention by Jesus becomes extremely problematic.

The miracle, you see, is a lie, and if you’re waiting for it, the only thing you guarantee is that the carnage will continue.

On the other hand, if you have courage — real courage, not the kind they bribe you with in the holy books — you do have the ability to work the real miracle all by yourself.

The basic lie that everybody tells themselves is very, very simple. The most terrible truth of all that everyone struggles to ignore is that we die, and that fundamentally delusional behavior affects everything that we do. That thought, debilitating though it is, must preface every action you take in life, because, in fact, it does.

This is the real enlightenment, and most of the most enlightened people in the world refuse to comprehend it. We are only here for an instant, and we have but one chance to make things right. We invent all these fantasies to convince ourselves that we don't die, and in pursuit of those fantasies, continue to destroy everything on this earth, including ourselves.

Precious few people have the courage to see this, but if we don't — and soon — the human species is finished, an evolutionary dead end consumed by its own fear.

And now you have some idea of the miracle we really need. No one else can save us, and in fact, we cannot save ourselves. But what we can do — and must — is to use our little interlude of time in existence to be conscious of our predicament and demonstrate our compassion to try to alleviate the fear of others. No other course really makes sense, as the glint in the eyes of those you love will tell you, every time. In this life, a little kindness is all that is required.

Just this little bit will be enough to stop the random killing. From there, a real future is possible.

Look into your hands, palms up. Study the lines and the air that circulates above them. You are looking at the real miracle. It is in your hands, and mine. It is the only way to stop the madness.

The miracle you seek is only a mirage unless you make it happen yourself. I know this sounds all too smarmy and New Agey to be believed, especially in the face of the military monster that casts its lethal shadow over all our lives, but let me stress there is no mystery to solving the problems of the world, and there is no need to hope for a miracle.

It is only a matter of numbers, of people acting honestly with conscience. And if you choose to believe in a benevolent creator, don’t you think it’s time for you to help rescue his reputation from all these fools in black cassocks who continue to support all this needless killing in his name?

OK, I have said my piece, now I will return to trying to be funny for the most part for risk of condemnation from some who would call me preachy or over-dramatic.

[yeahwho]

The final judgement
The Seven Seals
The Seven Trumpets
Apocaman (http://www.e-sheep.com/apocamon/) Episodes 1 & 2 are ready for your viewing pleasure.

[drobertson420]

...energy can neither be created nor destroyed, .

http://www.matthawkins.co.uk/guts-se/graphics/end_credits/bomb.jpg

..But we have fun trying....

[Whois]

The final judgement
The Seven Seals
The Seven Trumpets
Apocaman (http://www.e-sheep.com/apocamon/) Episodes 1 & 2 are ready for your viewing pleasure.

Yay, the first two chapters are now FREE!

Now THAT'S a cards game...

[Whois]

Ok I can't ignore this thread any longer. Like an itch I have to scratch.

We're hoping for miracles, we may not be paying sufficient attention to the here and now — and thinking about what certain actions actually mean. This is how our once free country has degenerated into a corporate zombie plundered by its own leaders.

<SNIP>


It is only a matter of numbers, of people acting honestly with conscience. And if you choose to believe in a benevolent creator, don’t you think it’s time for you to help rescue his reputation from all these fools in black cassocks who continue to support all this needless killing in his name?

OK, I have said my piece, now I will return to trying to be funny for the most part for risk of condemnation from some who would call me preachy or over-dramatic.

Sorry, I didn't think reposting the whole thing was needed.

(y) (y) - That was really well done.

[100% ILL]

- The Condition of God-
The Law

(1) Thou shalt have no other God's before me.

(2) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

(3) Thou shalt not take the nake of the Lord thy God in vain;for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

(4) Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thy labour , and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant , nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all tht in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.

(5) Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

(6) Thou shalt not kill.

(7) Thou shalt not commit adultery

(8) Thou shalt not steal

(9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

(10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbours

Exodus 20:3-17


- The Condition of Man-

As it is written, there is none righteous, no not one
Romans 3:10

For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God
Romans 3:23


-The Penalty-

Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:20

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned
Romans 5:12

For the wages of sin is death
Romans 6:23a


- The Condition of Grace-

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.
Romans 5:8

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Johns 3:16
For God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
John 3:17

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 6:23

- Will You Accept God's grace ?-

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:9-10

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Romans 10:13


Will You reject God's grace?


He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:18

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
John 3:36

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Revelation 20:15


- The Invitation is always available to anyone who will-

Behold I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door I will come into him.
Revelation 3:20

It's all up to you.........The Lord is not slack concerning his promises as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

[Ace42]

It's funny, if you discount the words of "St Paul the Christian-slayer and homophobe" one of the few founders of the Christian church who NEVER MET THE SON OF GOD, then your list of rules is a little bit light.

[Matt]

I have some supporters here (not very many but some)
I don't site here and talk about Jesus because it's good for my health. I actually care about you and everyone. I care about where you spend forever!
God Bless My Friend and Merry Christmass!! (The day Christ was born)

No rebuttal? I don't care that you "care" about me. You don't even know me. I care about you backing up your arguement with something other than "The Bible is historical fact." It's not. Its a big fairy tale.

[D_Raay]

Sorry, I didn't think reposting the whole thing was needed.

(y) (y) - That was really well done.
Ah well, doesn't seem I even made a dent though. I will start ignoring this thread again. Thank you.

[Monsieur Decuts]

No rebuttal? I don't care that you "care" about me. You don't even know me. I care about you backing up your arguement with something other than "The Bible is historical fact." It's not. Its a big fairy tale.

Prove its a fairy tail!

Matt your argument is as false as the argument you are calling false.

There is no proof baby...only faith.

[Daisy]

OK, this issue bothers me as well.

I don't see where politics and religion are supposed to mix. Some mix it but they are two seperate issues.

I say religion stays out of this forum. If people want to debate theology and the human race they should go to a board that is for that very reason.

straightdope.com (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/)

Debate away. I think it's set up as a pay board but it's the most intelligent debate I see (consistantly) and politely (generally) on the net.

[Whois]

Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, MUSHROOM MUSHROOM...Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, MUSHROOM MUSHROOM...

[cookiepuss]

OK, this issue bothers me as well.

I don't see where politics and religion are supposed to mix. Some mix it but they are two seperate issues.

I say religion stays out of this forum. If people want to debate theology and the human race they should go to a board that is for that very reason.

straightdope.com (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/)

Debate away. I think it's set up as a pay board but it's the most intelligent debate I see (consistantly) and politely (generally) on the net.

agreed! let's take it somewhere else! (y)

[100% ILL]

Ahh!, well............so much for the first amendment.

[Schmeltz]

Prove its a fairy tail!


That the "history" in much of the Bible is nothing but a fairy tale has been aptly proven by the detailed archaeological work of Donald B. Redford, among others. I suggest you check out his book Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times for an elightening exposure of why the "history" of the Jews in Egypt, the Exodus, and the conquest of the Promised Land is just so much mythological bullshit.

You might want to pick up a few science textbooks as well, to educate yourself on the sheer impossibility of the Creation and the Deluge. Check out talkorigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/) as an excellent starting point.

[Monsieur Decuts]

thanks for your suggestions.

been there done that.

guess this convo is dead now.

[Schmeltz]

Yeah, I guess since the proof you requested has now been submitted, there's not much left to say.

[100% ILL]

That the "history" in much of the Bible is nothing but a fairy tale has been aptly proven by the detailed archaeological work of Donald B. Redford, among others. I suggest you check out his book Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times for an elightening exposure of why the "history" of the Jews in Egypt, the Exodus, and the conquest of the Promised Land is just so much mythological bullshit.

You might want to pick up a few science textbooks as well, to educate yourself on the sheer impossibility of the Creation and the Deluge. Check out talkorigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/) as an excellent starting point.


Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Mark 7:13

[Schmeltz]

Yeah, if only flowery Bible verses constituted a substantial or valid rebuttal of reality.

[100% ILL]

Yeah, if only flowery Bible verses constituted a substantial or valid rebuttal of reality.

nevertheless the poor man's wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard.
Ecclesiastes 9:16

[Schmeltz]

Wow, what an effective delivery of an irrefutable argument. You're a really convincing guy.

[synch]

Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, MUSHROOM MUSHROOM...Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, MUSHROOM MUSHROOM...

That made me snicker :D

[Rosie Cotton]

First you say:

Prove its a fairy tail!

Matt your argument is as false as the argument you are calling false.

But you end with:

There is no proof baby...only faith.

So if there is no proof (only faith), there is also no proof for your arguement.

Also you misspelt "tale".

[bb_bboy]

(Please read this entire thought before quoting and/or contradicting bullet points. Be idly amused by my dangling participles and follies with spelling and grammar. All is not quite as it may seem.)

To say that love, hatred, conscience, etc. are simple biological and even sociological occurrences is to many an acceptable explanation. To state that these emotions are bestowed by the will of a particular deity is, to many, just as acceptable. But when one begins to question why, from both a scientific and philosophical point of view, is when one can begin to take part in a discussion of the significance of a faith in science held along with a faith in spiritualism that transcends the fundamentalisms held within either category.

To state that the fact that the authors of the bible contradict one another is a reason to not believe in god is just as foolish as stating that the fact that the learned men and women of science have contradicted one another since the beginning of rational though is a reason to disavow all scientific discoveries. One must, at all times, accept a pattern of the evolution of thought that allows for new experiences to influence and alter old perceptions. In other words, to accept any historical recollection or any new discovery as “gospel” or absolute truth (respectively) is to live without an open mind. I believe it is the fact that people choose to live without the acceptance of new ideas, to live with their “minds closed,” is the cause of much of the conflict throughout the ages (and is so succinctly demonstrated on this very message board).

To believe strongly in a particular theory is one thing. Some call it admirable. To see that theory as infallible is, by far, another thing entirely. Some call it pig headed. To attempt to convince another person that a deeply held yet contrary theory is wrong is evidence of the hubris that has allowed conflicts to exist between thinking human beings since human beings have began thinking. And while dialogue and argument are certainly a driving force behind progressive thought, the mediation of multiple concepts has, in most instances, led to an actual and realistic resolution of ideas. Whether you come from a heavily religiously influenced background or a heavily scientifically influenced background, the ability to understand, accept, and incorporate new ideas, methods, and methodologies is the one simple factor that has allowed mankind to advance to the point to which it has. To say that one current or historical mindset or one particular set of ideas is absolute is to believe that this very advancement has come to a halt. And yet those with minds that are willing to learn new things in all fields are those who are able to say that we have not yet discovered all that we can.

Why stop one’s thinking at any personal or prescribed point and decide that one is ready to accept all that one knows as absolute, unchangeable, or yet to be appended? To do so is foolhardy. To do so is to agree with the first human with the first thought, to say that he was justifiably and thus unerringly correct, and that he held the knowledge of THE truth. Quoting a verse from scripture is a weak of an argument as quoting a scientific journal from the 1800s. From one of these sources one could determine that water can be, without any additives, converted into wine, while from the other one can determine that bloodletting from a hole through the skull is a remedy for typhoid.

