Is the Bible fluff?

[catatonic]

failed thread it is.

[Schmeltz]

Yes. Yes it is.

[catatonic]

I would thank the Mormons and the Jews anyway for providing knowledge through their scriptures.

[catatonic]

We could have a very friendly conversational about our religious and scientific beliefs, sharing performances with ourselves, as long as we don't involve statistics. There are no real performances with atheism but you take responsibility for your actions. You could share about that.

At least I tried and I can type the link after a different time!

[Funkaloyd]

What do you mean by "performances"?

[yeahwho]

We could have a very friendly conversational about our religious and scientific beliefs, sharing performances with ourselves, as long as we don't involve statistics. There are no real performances with atheism but you take responsibility for your actions. You could share about that.

At least I tried and I can type the link after a different time!

You know that part in the bible where they talk about "plague and pestilence"? Yeah, I'm part of that.

[Lindsey_1535]

exactly...?

[paulb]

the bible is good in one sense. tells some cool stories, trys to make humankind somewhat of a nicer species.

[catatonic]

like I could take you through baptism in your mind and you could share the responsibilities you underwent as an atheist.

The Bible tells some cool stories and tries to make people nicer. But then all boom, all books do that. The Bible can be seen on higher levels, balancing justice, mercy, uprightness, and equality, and gving insight into the cosmos, if just you would give it the opportunity.

"No plug for Book of Mormon under this sentence".

[ASsman]

Buh?

[DapperDiverge]

It's hard for me to believe a lot of it because it's beem translated so many times, in so many languages for hundreds of years that it's like the whisper game... ya know I start the game and whisper the word "banana" ... after it gets around the circle and come back to me its "blue banana monkey poo" or somethng like it... But that's not what I said

That why when I see so many people take the bible literally I wanna scream!!

I think I'd be more interested in reading it if it wasn't in so much old english

Oh yeah... jesus wasn't white... all the paintings you see of jesus was made around the renaissance era in Europe where everyone is white so of course the artist's interpretation is going to be that jesus is white if that's all he knows or wants to believe. So because those artists like de vinci weren't actually in the times of jesus how would they know? they wouldn't case closed!

[catatonic]

The art is -

He lived in the middle east where most were Arab/brown. He was a direct descendant of kings. Abraham, David, and those who were there when Jerusalem was dragged captive away were Joseph's ancestors, who was the husband of Mary. How not look, when He was born his Father in Heaven was the Father? Therefore it's controversial to say with any definitiveness what color He was and can be surmised that the color requires a lot more knowledge.

[wrongwayandugg]

read it astro-logically. it's all symbology.

[catatonic]

"Read it astro-logically" - KRS ONE
"Buh?"
OK. No one isn't pressuring anybody to not convert. They're spying out what help they can get or give with responsibility.

[greedygretchen]

Christianity is modern day mythology fashioned into a tool of control and fear...i think buddha, quetzalcoatl, shiva, horus, and some other dudes were all born to virgins, tempted by some sort of evil, persecuted by others, and sacrificed for the good of the world way before jesus ever was...(love those ellipses!)

I personally believe that Jesus/God are symbols for that which we cannot explain rationally much in the same way that Greeks/Romans, etc. attributed a different god/goddess to each natural phenomenon. Maybe it's 'cause I'm the product of both Baptist (K-8) and Catholic (9-12) schooling that I really wonder if the rapture is coming...or was I just conditioned to believe that so I'll fall in line so I can go to "heaven"? :confused:

[ChrisLove]

Christianity is modern day mythology fashioned into a tool of control and fear...i think buddha, quetzalcoatl, shiva, horus, and some other dudes were all born to virgins, tempted by some sort of evil, persecuted by others, and sacrificed for the good of the world way before jesus ever was...(love those ellipses!)