To the open mind, humankind has not stopped thinking, has not stopped wondering, and has not stopped discovering. Resolutions on the creation of the universe, the fundamentals of human emotion, and the nature of spiritual existence in general have not yet been fully resolved. It is due to our multifaceted intellects that we are dealt the burden of pondering these thoughts rather than simply worrying each moment about our survival. Why not use these spared moments to see how these two faiths, the scientific and the spiritual, complement rather than contradict one another.

Disclaimer: I am both fond of both science and religion. I see souls and in the eyes and god in the spirit of the family and the woman that I love; I see science in the nature of their existences. I cannot resolve the tangible and the intangible, yet I give credit to the fact that years of complex human thought and emotion have led to the creation of a definition for both. I am gratified that I can understand the concepts in either discipline, yet I am humble enough to realize that people much more intelligent and broader learned than I have questioned, without complete resolution, these same concepts and very nature of these disciplines for millennia. One may think that I am not taking a steadfast position as a copout, but I believe that not holding onto one particular set of ideological rules is the essential concept of this diatribe. Keep in mind that I am not trying to change your opinion; I am simply expressing my own. With that, chew up and spit out these thoughts so that I can continue to at least think, if not learn.


NEXT WEEEK: Does your sliding door handle adequately accommodate the bending moment, shear, and unexplainable existential forces exerted upon it? Bring your trigonometrically, anthropomorphically and spiritually informed texts to solidify your argument!

[Monsieur Decuts]

^ bravo.

How I feel as well, but way better articulated.

Science begats spirtuality begats science.

[Matt]

Jesus is a gangsta. Kanye said so.

[Qdrop]

so religious understanding/knowledge has evolved the same as science has over the years?

see, the problem with that argument is that it points to scripture being fallable......thus the word of god is fallable.

religion, specifically christianity, is supposedly based on the unshaking, infallable word of God. and his word is the truth. it can't evolve.
you can gain a better understanding of it without it becoming false....but not to the extent and variance that is apparent in the old testiment alone. you just don't have that much leeway.
you can't have your cake and eat it to.

science and religion are 2 completely differant paradigns.......you cannot compare one to the other with much success.

[100% ILL]

But they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves are not wise.
II Corinthians 10:12

Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
II Timothy 3:7

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Hebrews 4:12

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
II Corinthians 4:3,4

He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation: but is passed from death unto life
John 5:24

He that rejecteth me, and recieveth not my words, hath one hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
John 12:48

For the Father judgeth no man, but hath commited all judgment unto the Son.
John 4:22

Because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
John 8:45

For we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness.
I Corinthians 1:23

Come now and let us reason together saith the Lord.
Isaiah 1:18

[yeahwho]

It is odd 110% ILL, that even in the face of this thread being closed and the message you represent being squashed you continue to answer in scripture.

Your life and your thoughts should reflect your faith, which I believe is real, but for the most part when you hide behind scripture rather than reflect it, people tend to think your an asshole.

I am a free thinking individual who does not try and conform God into what I want him to be, I really don't need to have someone else try and do it either.

This is why the 10 commandments and prayer in school are fading, it's not a matter of lack of faith, it's a matter of freedom of faith.

The overwhelming majority of Christians (not all mind you) now have the President they want for the next four years. How they came up with this guy I am understanding more and more everyday, seems as though they have a blind eye to reality and are lacking a firm grasp of the facts (http://www.pipa.org/index.html) involving world events.

If oil were predominently produced in Mexico, and produce in Iraq, more than likely we would have a different President.

[Whois]

It's a shame I can't post images here...so I'll post links:

http://www.instantattitudes.com/gifs/bs147.gif

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/img/stupid_humans_filipino.jpg

http://amy.enragednet.org/jesus.JPG

http://www.mind.net/basile/jesusfreak.gif

[bb_bboy]

so religious understanding/knowledge has evolved the same as science has over the years?

see, the problem with that argument is that it points to scripture being fallable......thus the word of god is fallable.

religion, specifically christianity, is supposedly based on the unshaking, infallable word of God. and his word is the truth. it can't evolve.
you can gain a better understanding of it without it becoming false....but not to the extent and variance that is apparent in the old testiment alone. you just don't have that much leeway.
you can't have your cake and eat it to.

science and religion are 2 completely differant paradigns.......you cannot compare one to the other with much success.

I appreciate these opinions. Perhaps I should try to clarify a few things. I am not necessarily trying to make them equal. I am trying to say that their significance in trying to understand both similar and distinct concepts is, to me, equally important. I think that human philosophies will continue to evolve alongside evolutions in the way individuals and societies think, interact, and react to the multitiude of changes around them.

I am thinking along different lines than simply saying that the Bible is absolute and the word of God. I am not trying to apply this idea to the bible and say that it should be rewritten every hundred years to reflect changing social/cultural mores. Rather I am saying that the way one interprets the bible or any spiritual text(s) will change from place to place and throughout time. Advocating any position (in both science and religion) as abosulte throughout time is very unwise because it negates the fact that these are all merely constructs of the human mind.

These artificial, self manifested impediments exist in both the scientific and religious arenas (we could say that they are less likely in the true study of science, but they are also just as unlikely in a pure study of faiths and spirituality). I would not advocate any science or religion that would claim to have questions, answers and ideas that would be correct for eternity. I was trying to convey that point with the whole post that I think you were referring to.

[yeahwho]

It's a shame I can't post images here...so I'll post links:

http://www.instantattitudes.com/gifs/bs147.gif

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/img/stupid_humans_filipino.jpg

http://amy.enragednet.org/jesus.JPG

http://www.mind.net/basile/jesusfreak.gif

hehehe, All last summer the Church Of God In Christ Congregational located on busy Highway 99, snuggled between fastfood joints and porno shops had the message on their sign saying,..... "Come Worship".....I think somebody finally clued them in to what was happening in their parking lot with the ladies of the night and they changed it.

[100% ILL]

Indeed, it is odd that this thread has been threatened to be shut down, while discussions of raping Ann Coulter are considered acceptable. I was trying to comply by just talking about Jesus in the Jesus thread, but apparantly that is not deemed acceptable either.
I am not hiding sir. I quite simply was formulating a resposnse to the previous post by using my source document. I feel that the scripture is a much more credible source than anything I have to say on the subject.

Again, I feel that a discussion on religion is valid in this forum for two reasons. (Number one) the more intellectual people of the BBMB are hear making for more intellectual debates.
(Number two) Many people in America in a nation wide poll stated that they voted for Bush based on their moral values. That is interesting to me in that moral values do not necessarily constitute Christianity.

My views had never presented a problem months ago, at least not that I was aware of, so why now? Because more people have joined the board who are intolerant to my views? I don't complain when disagreed with. I simply respond or I don't. I don't understand the strong seemingly intolerant opposition to my being aloud to type my views, just like everyone else.

[yeahwho]

[QUOTE=100% ILL]Indeed, it is odd that this thread has been threatened to be shut down, while discussions of raping Ann Coulter are considered acceptable. I was trying to comply by just talking about Jesus in the Jesus thread, but apparantly that is not deemed acceptable either. [QUOTE]

I agree with you, I find your posts to be very refreshing and your grasp of the word very informative...I admire your POV and really it helps me understand more about myself when someone is being as civil as you about the Bible.

I am not trying to condone you, I respect your Fahrenheit 451 ability to keep this book alive.

Alas though, this isn't yours or mine, the BBMB, and if they have the ultimate authority over what is proper or improper for the forum.

In your defense I enjoy an open dialogue over a closed dialogue, as long as it doesn't dilute a serious discussion over GATT taxes and such. ;)

[Whois]

Let's rape the Statue of Liberty next...she is French after all.

http://www.prometheus-imports.com/rape-sabines-mb-l.jpg

[racer5.0stang]

Who is threatening to shut this thread down and why?

[synch]

OK, this issue bothers me as well.

I don't see where politics and religion are supposed to mix. Some mix it but they are two seperate issues.

I say religion stays out of this forum. If people want to debate theology and the human race they should go to a board that is for that very reason.

straightdope.com (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/)

Debate away. I think it's set up as a pay board but it's the most intelligent debate I see (consistantly) and politely (generally) on the net.

[Funkaloyd]

while discussions of raping Ann Coulter are considered acceptable.

Nobody said it wouldn't be mutually consensual.

[100% ILL]

Nobody said it wouldn't be mutually consensual.


My point was based more on the nature of the topics.

[infidel]

So if Jesus was son of god and knew his fate how come he said while hanging on the cross, "Oh Father why has thou forsaken me"?

[Rosie Cotton]

Indeed, it is odd that this thread has been threatened to be shut down, while discussions of raping Ann Coulter are considered acceptable. I was trying to comply by just talking about Jesus in the Jesus thread, but apparantly that is not deemed acceptable either.
I am not hiding sir. I quite simply was formulating a resposnse to the previous post by using my source document. I feel that the scripture is a much more credible source than anything I have to say on the subject.

Again, I feel that a discussion on religion is valid in this forum for two reasons. (Number one) the more intellectual people of the BBMB are hear making for more intellectual debates.
(Number two) Many people in America in a nation wide poll stated that they voted for Bush based on their moral values. That is interesting to me in that moral values do not necessarily constitute Christianity.

My views had never presented a problem months ago, at least not that I was aware of, so why now? Because more people have joined the board who are intolerant to my views? I don't complain when disagreed with. I simply respond or I don't. I don't understand the strong seemingly intolerant opposition to my being aloud to type my views, just like everyone else.
I don't agree with a lot of the things you say, but you hit the nail on the head with this one. Good job. (y)

[drobertson420]

It's funny, if you discount the words of "St Paul the Christian-slayer and homophobe" one of the few founders of the Christian church who NEVER MET THE SON OF GOD, then your list of rules is a little bit light.


:( :mad: :) :rolleyes: (!) :cool: (lb) :p (n) ;) (y) :D :confused: :o :eek:

[HotAndWet]

[HotAndWet]

EQUADOR 1995:
Recorded by Victor Chiluiza, his friend and his two cousins in Equador, South America. Victor said "At first we just saw it as a red light in the sky and five minutes later, I went out with my video camera and recorded the event." The film was shot at 11:47pm on September 9th 1995. The footage clearly depicts a structured, rotating craft easily visible against the dark night sky. Victor described the object as being like a six point star that was slowly rotating whilst making no noise what-so-ever. Allegedly, there were about 500 other people who were witnesses to this event on that particular night from the city.




Must be Jesus. ;)

omg stfu

[HotAndWet]

nevertheless the poor man's wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard.
Ecclesiastes 9:16


I love how you respond to EVERY FUCKING ARGUMENT with a passage from the bible, you're not proving anything by responding with that.

[adam_f]

Originally posted by Daisy
OK, this issue bothers me as well.

I don't see where politics and religion are supposed to mix. Some mix it but they are two seperate issues.

I say religion stays out of this forum. If people want to debate theology and the human race they should go to a board that is for that very reason.

straightdope.com

Debate away. I think it's set up as a pay board but it's the most intelligent debate I see (consistantly) and politely (generally) on the net.

Well, I guess I won't complete my Jesus trilogy in Beastie-Free now.

[GreenEarthAl]

Let's rape the Statue of Liberty next...she is French after all.


Way ahead o ya.

http://www.allpowertothepeople.com/Toons/04/

[Daisy]

You guys are so amazing.

Did I threaten to close this thread? NO

Did I say you COULDN'T talk about religion here? NO

I stated my opinion. As far as I am concerned you are welcome to go to Beastie Free and quote all the scripture you want. I won't say squat.

I just believe that religion and politics are not one in the same. And who ever said that we aren't allowing the first amendment here needs to think about this...This board is a GIFT from the band. I am here as a representative to ensure that certain rules are followed and to keep the peace.

You want to say whatever you want? Get your own website. :) In the meantime, work on your reading comprehension.

[racer5.0stang]

So if Jesus was son of god and knew his fate how come he said while hanging on the cross, "Oh Father why has thou forsaken me"?

2 Corinthians 5:21

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Basically, Jesus never sinned. But when he was on the cross he became sin or bore our sins. God, who can not be in the presence of sin, turned his back on his son, Jesus. For the first time Jesus was without direct contact with his Father.

By doing this, the blood that Jesus shed, washes away our sins.

Hope this answered your question.

[ASsman]

So Jesus is dead?

[racer5.0stang]

So Jesus is dead?

Matthew 28:2-6

2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

So to answer your question, he died but on the third day he rose from the grave.

[ASsman]

So he didn't die? Do the easter eggs represent him not dieing?

[paulk]

MAKE UP YOUR MIND YOU CRAZY JESUS!

[Rosie Cotton]

2 Corinthians 5:21

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Basically, Jesus never sinned. But when he was on the cross he became sin or bore our sins. God, who can not be in the presence of sin, turned his back on his son, Jesus. For the first time Jesus was without direct contact with his Father.

By doing this, the blood that Jesus shed, washes away our sins.

Hope this answered your question.

Wait, so if our sins are washed away, then what's the point of all this nonsense?

[HotAndWet]

talk about triple posting. don't tell other people they're not proving anything, cuz you certainly are not.


Eat my ass, kthnx.

[Rosie Cotton]

"As anybody who knows anything about the Unknowable well knows, "God" and "gods" are interchangable. The exclusive patriarchal Jehovah/Allah freaks are not incorrect when they insist that there is but one Supreme Being and that "he" is immutable and absolute. However, neither are the wide-eyed inclusive pagans and primitvies wrong when they recognize gods of fire alongside gods of rivers; honor a moon goddess, a crocodile spirit, and dieties who reside in, among countless other places, tree trunks, rain clouds, peyote buttons, and neon lighting (especially the flashing whites and the greens)."

Tom Robbins, Villa Incognito

[alexandra]

Jesus Quintana: You ready to be fucked man? I see you rolled your way into the semis. Dios mio, man. Liam and me, we're gonna fuck you up.
The Dude: Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Jesus Quintana: Let me tell you something, bandejo. You pull any of your crazy shit with us, you flash a piece out on the lanes, I'll take it away from you, stick it up your ass and pull the fucking trigger 'til it goes "click."
The Dude: Jesus.
Jesus Quintana: You said it man. Nobody fucks with the Jesus.

[racer5.0stang]

Wait, so if our sins are washed away, then what's the point of all this nonsense?

In order for your sins to be washed away, you must first acknowledge that you are a sinner, and accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour. Then your sins are forgiven and you are now born into the family of God.

In the old testament, the high priest had to go into the Holy of Holies and sacrifice a lamb every year for the sins of Israel.

In the new testament, Jesus was the lamb that was sacrificed for our sins, once and for all.

John 10:17,18

17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Jesus had the power to lay his life down and the power to take it again, no man could kill him. He allowed everything to happen to him in order to pay the sin debt for us. All we have to do in return is believe in Him.

1 John 5:12,13
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

[racer5.0stang]

So he didn't die? Do the easter eggs represent him not dieing?

John 8:44-47

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

[100% ILL]

[racer5.0stang]

[100% ILL]

if christianity is real, why hasn't there been a miracle in 2000 years?


The prophets in the Old Testament were given power to perform miracles to prove that they were of God. Jesus performed miracles to prove he was the Son of God.
For example, in Luke 5:20, Jesus says "man thy sins be forgiven thee." and the people said he was a blasphemer. so in Lk 5:23,24 Jesus says, "Whether is easier to say, thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say,Rise up and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, ( he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house.

In Hebrews 1:1 Explains it like this. "God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hat in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also hwe made the worlds."

The whole point of the Bible is to direct a person to Jesus Christ. He is the redeemer the saviour of man. The reason there are no more miracles at least on the level of making lame people walk again, raising people from the dead, etc. is because those miracles were preformed to point to Christ's Diety as God himself, in other words he is the miracle that to this day continues to work.
I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.
John 11:25

[Whois]

You guys are so amazing.

Did I threaten to close this thread? NO

Did I say you COULDN'T talk about religion here? NO

I stated my opinion. As far as I am concerned you are welcome to go to Beastie Free and quote all the scripture you want. I won't say squat.

I just believe that religion and politics are not one in the same. And who ever said that we aren't allowing the first amendment here needs to think about this...This board is a GIFT from the band. I am here as a representative to ensure that certain rules are followed and to keep the peace.

You want to say whatever you want? Get your own website. :) In the meantime, work on your reading comprehension.

Some people can't get a clue...sadly.

Hiya Daisy... :)

[infidel]

Let's rape the Statue of Liberty next...she is French after all.Ever notice Lady Liberty's got her back turned on NYC?

[100% ILL]

I love how you respond to EVERY FUCKING ARGUMENT with a passage from the bible, you're not proving anything by responding with that.

A foolish woman is clamorous: she is simple, and knoweth nothing.
Proverbs 9:13


;)

[ASsman]

John 8:44-47

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

So he didn't die? Do the easter eggs represent him not dieing?

[100% ILL]

So he didn't die? Do the easter eggs represent him not dieing?

Yes, and no





and it's dying

[Whois]

So he didn't die? Do the easter eggs represent him not dieing?

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bleasterorigins.htm

"The meaning of many different customs observed during Easter Sunday have been buried with time. Their origins lie in pre-Christian religions and Christianity. All in some way or another are a "salute to spring," marking re-birth. The white Easter lily has come to capture the glory of the holiday. The word "Easter" is named after Eastre, the Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring. A festival was held in her honor every year at the vernal equinox.

People celebrate the holiday according to their beliefs and their religious denominations. Christians commemorate Good Friday as the day that Jesus Christ died and Easter Sunday as the day that He was resurrected. Protestant settlers brought the custom of a sunrise service, a religious gathering at dawn, to the United States.

Today on Easter Sunday children wake up to find that the Easter Bunny has left them baskets of candy. He has also hidden the eggs that they decorated earlier that week. Children hunt for the eggs all around the house. Neighborhoods and organizations hold Easter egg hunts, and the child who finds the most eggs wins a prize.

The Easter Bunny is a rabbit-spirit. Long ago, he was called the" Easter Hare." Hares and rabbits have frequent multiple births so they became a symbol of fertility. The custom of an Easter egg hunt began because children believed that hares laid eggs in the grass. The Romans believed that "All life comes from an egg." Christians consider eggs to be "the seed of life" and so they are symbolic of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Why we dye, or color, and decorate eggs is not certain. In ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome and Persia eggs were dyed for spring festivals. In medieval Europe, beautifully decorated eggs were given as gifts."

[QueenAdrock]

I disagree. Easter eggs are more symbolic of the chocolate you know is hidden inside.

[ASsman]

Shabbat Shalom, mother fuckers.

[Marlene]

what's with all the large goups of jesus freaks hanging out in starbucks and talking loudly about all their religious mumbo jumbo?

seriously...this seems to be a trend of late...i've read posts by other peope on the 'net talking about it and have now witnessed it more than once.

[HotAndWet]

A foolish woman is clamorous: she is simple, and knoweth nothing.
Proverbs 9:13


;)

LOLZ YOU GOTZ mEEE!!!

[Rosie Cotton]

It's called caps lock. Please don't use it.

[Rosie Cotton]

and in some cases the caramel, or fun toy inside (y) :p

My grandpa always put money in the plastic eggs.

[Rosie Cotton]

Those eggs aren't too hard to assemble: open; put in candy, five dollar bill, whatever; close. Of course, it's been quite a few years since I was young enough to enjoy an Easter egg hunt, so maybe they have new bionic eggs that I don't know about.

[Rosie Cotton]

Just come up with a different name for it. Or do a little research on the old pagan holidays and celebrate on of those, with a slightly modern twist. Or just be a fuddy duddy and sit around and twiddle your thumbs.

























Did I really just say "fuddy duddy"? :eek:

[100% ILL]

Jesus

the reason for the season

We mark our calendar year from his birth.

His birth was foretold by the prophet Isaiah 742 years before it happened.

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (God with us)

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The Angel Gabriel foretold his birth.

Luke 1:30-33
And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt concieve in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

His birth was announced by an angelic host.

Luke 2:10,11
And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour , which is Christ the Lord.


His birth was anticipated.

Matthew 2:1,2
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

Matthew 2:10,11
When they saw the star , they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
And When they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

Luke 2:25-32

And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, Then took he him up in his arms and blessed God, and said,
Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word; For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, ehich thou hadt prepared before the face of all people; A light unto the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.


Merry Christmas

[Whois]

Here is a holiday I can get behind...with some humping action.

http://www.e-sheep.com/Saturnalia/

"I am a stag of seven tines..."

[100% ILL]

Here is a holiday I can get behind...with some humping action.

http://www.e-sheep.com/Saturnalia/

"I am a stag of seven tines..."

So you have aspirations to be a reindeer. That's nice

[QueenAdrock]

and in some cases the caramel, or fun toy inside (y) :p

You must live in Europe, we only have the plastic ones over here that you open up and physically put stuff inside yourself. My good buddy went over to Germany one year though, and smuggled back a bunch of those sweet eggs you're talking about. Send me some.

Kthx. :)

[Schmeltz]

We don't mark our calendar year from Jesus' birth, you jackass, we mark it from the winter solstice because the Romans did. I guess we can add history to the long list of disciplines about which fundies like 100%Ill seem to know absolutely nothing.

[Marlene]

You must live in Europe, we only have the plastic ones over here that you open up and physically put stuff inside yourself. My good buddy went over to Germany one year though, and smuggled back a bunch of those sweet eggs you're talking about. Send me some.

Kthx. :)


you guys are talking about kinder eier.....those aren't available in the US because of the litigious nature of the US.....those little toys on the inside could potentially be swallowed, etc.

[Ace42]

Kinder eggs, or "The eggs of numbing inevitability" as Bill Bailey refers to them. In the third person.

[100% ILL]

We don't mark our calendar year from Jesus' birth, you jackass,.....fundies like 100%Ill seem to know absolutely nothing.

Anger, hatred and strife come from within. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
I've rarely seen you post anything positive. I mean you can disagree without being hateful.

You seem to be very educated but you have a pompous attitude about it.

[Schmeltz]

Sorry. I come from a background of religious fundamentalism myself, and I'm easily exasperated by it. I suppose my personal circumstances make it difficult for me to compromise in these sorts of discussions.