I personally believe that Jesus/God are symbols for that which we cannot explain rationally much in the same way that Greeks/Romans, etc. attributed a different god/goddess to each natural phenomenon. Maybe it's 'cause I'm the product of both Baptist (K-8) and Catholic (9-12) schooling that I really wonder if the rapture is coming...as I just conditioned to believe that so I'll fall in line so I can go to "heaven"? :confused:


Horus in particular,

- was born to a virgin
- was predicted to be king causing the ruler of the time to kill all the new born boys - but managed to survive
- had 12 disciples
- was tempted for 40 days and 40 nights by the devil
- resisted temptation
- was executed
- rose from the dead after 3 days

at least that is my undersanding

crazy shit

[Schmeltz]

The ancient Sumerian agricultural god Dumuzi also shares many of those characteristics, if memory serves.

[sam i am]

How long has worship of other gods outside of Christ lasted?

[ASsman]

As long if not longer AFAIK. Do a little research bumhole.

[Ali]

As long if not longer AFAIK. Do a little research bumhole.It meant to be a rhetorical question, buttmunch :p

[catatonic]

Those deities may have been flawed perspectives on the real deity, obtained by searching for God.

[ASsman]

It meant to be a rhetorical question, buttmunch :p
A rhe who?

Those deities may have been flawed perspectives on the real deity, obtained by searching for God.
I knew you were gonna say that even before you said it, typical response... 1000 years from now someone will say the same thing about your deity, buh? And your interpretation is but one. Not the most sensible one either.

[Ace42X]

I think I'd be more interested in reading it if it wasn't in so much old english

Hah, the KJA version of the bible isn't in old English. I very much doubt you've even seen a middle English version of the bible.

[ASsman]

It would hit you in the face like a big pizza pie.

Rednecks across the belt would no longer be able to barely understand the Bible.

[Schmeltz]

How long has worship of other gods outside of Christ lasted?


Five thousand years and counting in India. What's your point - non-Christian religions are all wrong because they haven't been around as long? What a moronic thing to say.

[ASsman]

He probably means Christianity isn't unique and therefore Christians need to stop being full of themselves. It eats away at it's "credibility" if you can even say religion has any.

[checkyourprez]

- was executed
- rose from the dead after 3 days



why doesn't this sort of shit happen today?

[ASsman]

In todays fast passed world it would only be over in a matter of hours. And the crucifixion would probably be postponed due to permit laws and bureaucracy.

[sam i am]

Actually.....

I was referring to the fact that Christianity/Judaism (I put these two together because they share 80% of the same story...with Christians believing in the New Testament and that Jesus was the Christ, the redeemer of all sin) are the two oldest practicing religions in the world today with any significant number of adherents - approx. founding date : 2000 BC

Hinduism - approx. 1000 B.C.

Zoroastrianism - approx. 1000-800 B.C.

Buddhism was founded approx. 563 BC

Confucianism - approx. 479 B.C.

Taoism - approx. 3rd Century B.C.

Islam wasn't founded until later - approx. 632 A.D.

Shinto - approx. 712 A.D.

Sikhism approx. 1539 A.D.

See attached for more detailed info... http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0113529.html

As for the numbers of people who follow each religion : http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

The bottom line is that there are FAR more adherents of some kind of religious belief than there are those who believe in nothing (atheists) or doubt the existence of a God or Gods (agnostics).

Of course, the debate COULD revolve around the amount of faith it takes to ignore all the history, archaeology, morals of societies, etc. versus the amount of faith it takes to believe in something unseeable, but that's a topic for another thread, IMO.

[Funkaloyd]

Christianity/Judaism (I put these two together because they share 80% of the same story...with Christians believing in the New Testament and that Jesus was the Christ, the redeemer of all sin)That's a highly questionable association. Sure, Christianity was heavily influenced by Judaism, but so was Islam and the Rastafari movement.

approx. founding date : 2000 BC
Hinduism - approx. 1000 B.C.What's your source? The oldest Veda was written well before 1000BC, and it's likely that Hinduism (or at least something very similar) was in full swing before then.