Also, I would suggest that replying to attempts at intellectually honest discussion with nothing more substantial than Biblical passages contains in itself a substantial element of pomposity. But that's just me.

[Qdrop]

I've rarely seen you post anything positive. I mean you can disagree without being hateful.

You seem to be very educated but you have a pompous attitude about it.

get used to it on this board if you're not a hardcore libertarian liberal.

i did.
:(

see my sig......

[paulk]

libertarian liberal

That's an oxymoron of sorts (nowadays).

[Qdrop]

That's an oxymoron of sorts (nowadays).

semantics aside......
my point is made.


my experiance on this board, being an indendant with no clear cut left or right leaning,
is that while the few republicans on this board tend to come off rather uneducated and childish at times....
it is OVERWHELMINGLY the liberals who are cruel, spiteful, arrogant....and most of all- INTOLERANT of other views.
they gang up on those who do not agree 100% with their agenda, and seem to gain great pleasure in doing so.

they fill virtually ever post in a debate with vulgarity and personal attacks...

i can say that this board has almost single handedly changed my views on liberals and thier ideals/personas.

[100% ILL]

get used to it on this board if you're not a hardcore libertarian liberal. :(


I know, you created this thread "especially" for me remember?

[yeahwho]

they fill virtually ever post in a debate with vulgarity and personal attacks...

i can say that this board has almost single handedly changed my views on liberals and thier ideals/personas.

That is Fucking Bullshit Asshole!

[Qdrop]

I know, you created this thread "especially" for me remember?

yep, cause you and Racer kept hijacking threads.
and your debates go in ENDLESS cirlces.

it had nothing to do with you having a view differant then mine.

i would let my children play with your children.

[Qdrop]

That is Fucking Bullshit Asshole!

:D :D :D

[100% ILL]

Merry Christmas






(meant as offensive)

[Qdrop]

(meant as offensive)

what a good christian.......jesus would be proud.
:rolleyes:

[D_Raay]

Genesis 3:22
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the Mentos, and eat, and become fresh with me....

[Qdrop]

Genesis 3:22
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the Mentos, and eat, and become fresh with me....

D_Raay get's "the post of the day" award....


:D (y)

[100% ILL]

My point being that only on this forum would someone take Merry Christmas offensively.








(disturbed that I had to explain that)

[D_Raay]

Genesis 9:12-15
And McDonald's said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my arches in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And I will remember my covenant, and the coffee shall no longer be heated to one hundred and eighty degrees to destroy thy flesh.

[Qdrop]

more!..MORE!!





now THAT'S good scripture!

[D_Raay]

Matthew 10:29
Are not two Original Buffalo Wings sold for a quarter? And yet one of these is not sold without a discount coupon. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many chickens.

[D_Raay]

Bowel Movements

Taoism
Shit happens.

Confucianism
Confucius says, "Shit Happens."

Buddhism
If shit happens, it isn't really shit.

Zen
* Shit is, and is not.
* What is the sound of shit happening?
Hinduism
This shit happened before.

Mormon
This shit is going to happen again.

Islam
If shit happens, it is the will of Allah.

Catholicism
* Shit happens because you are bad.
* If shit happens, you deserve it

Protestantism
Let this shit happen to someone else.

Judaism
Why does this shit always happen to us?

Christian Science
Shit is only in your imagination.

Hedonism
There isn't anything like a good shit happening.

Rastafarianism
Let's smoke this shit.

Davidians
Let's shoot and burn our own shit.

Church of Scientology
* Of course, GOD created this shit.
* If shit happens, see "Dianetics" p.157

Eastern Russian Orthodox
Holy shit (no more communism!)

Agnostic
Not sure about shit.

Shaolin
Destroy bad shits with Kung Fu.

Existentialism
# What is shit, anyway?
# Shit doesn't happen, shit IS

Atheism
What shit?

Episcopalian
It's not so bad if shit happens, as long as you serve the right wine with it.

Methodist
It's not so bad if shit happens, as long as you serve grape juice with it.

Congregationalist and Unitarian
Shit that happens to one person is just as good shit as shit that happens to all other.

Lutheran
If shit happens, don't talk about it

Fundamentalism
If shit happens, you will go to hell, unless you are born again (Amen!)

Nihilism
No shit

Utopianism
This shit does not stink

Darwinism
This shit was once food

Capitalism
That's my shit

Communism
It's everybody's shit

Feminism
Men are shit

Chauvanism
We may be shit, but you can't live without us...

Commercialism
Let's package this shit

Idolism
Let's bronze this shit

Satanism
SNEPPAH TIHS

Zoroastrianism
Shit happens half of the time

Jehovah's Witnesses
Knock Knock. Shit happens

[Whois]

Matthew 10:29
Are not two Original Buffalo Wings sold for a quarter? And yet one of these is not sold without a discount coupon. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many chickens.

...and let us not forget the wise words of our Lord Cloister:

"Lo, I shall lead you to Fyushal, and there we shall open a temple of food, wherein shall be sausages and doughnuts and all manner of bountiful things. Yea, even individual sachets of mustard. And those who serve shall have hats of great majesty, yea, though they be made of coloured cardboard and have humorous arrows through the top."

[D_Raay]

Matthew 15:17-20
And they say unto him, we have here but five Lender's bagels, and two Mrs. Paul's Fish Sticks. He said, bring them hither unto me. And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he took out his Motorola cellular phone and called Domino's Pizza. And they did all eat, and were filled; and they took up of the slices that remained twelve boxes full for breakfast.

[Whois]

Matthew 15:17-20
And they say unto him, we have here but five Lender's bagels, and two Mrs. Paul's Fish Sticks. He said, bring them hither unto me. And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he took out his Motorola cellular phone and called Domino's Pizza. And they did all eat, and were filled; and they took up of the slices that remained twelve boxes full for breakfast.

"Jesus the Miracle Caterer" - Sam Kinnison

[D_Raay]

Jesus

the reason for the season

We mark our calendar year from his birth.

His birth was foretold by the prophet Isaiah 742 years before it happened.

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (God with us)

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The Angel Gabriel foretold his birth.

Luke 1:30-33
And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt concieve in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

His birth was announced by an angelic host.

Luke 2:10,11
And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour , which is Christ the Lord.


His birth was anticipated.

Matthew 2:1,2
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

Matthew 2:10,11
When they saw the star , they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
And When they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

Luke 2:25-32

And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, Then took he him up in his arms and blessed God, and said,
Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word; For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, ehich thou hadt prepared before the face of all people; A light unto the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.


Merry Christmas

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

[ASsman]

I like big butts.

[ima_zombie]

You know what I don't get....God sent Joan of Arc to lead people in a war....yet in the bible they disagree with all forms of killing. I just don't understand.... :confused:

[Rosie Cotton]

Matthew 15:17-20
And they say unto him, we have here but five Lender's bagels, and two Mrs. Paul's Fish Sticks. He said, bring them hither unto me. And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he took out his Motorola cellular phone and called Domino's Pizza. And they did all eat, and were filled; and they took up of the slices that remained twelve boxes full for breakfast.

I want to attend the Church of D.

[Marlene]

FROM A LETTER TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, Jr.— June 1, 1965
By Thich Nhat Hanh

I believe with all my heart that the monks who burned themselves
did not aim at the death of the oppressors but only at a change
in their policies. Their enemies are not man. They are intolerance,
fanaticism, dictatorship, cupidity, hatred, and discrimination
which lie within the heart of man. These are real enemies of humans, —
not humans themselves. In our unfortunate fatherland we are trying
to plead desperately: do not kill man, even in man's name. Please
kill the real enemies of man which are present everywhere in our
very hearts and minds... You cannot be silent since you have already
been in action and you are in action because, in you, God is in action.

[100% ILL]

here's and interesting Christian apologetics site involving evolution vs creation.
http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/creationmythl.htm

Just to offer a somewhat better explaination of Biblical views.

http://www.carm.org/evidence.htm

[Nox_e#2]

jesus christ was nailed up to some wood, two-thousand years later book sales are still good (y)

[Lex Diamonds]

jesus christ was nailed up to some wood, two-thousand years later book sales are still good (y)
I AMS FROMS OUTERS SPACES YOU FUCKIN KNOWS IT YOU BASTARD PRICK

[racer5.0stang]

jesus christ was nailed up to some wood, two-thousand years later book sales are still good (y)

Actually studies have shown this to be one of the worst ways to die (as if any of them are good). If the fact of being nailed to a piece of wood through each wrist (in those days the wrist was part of the hand) and then one nail through both of your feet. A block is placed under your feet so that you can somewhat support yourself. The only way to exhale/inhale is to lift yourself up, but each time the nail in your feet is not giving any and it is tearing through you. One might also wonder how they nail you to the cross in the air? Well you are laying down on the cross which is on the ground when they nail you to it. Then they hoist you up and let the bottom of the cross slam into a hole. That ought to dislocate a few bones. But when your killers are tired of watching you die, they simply take a hammer and bust your knee caps, removing your ability to raise up to inhale/exhale and you suffocate to death.

But in Jesus' case he was already dead when the Roman soldier came to him and used a spear to pierce his side.

Of course book sales are still good, there are people still here that believe in the bible and believe in Jesus Christ, but there will come a day when very few if any will believe.

[100% ILL]

http://www.carm.org/evidence/swoon.htm

[Whois]

I AMS FROMS OUTERS SPACES YOU FUCKIN KNOWS IT YOU BASTARD PRICK

Still on shrooms?

[100% ILL]

You know what I don't get....God sent Joan of Arc to lead people in a war....yet in the bible they disagree with all forms of killing. I just don't understand.... :confused:

http://www.carm.org/diff/Deut_2_32.htm

[100% ILL]

L.T. Jeyachandran
Was Jesus Typical or Exceptional



All great questions of life have only one answer. Conflicting and contradictory answers cannot be valid. Jesus’ unique claim for himself while answering Thomas (Jn. 14:6) is a statement which is philosophically and logically reasonable. Even those who deny unique and exclusive approaches to truth would insist that their own approach is unique and exclusive! Otherwise, they would have nothing to say! Truth, by definition, is therefore exclusive and narrow. It has to exclude errors in order to qualify to be truth. If I should insist that the sum of two and two can only be four and nothing else, no one in his right mind would accuse me of being narrowminded! In fact, in every department of life we proceed on this basis in our search for truth.

However, when it comes to the most important issues concerning God, we abdicate our intellectual responsibility by embracing the wrong kind of broadmindedness in our pursuit of truth. From Jn. 14:6 we conclude that Jesus made this unique claim for himself as the truth. There is no reason why his claim should be rejected out of hand just because it is unique. For this very reason, in fact, we ought to investigate his claims all the more seriously.

Some years ago, Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan, former president of India, made this statement as Spalding Professor of Eastern Ethics at Oxford University, "Jesus is not exceptional but typical." This article is devoted to an analysis of the truth of that statement and will examine his birth, life and teachings, death, resurrection and lastly, his influence in history.

First, it is reasonable to expect that if God were to become man, his entry into the world would be, to say the least, unusual. God could have made his advent into the world in such a spectacular way that there would have been no doubt that it had taken place. But God had to identify himself entirely with the human race. The incarnate God had to be both human and divine. This was accomplished in the wisdom of God in the virgin birth of Christ. This event was one of the prophecies of the Old Testament about the Messiah (Is. 7:14) and it is stated by Matthew, the Gospel writer to the Jews, to have been fulfilled literally (Mt. 1:23). This miraculous birth also ensured that the child would be free from the taint of original sin, an indispensable requirement for the task Jesus was to perform on earth.

Second, one of the characteristics of the synoptic Gospels which Christians are likely to miss is the matteroffact way in which they record the life story of Jesus Christ. They do not use publicrelations’ methods to promote the Master, but are dispassionate and routine narratives of his life. Unlike much of the Gospel of John, the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) are not so much doctrinal propositions about the deity of Christ, but more so, coldblooded—and in the case of Luke, investigative—accounts of what he said and did. However, it is impossible to miss how naturally the following facts emerge from these documents:

The unique moral character of Jesus Christ stands indelibly printed on the pages of the narratives. Even his worst detractors could not point an accusing finger at him. At his trial it was difficult to find two witnesses who would agree to any of the false charges brought against him. More importantly, Jesus himself was selfconsciously guiltfree of any sins of omission or commission. During the course of his life, he could ask the Pharisees, "Which one of you can convict me of any sin?" (Jn. 8:46). When he stood on trial before Pontius Pilate, one could not say who was on trial! Even Pilate came to the conclusion that there was nothing faulty, wrong or criminal about this strange prisoner that had been brought before him and Pilate pleaded repeatedly with the crowd to let him go.

Jesus lived an exemplary life. We need only to read some of the biographies of great men and women who have come before us to see that they were mortals subject to the same moral frailties that you and I experience in our normal human life. However, we cannot but come to the conclusion that Jesus lived an exemplary moral life, which he constantly affirmed without a trace of pride.

Regarding his teaching, we find that the didactic content was of a value and quality vastly different from and superior to the philosophies and worldviews in the various cultures of our world. To demonstrate this dimension, look at one crucial aspect of his teaching: He defined all virtue only in terms of relationships. He always linked vertical relationship with God with horizontal relationship with fellow human beings. Jesus placed equal emphasis on both. Today’s philosophies emphasise one or the other. We may have a philosophy which says that in order to be related to God, one has to cut oneself off from society. On the other hand, we have worldviews which say that by rightly relating to man, one can rightly relate to God. This critique would also apply to all philosophies which bring about an unhealthy dichotomy between the spiritual and material worlds.

Conversely, to the Jewish lawyer who asked him "What is the greatest commandment?", Jesus responded,"You shall love the Lord your God...You shall love your neighbor as yourself." This statement was unique among all the teachings we have because first, worship of God was taught by Jesus as one of an intimate, personal loverelationship. Worship is commonly taught in religious and ritualistic terms only. It is also assumed that loving a fellow human is a natural human phenomenon.

And the second unique aspect of Jesus’ teaching addresses this assumption: By putting the first commandment first, Jesus made it clear that we can selflessly love others only when our self is dealt with adequately by our relationship with God. At the same time, he also made it clear that our selfless love of others is the only demonstrable evidence that we truly love God. No amount of external religiosity as an expression of love to God can replace these relationships. By this master stroke, he dealt with a third misapprehension—that human relationships were insignificant and did not amount to much in the sight of God. In Jesus’ teaching, relationship with God as well as relationship with one another were both spoken of from an absolute standpoint.

It is this dimension of teaching which is unique to Jesus Christ. It is out of these combinations of relationships that virtue of any kind could flow. For example, rude and angry language against anyone was forbidden because it was tantamount to brutal murder (Mt. 5:21,22). His standard of moral purity equated a lustful look with the physical sin of adultery (Mt. 5:27,28). It is difficult to gainsay the conclusion that Jesus’ teaching was exceptional.

Moreover, Christ himself claimed his uniqueness. He claimed equality with God by offering forgiveness. The Jews who heard his teaching had no doubt that he claimed to be God. Whether it was about forgiveness (Mk. 2:5-7), his Messiahship (Mt. 26:63 66), or his preexistence (Jn. 8:58,59), his audience was convinced of his claims to deity and they proceeded to put him to death.

Third, through his death Jesus exemplified God’s love for us. He as God expressed forgiveness of sins and he proclaimed this forgiveness as the sole basis on which one could come into a personal relationship to the Father. He also told his disciples and others that the purpose of his life was to give it up as "a ransom for many" (Mt. 20:28). This ransom was effective sacrifice for sins to God only because Jesus was sinless by nature through his unique birth and by choice through his obedience to the laws of God. He spoke of the sacrificial death he was to accomplish and when Peter tried to dissuade him, Jesus sternly rebuked him (Mt. 16:16, 21-23).

Fourth, his resurrection is the most crucial factor in establishing the exceptionality of Jesus Christ. The resurrection of Christ was the legitimate climax to his unique life and death. He foretold his resurrection to his disciples directly (Mt.16:21) and to others through parables (Mt. 12:40).

Frank Morrison, a British lawyer of the 1930s, undertook an expedition to collect circumstantial evidence to disprove the resurrection. Such evidence, of course, is admissible in all courts of law in civilised countries to prove or disprove events of which there are no living eyewitnesses. When he analysed the evidence, he reached a stunning conclusion: The resurrection had actually taken place! Morrison presented his case in his book, Who Moved the Stone?

Another factor worth considering is the character of the disciples. They were eleven cowardly men who shut themselves in a room after the crucifixion because they were afraid. Yet what galvanized them into action so that within their own lifetime, much of the thenknown world could hear the message of Christ? Some of them paid for this message with their lives. Would they have done so if the resurrection were a hoax? If the resurrection were not true, then Christianity would be the biggest fraud perpetuated on the human race!

Fifth, we cannot ignore the mark that Jesus has left upon history. Kenneth Scott Latourette, the great historian, writes: "As the centuries pass, the evidence is accumulating that, measured by his effect on history, Jesus is the most influential life ever lived on this planet. That influence appears to be mounting" (American Historical Review, January 1949). Even historian William Lecky, a skeptic, writes, "It may be truly said that simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and soften mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers and all the exhortations of moralists. This has indeed been the wellspring of whatever is best and purest in the Christian life. Amid all the sins and failings, amid all the priestcraft and persecution and fanaticism that have defaced the Church, it has preserved in the character and example of its founder an enduring principle of regeneration" (History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne, New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1903).

It would be reasonable to conclude that the source of that influence could not have been but exceptional.

[Lex Diamonds]

Still on shrooms?
Nope, just listening to the GLC.

Very similar though.

[100% ILL]

http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm

[Rosie Cotton]

Actually studies have shown this to be one of the worst ways to die (as if any of them are good).

No, thte worst would be feet first into a wood chipper.

If the fact of being nailed to a piece of wood through each wrist (in those days the wrist was part of the hand) and then one nail through both of your feet.

EDIT- Disregard this. I'm so used to arguing with you I developed momentary dyslexia. You were right. But don't get used to hearing that.

Of course book sales are still good, there are people still here that believe in the bible and believe in Jesus Christ, but there will come a day when very few if any will believe.

You're kidding, right? If you seriously believe that then you have a deep lack of faith in your own religion.

[100% ILL]

Hope everyone has a safe and merry Christmas/Holiday.

[ASsman]

I find that offensive. I'm pagan, and feel disenfranchised. Holiday stealing sons of "God".

[Rosie Cotton]

If your so pagan, then who do you worship?I personally worship Rah and Osiris, and Medusa.
My false deity is cooler than your false deity. And with that, I'm off to hell, or rather, Texas. Merry Saturday.

[59 Chrystie St.]

Hope everyone has a safe and merry Christmas/Holiday.

What's up 100% ILL ?

Thanks, I did have a good X-Mas hope you did also, but it was rough (lots of shitty drivers in snow plagued Indiana). Anyways, I wanted your opinion on something ? Was Christ really born on Dec 25th and if so does it state that anywhere in the Bible, or is that a Constantine (313 AD) declared holiday that coincides with the Pagan holiday of "Birth of the Unconquered Sun" ? You seem to know a lot and I was just wondering what you thought or knew and could share. I also read that in the Bible there is no date designated for Christ's birthday. The Bible's focuses on the death of the Christ, as far as the dates are accurate with holiday celebrations (Passover-Easter). Here's a bit from what I read concerning this.

Prior to the legalization of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine in 313 A.D., no universal date or even formal celebration of Christmas is found. For instance, Origen (d. 255), St. Irenaeus (d. 202) and Tertullian (d. 220) do not include Christmas or its date on their lists of feasts and celebrations. Again, the spiritual focus was on Easter.

[59 Chrystie St.]

Prior to the legalization of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine in 313 A.D., no universal date or even formal celebration of Christmas is found. For instance, Origen (d. 255), St. Irenaeus (d. 202) and Tertullian (d. 220) do not include Christmas or its date on their lists of feasts and celebrations. Again, the spiritual focus was on Easter.

[59 Chrystie St.]

[ASsman]

My Aunt thinks Christmas has something to do with Jesus. So she put on a boring ass movie about Jesus' life. Then we drank and openened presents!

[Whois]

If your so pagan, then who do you worship?I personally worship Rah and Osiris, and Medusa.

ELRON

All will bow before ELRON, the great Hubbardian discord will cleans the Earth of it's THETANS.

OOOOOOEEEEEEOOOOOO!

Destroy the suppressives with the R2-45 process...

[Funkaloyd]

God did it so that my life wouldn't seem so crap in comparison. God loves me.

[ASsman]

The funny thing is, a Jewish man could come in and start with his bullshit aswell. "Proving" that he is correct, like Racer.05 (whatever). So would both be correct? In a sense people who try and argue the existance of something like God and the such.. are really arguing with themselves. Someone else could very well be on the other side, like some sort of parallel universe.

[yeahwho]

All religions will take claim and once again the self proclaimed messengers of God will not give credit to scientific facts, like the fact that puts an early warning system in "God's Countries" but not the heathen countries.

Thousands died, knowledge and money which could of prevented thousands of deaths is being spent by the USofA to wage war while thousands died who waged peace.

This the world we are part of, the Compassionate Conservatism World.
A very sad day indeed.

[Rosie Cotton]

The funny thing is, a Jewish man could come in and start with his bullshit aswell. "Proving" that he is correct, like Racer.05 (whatever). So would both be correct?
Yes. We created God. He/she/it does not exist unless people believe. Kinda like Tinkerbell.

[100% ILL]

What's up 100% ILL ?

Was Christ really born on Dec 25th and if so does it state that anywhere in the Bible, or is that a Constantine (313 AD) declared holiday that coincides with the Pagan holiday of "Birth of the Unconquered Sun" ? You seem to know a lot and I was just wondering what you thought or knew and could share. I also read that in the Bible there is no date designated for Christ's birthday. The Bible's focuses on the death of the Christ, as far as the dates are accurate with holiday celebrations (Passover-Easter). Here's a bit from what I read concerning this.