Also, using the supposed time of Abraham to mark the starting point of Judaism is ridiculous. There's no reason outside of the Bible to believe he even existed, so you may as well say that Judaism was started "in the beginning" or with Noah.

The bottom line is that there are FAR more adherents of some kind of religious belief than there are those who believe in nothingAnd there are far more non-Christians than Christians. And there were far more geocentrists than heliocentrists. And geocentrism is far older than heliocentrism, for that matter.

You post is filled with nothing but bandwagon and appeal to tradition fallacies.

[checkyourprez]

The bottom line is that there are FAR more adherents of some kind of religious belief than there are those who believe in nothing (atheists) or doubt the existence of a God or Gods (agnostics).



thats where people who believe in religion fail to want to look outside the box. (or maybe lack the capability for that matter)

the % who actually sought out a religion and reallly belive in it i think tends to be 4657685756453 less than those people who for the most have been conditioned into believing it. most people in the world just pass down their beliefs to their kids, this happens all over the world.


once you are taught something from birth it becomes concrete in your mind. you dont want to or cant for that matter look to see that what you have been taught, and the thing that you base you exisetence on...is not real.

people need to be able to stand back and look at this from a distance, remove their personal beieves from the situation. is any of that stuff possile?

not to mention the real reasons for religion. control of people, the masses were not informed enough, or for that matter even had the ability to get that knowledge at the time when religions were invented.

they didnt know to think any better that all that stuff is bullshit and to not teach their kids it.

instead they get scared into believe it and it just gets passed down for a couple thousand years till now.

its a scary though that we are no more than luck. but thats what we are, humans have an inate thinking that they are more special and therefor had to be created by something bigger than us. we're just animals.


very simplified view of how i look at life, but hopefully enough for somebody to kinda get my point. if not, eh, the shit happens.

[sam i am]

That's a highly questionable association. Sure, Christianity was heavily influenced by Judaism, but so was Islam and the Rastafari movement.

How so? Christians believe in the Old Testament, which is what Judaism believes in.

What's your source? The oldest Veda was written well before 1000BC, and it's likely that Hinduism (or at least something very similar) was in full swing before then.

My source is in the link above. What's YOUR source?

Also, using the supposed time of Abraham to mark the starting point of Judaism is ridiculous. There's no reason outside of the Bible to believe he even existed, so you may as well say that Judaism was started "in the beginning" or with Noah.

Abraham is believed to be the starting point for both Islam and Judaism (and, by extension, Christianity). Written records encode his existence and life, just as written records encode the findings of Aristotle or the Roman emperors or Alexander the Great or any number of other things that have been translated and transliterated since the inception of the written word. Ohhhhh.....you don't believe in ANY of those things because of all the times they've been transcribed and rewritten since their inital composition? No?

And there are far more non-Christians than Christians. And there were far more geocentrists than heliocentrists. And geocentrism is far older than heliocentrism, for that matter.

True that there are a middling amount more non-Christians than Christians alive in the world today.....historically, that was not the case. As for employing geocentrism vs. heliocentrism as a foil for your anti-Christianity, I'll wager you believe in global warming being PRIMARILY caused by human means, not by solar influences. And, I'll bet you believe that humans have cased the ozone hole in the Southern Hemisphere, despite the fact that it "self-heals" every single year.

You post is filled with nothing but bandwagon and appeal to tradition fallacies.

And yours is filled with delusions of grandeur and appeal to non-tradition fallacies.