Prior to the legalization of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine in 313 A.D., no universal date or even formal celebration of Christmas is found. For instance, Origen (d. 255), St. Irenaeus (d. 202) and Tertullian (d. 220) do not include Christmas or its date on their lists of feasts and celebrations. Again, the spiritual focus was on Easter.

The Bible does not give a date for his birth. Here is a document I found that explains it somewhat, I will also provide the link. http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=656

The Day Jesus Was Born

This coming December 25th most parents will be lying to their children about old St. Nick. Some of us will be celebrating the birth of our Savior. But was he really born on this day?

Was Jesus really born on December 25th? Virtually every month on the calendar has been proposed by biblical scholars. So why do we celebrate his birth in December?

The tradition for December 25th is actually quite ancient. Hippolytus, in the second century A.D., argued that this was Christ's birthday. Meanwhile, in the eastern Church, January 6th was the date followed.

But in the fourth century, John Chrysostom argued that December 25th was the correct date and from that day till now, the Church in the East, as well as the West, has observed the 25th of December as the official date of Christ's birth.

In modern times, the traditional date has been challenged. Modern scholars point out that when Jesus was born, shepherds were watching their sheep in the hills around Bethlehem. Luke tells us that an angel appeared to "some shepherds staying out in the fields [who were] keeping watch over their flock by night" (2:8).

Some scholars feel that the sheep were usually brought under cover from November to March; as well, they were not normally in the field at night. But there is no hard evidence for this. In fact, early Jewish sources suggest that the sheep around Bethlehem were outside year-round. So you can see, December 25th fits both tradition and the biblical narrative well. There is no sound objection to it.

Now admittedly, the sheep around Bethlehem were the exception, not the rule. But these were no ordinary sheep. They were sacrificial lambs. In the early spring they would be slaughtered at the Passover.

And God first revealed the Messiah's birth to these shepherds--shepherds who protected harmless lambs which would soon die on behalf of sinful men. Whey they saw the baby, could they have known? Might they have whispered in their hearts what John the Baptist later thundered, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"

Now, of course, we can't be absolutely certain of the day of Christ's birth. At least, not this side of heaven. But an early winter date seems as reasonable a guess as any. And December 25th has been the frontrunner for eighteen centuries. Without more evidence, there seems no good reason to change the celebration date now.

We can blame the ancient church for a large part of our uncertainty. You see, they did not celebrate Christ's birth. At all. To them, it was insignificant. They were far more concerned with his death . . . and resurrection.


The Year Jesus Was Born

Early Jewish documents such as the Mishnah and even Josephus--as well as first-century Gentile historians--such as Thallus, Serapion, and Tacitus--all testify that the one called Christ lived in Palestine and died under Pontius Pilate. As the British scholar, F. F. Bruce put it, "The historicity of Christ is as [certain]. . . as the historicity of Julius Caesar" (NT Documents, 119).

Now it logically follows that if Jesus Christ lived (need it be said?), he must have been born. The Gospels tell us that his birth was shortly before Herod the Great died. Herod's death can be fixed with certainty.

Josephus records an eclipse of the moon just before Herod passed on. This occurred on March 12th or 13th in 4 B.C. Josephus also tells us that Herod expired just before Passover. This feast took place on April 11th, in the same year, 4 B.C. From other details supplied by Josephus, we can pinpoint Herod the Great's demise as occurring between March 29th and April 4th in 4 B.C.

It might sound strange to suggest that Jesus Christ was born no later than 4 B.C. since B.C. means 'before Christ.' But our modern calendar which splits time between B.C. and A.D. was not invented until A.D. 525. At that time, Pope John the First asked a monk named Dionysius to prepare a standardized calendar for the western Church. Unfortunately, poor Dionysius missed the real B.C./A.D. division by at least four years!

Now Matthew tells us that Herod killed Bethlehem's babies two years old and under. The earliest Jesus could have been born, therefore, is 6 B.C. Through a variety of other time indicators, we can be relatively confident that the one called Messiah was born in either late 5 or early 4 B.C.

[ASsman]

I guess the Christians and the pagans should have gotten together to check their schedules. What a damn coinkydink.

[100% ILL]

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/10DumRel.htm

[Rosie Cotton]

The tradition for December 25th is actually quite ancient. Hippolytus, in the second century A.D., argued that this was Christ's birthday. Meanwhile, in the eastern Church, January 6th was the date followed.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't January 6 supposed to be the day the wise men arrived? The day of Epiphany?

Oh, and Jesus was probably born sometime around September.

[100% ILL]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't January 6 supposed to be the day the wise men arrived? The day of Epiphany?

Yes, the day of Epiphany or day of lights is traditionally believed to be January 6th. It falls more under Catholic tradition than Biblical fact however.

It is important to note that Jesus could have been as old two years old by the time the wise men appeared. They certainly were not present at the manger/birth. See Matthew chapter 2 for reference.

[100% ILL]

Can a Jebus-freak explain why God killed tens of thousands and left millions homeless from the earthquake/tsunami during the holiday season?

It seems that god is the biggest terrorist of them all....


IS GOD ABSENT OR PRESENT?



Every thinking person has at some point asked the question "where is God in the midst of suffering?" Any time a catastrophic event happens(sept 11) many stories emerg that give God glory, while others give him blame.

From a theological standpoint this predicament is called the "hiddenness of God," or "divine hiding." Why does God not make his presence more obvious? Why does God "hide." from the world that seeks him? The answer is ultimately found in the divine purposes of God. It is not that God has absconded or is absent; it is that there is a divine purpose behind His visibility or invisibility.

Yale Philosopher Norwood Russell Hanson Criticizes God's abscence in this way:

Suppose that on next Tuesday morning, just after breakfast, all of us in this world are knocked to our knees by a percussive and ear shattering thunderclap. The sky is ablaze in with an eerie, silvery light; the clouds pull apart, Revealing an unbelievably immense and radiant Zeus-like figure, towering aboveus like a hundred Everests. He frowns darkly as lightning plays across the features of His Michelangeloid face. He then points down at me and exclaims, for every man, woman, and child to hear, " I have had quite enough of your too-clever logic-chopping and word-watching in matters of Theology. Be assured N.R. Hanson that I do most cetainly exist."
The conceptual point here is if such a remarkable event were to transpire, I for one would certainly be convinced that God does exist.

Now Professor Hanson makes his point in melodramatic terms, but is believability as simple as that? Suppose this extrodinary event happened, just as described and then moments later, while backing out of his driveway, he accidentally ran over his five-year old son? Would the vision of God experienced a few minutes before provide contentment or would he demand an explaination for this tragedy as well?

The point here is sporadic supernatural demonstrations by God would not satisfy our insistence that He be constantly ccountable to us for His actions. The demand we palce before him-that just one incontrovertible miracle would dispel all doubt in every other case of "divine hiding" may well be another intellectual smoke screen we hide behind.

The expectation that we put on God tells us more about ourselves than it does about God. Numerous times in the scriptures, signs were asked of God, and they were given. But in spite of that trust in God was not automatic.

The truth behind our clamour for explanation is that we assume ourselves to be only intellectual and thus, if only our intellect can be satisfied, we will be content. This mangling of our personlaities lies at the root of our discontentedness from the way God has framed reality.

One of the most powerful encounters in the Bible is between Jesus and a learned man named Nicodemus. Nicodemus was a Pharisee, which is to say he was very religious, and the Bible indicates that he was a ruler of the Jews. Certainly not the bottom of the social class. This man recognized the supernatural charachter of Jesus and said to him "Rabbi, no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him." Instead of applauding him for his intellect, Jesus challenged Nicodemus that if he wanted to be a part of God's Kingdom, he needed to have a new birth. Jesus was telling Nicodemus that it is not the miracle over the matter that ultimatley has staying power; it is the miracle over the way we think about reality that has eternal ramifications. We are not all intelllect, and therefore soome need beyond the intellect must be met.

We look for God to be something concrete, something we can see or handle or fully explain. This is a fallacy born out of our addiction to the external. There are many evidences of God's miracle-working presence. Incredible stories abound for which therre is often no natural explanation that satisfactoraly explains them. The supernatural is possible. It happens, but it does not lead to the greatest miracle in a life. Anyone can take a miraculous story and explain it a dozen different ways. At best it just proves that there is a power beyond our own. So where does that leave us? What God seeks in every individual is not just companionship based on intervention, but communion with Him based on His indwelling. That is what makes the difference when your world is seemingly comming to an end. It is not whether a hand grabs you and rescues you from the carnage; it is that no matter what happens, His strength empowers you to rise beyond the devistation.

If mankind were only a mind or an intellect, evidence from the physical world would be all that mattered. But there is a depth to our being; a spiritual essence that goes deeper than our intellect. That essence hungers for intimacy. "Making love" without deep commitment is no more love than the embrace of a pickpocket signifies affection. The spiritual, not the physical is the essence of our being, and for that quality of nearness, on;y communion with the living God satisfies.

What is the difference between companionship and communion? In companionship with God we come to Him, rcognize our limit of strength. In communion with God we stay with Him, recognizing our depth of spirit. In companionship with God we long to see and understand. In communion with God we long to feel and belong. Those who seek companionship without communion seek power without commitment; the display without dedication, and proof without love.

English writer Anthony Bloom underscores it like this:

"We complain that God does not make Himself present to us for the few minutes we reserve for Him, but what about the 23 1/2 hours during which God may be knocking at our door and we answer, "I am busy" Or we do not answer at all because we do not hear the knock at the door of our heart, of our mind, of our conscience, of our life. So there is a situation in which we have no right to complain of the abscence of God, because twe are a great deal ore absent than He ever is."

There is at least one profound lesson that I can draw from life and death tragedies such as the tsunami/earthquake. There is an appointed time for each of us when life will reach it's end. God has entrusted us with common sense and wisdom that we must express in our day-to-day activities. We are not to throw life away. We are not licensed to court danger. Sometimes we can think we are safe when we are not. Real safety is only to be found in HIs presence. Wherever we go, whatever we do, we are safe in that communion with Him. Safety is not found in seeking an escape from His appointments.
Jesus said "I am the ressurection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead yet shal he live." (John 11:25). His miracle is not there to keep us from dying. It is to take us through death into HIs eternal presence, which is the place of ultimate communion.

Natural disasters such as earthquakes tsunami's etc. may have the power to take our lives. But Jesus Christ has the power to raise us up again and nothing can thake that away.

[yeahwho]

IS GOD ABSENT OR PRESENT?



If mankind were only a mind or an intellect, evidence from the physical world would be all that mattered. But there is a depth to our being; a spiritual essence that foes deeper than our intellect. That essence hungers for intimacy. "Making love" without deep commitment is no more love than the embrace of a pickpocket signifies affection. The spiritual, not the physical is the essence of our being, and for that quality of nearness, on;y communion with the living God satisfies.

What is the difference between companionship and communion? In companionship with God we come to Him, rcognize our limit of strength. In communion with God we stay with Him, recognizing our depth of spirit. In companionship with God we long to see and understand. In communion with God we long to feel and belong. Those who seek companionship without communion seek power without commitment; the display without dedication, and proof without love.

English writer Anthony Bloom underscores it like this:

"We complain that God does not make Himself present to us for the few minutes we reserve for Him, but what about the 23 1/2 hours during which God may be knocking at our door and we answer, "I am busy" Or we do not answer at all because we do not hear the knock at the door of our heart, of our mind, of our conscience, of our life. So there is a situation in which we have no right to complain of the abscence of God, because twe are a great deal ore absent than He ever is."

There is at least one profound lesson that I can draw from life and death tragedies such as the tsunami/earthquake. There is an appointed time for each of us when life will reach it's end. God has entrusted us with common sense and wisdom that we must express in our day-to-day activities. We are not to throw life away. We are not licensed to court danger. Sometimes we can think we are safe when we are not. Real safety is only to be found in HIs presence. Wherever we go, whatever we do, we are safe in that communion with Him. Safety is not found in seeking an escape from His appointments.
Jesus said "I am the ressurection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead yet shal he live." (John 11:25). His miracle is not there to keep us from dying. It is to take us through death into HIs eternal presence, which is the place of ultimate communion.

Natural disasters such as earthquakes tsunami's etc. may have the power to take our lives. But Jesus Christ has the power to raise us up again and nothing can thake that away.

Is that story supposed to make me feel better? Shouldn't we now examine our priorities as mankind and look at the scientific evidence of past earthquakes (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L30617614.htm) and realize that these events are inevitable? I pray that the Christians who have knowledge of the current tsunami warning systems (http://www.geophys.washington.edu/tsunami/general/warning/warning.html#centers) understand that the 120 billion dollars earmarked to fight a war in Iraq (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=7200975) for a lie could of saved the lives of what today's toll is 60,000 innocent human lives, mostly children.



That is something to pray for, knowledge and ability to use it for the good of mankind. Also humility about how we percieve life on earth and a way to really make a difference.

[100% ILL]

Is that story supposed to make me feel better? Shouldn't we now examine our priorities as mankind and look at the scientific evidence of past earthquakes (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L30617614.htm) and realize that these events are inevitable? I pray that the Christians who have knowledge of the current tsunami warning systems (http://www.geophys.washington.edu/tsunami/general/warning/warning.html#centers) understand that the 120 billion dollars earmarked to fight a war in Iraq (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=7200975) for a lie could of saved the lives of what today's toll is 60,000 innocent human lives, mostly children.

That is something to pray for, knowledge and ability to use it for the good of mankind. Also humility about how we percieve life on earth and a way to really make a difference.

Feel better? No, that was not the intention or even the implication. The post was in response to the question "Why would God allow....?" My response was designed to show that often our perception and expectation of God and his purpose is misconstrued.

From a completely humanitarian standpoint your responses makes sense, but let's examine your statements a little more closely. Realistically it is your response that is designed to make us "feel" better.


Examine our priorities. Which pretty much are comfort and pleasure seeking. In a country like ours people rarely feel the need to reach out until a tragedy happens. Like you said these events are inevitable; so based on that rationale should we research global catasrophies and donate money to each country where they exsist and hopefully try to lessen the loss of life through our efforts? First of all, if we were to dole out untold millions to impoverished nations for "early warning systems" who's to say that the funds would be used for that purpose? Secondly until a catastrophy of this magnitude occurs most people generally don't see an overwhelming need to give money away. My point being that even though your heart is in the right place it doesn't mean that everyone elses is.

Also, the 120 billion earmarked to fight the war in Iraq would certainly not be used to help install an early warning system in South East Asia assuming of course that the Iraq war was not going on right now and that this catastrophy had not occurred. Mainly because it was not a world issue before now. I doubt you thought about it. Of course now millions will be spent in the relief effort ($35 million so far) but that is hind sight and the argument is circular.

[yeahwho]

Of course I thought about it. We have a tsunami warning system in place where I live. I've been warned and actually moved from the shoreline before. I've read articles on earthquakes because I've been in earthquakes, NOAA's headquarters is a few blocks from where I live and my neighbor works there. This isn't about afterthought, it's about forethought and looking at what we have and how it could benefit the whole planet. It has always been about that, human rights, health epidemics (http://www.forbes.com/2004/12/13/1213autofacescan05.html), tragedies, starvation (http://www.napsoc.org/) and how far we are from enlightened action as humans.

Feel Better? No, I'm not feeling better nor are billions of us on Earth.

If this is a test, how did we do? I think we both know the answer.

I understand misapropriations of funds earmarked for health/safety issues. I also understand the misapropriations of funds for war.

[Dans Boutique]

My views on religion trancend to two very well known quotes, but more or less sum my feelings up quite comprehensivley

Karl Marx - "man made religion, religion did not make man"

Nietchze - "God is dead and we have killed him".

In the world of "dans boutique" it would be illegal for all children to take part in any religious practice until the age of 16. Thus preventing parents/families from impeding on their human rights by brainwashing them from an early age.

[yeahwho]

In the world of "dans boutique" it would be illegal for all children to take part in any religious practice until the age of 16. Thus preventing parents/families from impeding on their human rights by brainwashing them from an early age.

Now that got my attention. (y)

[Whois]

Now that got my attention. (y)

Yup, classify it as child abuse if they break the law.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

[QueenAdrock]

This is the thread that I can talk to Jesus with?

I asked for a bike for Christmas when I was 8, and I never got it. Why didn't you bring it to me, and why? :mad:

[ASsman]

Jesus Fish Freaks really piss me off. The ones that are all like "Blah blah this country was founded by religious men" " It's in the constitution, religion this religion that BLAH BLAH". Fuck twats, the reason most came to the Americans was to escape Religious opression, morons. Hell the damn Revolutionary War (which wasn't very revolutionary at all) was to free ourself from what was believed to be a divine monarchy. Idiots, they should all be urinated upon. [/rant]

[100% ILL]

My views on religion trancend to two very well known quotes, but more or less sum my feelings up quite comprehensivley

Karl Marx - "man made religion, religion did not make man"

Nietchze - "God is dead and we have killed him".

In the world of "dans boutique" it would be illegal for all children to take part in any religious practice until the age of 16. Thus preventing parents/families from impeding on their human rights by brainwashing them from an early age.

The death of God movement helped support and add fuel to the fire of Nazism

The ideological connection between Nietzsche and Hitler has been made by various scholars. J. P. Stern, Professor of German at the University of London, who co-authored a book on Nietzsche, points out that Mussolini, who read Nietzsche extensively, received a copy of Nietzsche’s Collected Works as a present from the Führer on the Brenner Pass in 1938.Another point worth noting is that, according to historian William Shirer, "Hitler often visited the Nietzsche museum in Weimar and publicized his veneration for the philosopher by posing for photographs of himself staring in rapture at the bust of the great man."

Historian Paul Johnson writes of the ideological connection between Nietzsche and Hitler:

Adolf Hitler . . . was a disciple of Friedrich Nietzsche. . . . Hitler hated Christianity with a passion which rivaled Lenin’s. Shortly after assuming power in 1933, he told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended ‘to stamp out Christianity root and branch.’ ‘One is either a Christian or a German -- you cannot be both,’ he added. . . . He said, ‘I want a powerful, masterly, cruel and fearless youth. . . . The freedom and dignity of the wild beast must shine from their eyes. . . .’

Jehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, describes the real "god" of Hitler and the Nazis:

They wanted to go back to a pagan world, beautiful, naturalistic, where natural hierarchies based on the supremacy of the strong [echoes of Nietzsche here?] would be established, because strong equalled good, powerful equalled civilized. The world did have a kind of God, the merciless God of nature, the brutal God of races, the oppressive God of hierarchies.

[racer5.0stang]

[QUOTE=Dans Boutique]My views on religion trancend to two very well known quotes, but more or less sum my feelings up quite comprehensivley

Karl Marx - "man made religion, religion did not make man"

Nietchze - "God is dead and we have killed him".[QUOTE]

It would appear that ignorance runs rampant.

[ASsman]

You shouldn't attack yourself like that Racer. It really diminishes your credibility.

[Ace42]

The death of God movement helped support and add fuel to the fire of Nazism

Tish and fipsy. By the same argument, you could say the science of genetics "helped support and add fuel to the fire of Nazism" - what with their profiling of the handicapped, etc.

That would be patently untrue and a gross misrepresentation.

The ideological connection between Nietzsche and Hitler has been made by various scholars.

As has the connection between Wagner and Hitler. Does this mean that Wagnerian opera is intrinsically immoral? Hell no. Really, stop now before you hurt yourself.


Historian Paul Johnson writes of the ideological connection between Nietzsche and Hitler:

Adolf Hitler . . . was a disciple of Friedrich Nietzsche. . . . Hitler hated Christianity with a passion which rivaled Lenin’s.

Please include the text omitted by ellipsis. I expect it involves qualifiers which change the import of the sentence fundamentally. Adolf Hitler was NOT a disciple of Nietzche in any significant manner. The texts passed on to the Nazis were all vetted by Nietzche's sister, who was an ardent Nazi supporter. Her selective editing means the Nazi interpretation of Nietzche is limited to say the least. If you want phenomenologists in the middle of Nazi intrigue, try Heidegger.

Shortly after assuming power in 1933, he told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended ‘to stamp out Christianity root and branch.’ ‘One is either a Christian or a German -- you cannot be both,’ he added. . . . He said, ‘I want a powerful, masterly, cruel and fearless youth. . . . The freedom and dignity of the wild beast must shine from their eyes. . . .’

And yet he is also on record as saying that any non-protestant German was to be suspect. Are you sure that the translation of "Chritistian" is not mistaken? Hitler did have an inherant distrust of *catholics* (one I believe you and racerstang share) which would make a lot more sense. Especially given the manifest use of iconography Hitler's propoganda services churned out.

Jehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, describes the real "god" of Hitler and the Nazis:

They wanted to go back to a pagan world, beautiful, naturalistic, where natural hierarchies based on the supremacy of the strong [echoes of Nietzsche here?] would be established, because strong equalled good, powerful equalled civilized. The world did have a kind of God, the merciless God of nature, the brutal God of races, the oppressive God of hierarchies.

"Supremacy of the strong" - yeah, throw in a few quotes about "supremacy" and everyone is bound to say "yeah, that's the Nazis!"

Nietzsche's coining of the term "ubermench" (or 'overmen') is a complicated one. The Nazi understanding is simplistic and quite flawed. Nietzsche subscribed to Darwinistic "survival of the fittest" - and, unlike most MODERN plebians, would've known that the (then contemporary) phrase uses the term "fittest" in a very specific sense. Fittest as in "the best fit into their niche" not necessarily "fittest as in strongest".

So, before you start laying the responsibility for Nazism at the feet of Aethiests, you should take a look at the US's current Aryan Nations statistics. Bible-thumpers to a manjack.

[racer5.0stang]

You shouldn't attack yourself like that Racer. It really diminishes your credibility.

On who's account am I drawing credit?

Certainly not yours, with all your incoherent babblings and misguided rants.

[Waus]

Without contributing to any current arguments - -

I am a Christian. I don't make excuses for every person claiming to be a Christian that has done bad things. I don't claim to be perfect, and I don't expect anyone else to be. I do my best to follow what the Bible says about how to live my life.

I am not stupid, and I do not believe in things blindly. I'd like to think that I'm not selfish, and I devote a good amount of my time to meeting and caring about high school students. I do believe that the Bible is inerrant, and that most contradictions that people find are usually misread.

I do not base my political beliefs on my perception of the Bible, but I do base them on what I think is right. I don't try to start arguments over religion every chance I get, because I think that the best way you can show Christ to someone is by loving them. I agree with Lil' J that personal faith is between you and God, and not your pastor, church and bank.

I do not judge people, it is not my place. I do not expect everyone to agree with me, but I do think I'm right. I think I'm right not because of pride, or because of ego - but because I think that any claim of real truth is exclusive by nature.

I am not afraid of dying, and I don't create my beliefs or look around for a crutch because I cannot handle my life. Jesus is my purpose, not my t-shirt, bracelet, gimmick, or song.

I realize that these paragraphs don't always string together to make a cohesive subject for each one, but since I'm not arguing with anyone I didn't think it was important to make them so.

Feel free to heap abuse or disagree.

[ASsman]

On who's account am I drawing credit?

Certainly not yours, with all your incoherent babblings and misguided rants.
GOD'S.

[100% ILL]

Tish and fipsy. By the same argument, you could say the science of genetics "helped support and add fuel to the fire of Nazism" - what with their profiling of the handicapped, etc.

That would be patently untrue and a gross misrepresentation.



As has the connection between Wagner and Hitler. Does this mean that Wagnerian opera is intrinsically immoral? Hell no. Really, stop now before you hurt yourself.



Please include the text omitted by ellipsis. I expect it involves qualifiers which change the import of the sentence fundamentally. Adolf Hitler was NOT a disciple of Nietzche in any significant manner. The texts passed on to the Nazis were all vetted by Nietzche's sister, who was an ardent Nazi supporter. Her selective editing means the Nazi interpretation of Nietzche is limited to say the least. If you want phenomenologists in the middle of Nazi intrigue, try Heidegger.



And yet he is also on record as saying that any non-protestant German was to be suspect. Are you sure that the translation of "Chritistian" is not mistaken? Hitler did have an inherant distrust of *catholics* (one I believe you and racerstang share) which would make a lot more sense. Especially given the manifest use of iconography Hitler's propoganda services churned out.

Jehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, describes the real "god" of Hitler and the Nazis:



"Supremacy of the strong" - yeah, throw in a few quotes about "supremacy" and everyone is bound to say "yeah, that's the Nazis!"

Nietzsche's coining of the term "ubermench" (or 'overmen') is a complicated one. The Nazi understanding is simplistic and quite flawed. Nietzsche subscribed to Darwinistic "survival of the fittest" - and, unlike most MODERN plebians, would've known that the (then contemporary) phrase uses the term "fittest" in a very specific sense. Fittest as in "the best fit into their niche" not necessarily "fittest as in strongest".

So, before you start laying the responsibility for Nazism at the feet of Aethiests, you should take a look at the US's current Aryan Nations statistics. Bible-thumpers to a manjack.


The science of genetics isn't a philosophy. Neitzche's philisophical view points,influenced Hitler to "want" to perform the genetic experiments in the first place. Ideas have consequences. For instance, the influence of Sartre’s atheistic existentialism on terror campaigns abroad is documented in historian Paul Johnson’s book Intellectuals. Ideas have consequences with regard to the Nietzsche-Hitler connection as well. Of course, Nietzsche’s influence on Hitler does not concern anti-Semitism or German nationalism per se, For instance, Nietzsche not only attacked anti-Semitism, but he broke ties with composer Richard Wagner because of the anti-Semitism of the latter. Since Nietzsche himself wasn’t anti-Semitic, he therefore could not directly influence later anti-Semitism or German nationalism. So in some ways Nietzsche was diametrically opposed to certain Nazi values. (For instance, besides anti-Semitism or German nationalism, Nietzsche never maintained that the Superman [Übermensch] was racial or inheritable.

But the influence at issue is the death-of-God and the Superman ideology proclaimed by Nietzsche, which was certainly picked up by Hitler. For instance, Nietzschean phrases such as "lords of the earth," "herd instinct," and "the will to force" appear in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Of course, to make Nietzsche the cause of Hitler’s actions would be unfair. Events and incidents related to the Holocaust (e.g., creating concentration camps, Kristallnacht, the invasion of Poland, medical experiments) did not deterministically occur. Each was a willed and intended event. But to say that the death-of-God philosophy of Nietzsche had an influence upon Hitler’s thinking would not be an overreaching point.

[Dans Boutique]

Tish and fipsy. By the same argument, you could say the science of genetics "helped support and add fuel to the fire of Nazism" - what with their profiling of the handicapped, etc.

That would be patently untrue and a gross misrepresentation.



As has the connection between Wagner and Hitler. Does this mean that Wagnerian opera is intrinsically immoral? Hell no. Really, stop now before you hurt yourself.



Please include the text omitted by ellipsis. I expect it involves qualifiers which change the import of the sentence fundamentally. Adolf Hitler was NOT a disciple of Nietzche in any significant manner. The texts passed on to the Nazis were all vetted by Nietzche's sister, who was an ardent Nazi supporter. Her selective editing means the Nazi interpretation of Nietzche is limited to say the least. If you want phenomenologists in the middle of Nazi intrigue, try Heidegger.



And yet he is also on record as saying that any non-protestant German was to be suspect. Are you sure that the translation of "Chritistian" is not mistaken? Hitler did have an inherant distrust of *catholics* (one I believe you and racerstang share) which would make a lot more sense. Especially given the manifest use of iconography Hitler's propoganda services churned out.

Jehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, describes the real "god" of Hitler and the Nazis:



"Supremacy of the strong" - yeah, throw in a few quotes about "supremacy" and everyone is bound to say "yeah, that's the Nazis!"

Nietzsche's coining of the term "ubermench" (or 'overmen') is a complicated one. The Nazi understanding is simplistic and quite flawed. Nietzsche subscribed to Darwinistic "survival of the fittest" - and, unlike most MODERN plebians, would've known that the (then contemporary) phrase uses the term "fittest" in a very specific sense. Fittest as in "the best fit into their niche" not necessarily "fittest as in strongest".

So, before you start laying the responsibility for Nazism at the feet of Aethiests, you should take a look at the US's current Aryan Nations statistics. Bible-thumpers to a manjack.


Absolutely spot on pal, couldn't have said it better myself.
Its very easy to link Nietzche with the Nazi's, but if people would actually take the time to read his work rather than quoting somebody else's opinion, perhaps they would see he is anything but a Nazi symapthizer.

Also, does anyone seriously believe Hitler was intelligent enough to understand Nietzche? I don't think so.

And with regards to ignorance..... the church has been churning it out for 2000 years.

[Ace42]

The science of genetics isn't a philosophy.

Irrelevant. Your point was that the philosophy somehow "inspired" Hitler. The same could be said of genetics.

Neitzche's philisophical view points,influenced Hitler to "want" to perform the genetic experiments in the first place.

Some more "World history according to 100% Ill." You should write a book on the subject. I will be sure to keep an eye out for it in the ficition section of my local library.

Ideas have consequences.

And many don't. As apohrisms go, that was particularly facile.

But to say that the death-of-God philosophy of Nietzsche had an influence upon Hitler’s thinking would not be an overreaching point.

Using someone's work in your rhetoric does not mean it has had an "influence" on your thinking. Likewise, quoting someone else does not mean they influenced you, merely that you are using their words.

I could go around quoting Winston Churchill (I do on occasion) - I would not say that Winston Churchill has been an influence on me or my thinking in any tangible way shape or form.

[100% ILL]

Irrelevant. Your point was that the philosophy somehow "inspired" Hitler. The same could be said of genetics.

Using someone's work in your rhetoric does not mean it has had an "influence" on your thinking. Likewise, quoting someone else does not mean they influenced you, merely that you are using their words.

I could go around quoting Winston Churchill (I do on occasion) - I would not say that Winston Churchill has been an influence on me or my thinking in any tangible way shape or form.

By quoting someone else to make your point, it is arguable that you deemed them to be in agreement with or in line with your views and or beliefs. So it could be argued that they do in fact "influence" you or that your views are at the very least somewhat in line with yours.Another point worth noting is that, according to historian William Shirer, "Hitler often visited the Nietzsche museum in Weimar and publicized his veneration for the philosopher by posing for photographs of himself staring in rapture at the bust of the great man."
So to say that Neitzschie had no bearing on Hitler's philosphy, is in my opinion incorrect.

[Ace42]

By quoting someone else to make your point, it is arguable that you deemed them to be in agreement with or in line with your views and or beliefs. So it could be argued that they do in fact "influence" you or that your views are at the very least somewhat in line with yours.Another point worth noting is that, according to historian William Shirer, "Hitler often visited the Nietzsche museum in Weimar and publicized his veneration for the philosopher by posing for photographs of himself staring in rapture at the bust of the great man."
So to say that Neitzschie had no bearing on Hitler's philosphy, is in my opinion incorrect.

Being in agreement with and being inspired by are distinct. The latter implies a causal relationship. The one leads to the second. The former merely states that the two coincide to a greater or lesser degree. Secondly, the fact that a quotation might be apt does not imply I agree with the sentiments or the context.

Also, would you like to hazard a guess how many people who do not know the first thing about the fundaments of relativity have posters of Einstein on their wall? He wanted to seem an intellectual, and thus wanted to be pictured in agreement with a popular icon whose fame and ideology could be subverted.

[100% ILL]

He wanted to seem an intellectual, and thus wanted to be pictured in agreement with a popular icon whose fame and ideology could be subverted.

“Close your hearts to pity. Act brutally. Eighty million people must obtain what is their right. Their existence must be made secure. The strongest man is right.”
Record of the address to the commanders of the Wehrmacht on 22 August 1939, the so-called second speech
Nuremberg trial proceedings, XXVI, 1014–PS

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/#7

Later, during the 1930's, aspects of Nietzsche's thought were espoused by the Nazis and Italian Fascists, partly due to the encouragement of Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche through her solicitations with Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. It was possible for the Nazi interpreters to assemble, quite selectively, various passages from Nietzsche's writings whose juxtaposition appeared to justify war, aggression and domination for the sake of nationalistic and racial self-glorification.

[Ace42]

There you go. "By selectively assembling passages" - the sister's Nazist tendancies helped them to extract passages which were juxtaposed in order to legitimise things they did not necessarily mean.

[ASsman]

Frontline special.. on PBS obviously. About Bush and the crazy Jesus people.
"The Jesus Factor". These people think the Bible is without error... boy I laughed long and hard.

[100% ILL]

For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true but every man a liar.
Romans 3:3-4


Meanwhile Christians in China actually suffer for believing in Christ.


http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/32005c.asp

[ASsman]

Oh nos! Haha, where is precious God now?! Also US deals with China, the US could care less about a few Christians human rights. If only there were more Wal-Marts in China, THEN WE WOULD ALL BE SAVED! JEEESUS!


And to think the Bible is without error or corruption, is naive.