[sam i am]

thats where people who believe in religion fail to want to look outside the box. (or maybe lack the capability for that matter)

the % who actually sought out a religion and reallly belive in it i think tends to be 4657685756453 less than those people who for the most have been conditioned into believing it. most people in the world just pass down their beliefs to their kids, this happens all over the world.


once you are taught something from birth it becomes concrete in your mind. you dont want to or cant for that matter look to see that what you have been taught, and the thing that you base you exisetence on...is not real.

people need to be able to stand back and look at this from a distance, remove their personal beieves from the situation. is any of that stuff possile?

not to mention the real reasons for religion. control of people, the masses were not informed enough, or for that matter even had the ability to get that knowledge at the time when religions were invented.

they didnt know to think any better that all that stuff is bullshit and to not teach their kids it.

instead they get scared into believe it and it just gets passed down for a couple thousand years till now.

its a scary though that we are no more than luck. but thats what we are, humans have an inate thinking that they are more special and therefor had to be created by something bigger than us. we're just animals.


very simplified view of how i look at life, but hopefully enough for somebody to kinda get my point. if not, eh, the shit happens.

I completely understand the stance you are taking, but you are incorrect if you believe that I am one of those who is a part of your "indoctrination" theory.

As an FYI, I have been Catholic, Hindu, Agnostic, Buddhist, Atheist, and born-again Christian in my lifetime. I have studied comparative theology, philosophy, history, archaeology, sociology, astronomy, and even astrology.

Christianity calls upon it's adherents to THINK their way into faith. True Christians believe because they have found EVIDENCE for their faith.

[checkyourprez]

EVIDENCE for their faith.



share. :)

[sam i am]

share. :)

On one condition : you agree, ahead of time, to take what is offered and only comment on what is offered and any oppositional evidence you have in return....fair enough?

I'll respect your stance if you respect mine and let's have a REASONED debate about it, K?

[Schmeltz]

Abraham is believed to be the starting point for both Islam and Judaism (and, by extension, Christianity). Written records encode his existence and life


Written records also "encode" the fact that the sun is moved across the sky by a giant dung beetle. Abraham is mythology and nobody with any amount of familiarity with the study of history would even dream of comparing that fable with what we know about the Roman emperors. Jesus, how can you expect anybody to take that seriously?


there are a middling amount more non-Christians than Christians alive in the world today.....historically, that was not the case.


What in the hell are you talking about?! When were there ever more Christians than non-Christians alive in the world? No single religion has ever been able to claim a majority of humankind among its followers. And what exactly would you define as a "middling amount"? There are a billion muslims in the world and almost as many Hindus, to say nothing of the millions of devotees to Buddhism, traditional indigenous religions, and the countless agnostics and atheists in Western countries especially. That's a "middling amount" that probably constitutes two-thirds of humanity.
Delusions of grandeur indeed.


there are FAR more adherents of some kind of religious belief than there are those who believe in nothing (atheists) or doubt the existence of a God or Gods (agnostics).


So what? All that means is that common sense is an uphill battle, but then again it always has been.

[sam i am]

Written records also "encode" the fact that the sun is moved across the sky by a giant dung beetle. Abraham is mythology and nobody with any amount of familiarity with the study of history would even dream of comparing that fable with what we know about the Roman emperors. Jesus, how can you expect anybody to take that seriously?

Oh, that's rich.....take the name of Jesus in your response.....oh.....hahahaha

As for all written records...how do you VERIFY that they are accurate? You can't any more than you can by deciphering the Rosetta Stone or the Dead Sea Scrolls and taking note, with the Dead Sea Scrolls, that the current Bible we read is 99.999% accurate from when the original sources were written about the New Testament in the first couple hundred years of the milennium.


What in the hell are you talking about?! When were there ever more Christians than non-Christians alive in the world?

Look at ESTIMATED population statistics during the first half of the last milennium. Still want to argue?

No single religion has ever been able to claim a majority of humankind among its followers.

Again, not true. See the link below....

And what exactly would you define as a "middling amount"? There are a billion muslims in the world and almost as many Hindus, to say nothing of the millions of devotees to Buddhism, traditional indigenous religions, and the countless agnostics and atheists in Western countries especially. That's a "middling amount" that probably constitutes two-thirds of humanity.
Delusions of grandeur indeed.

Did you even read the remainder of the thread before you went off half-cocked? See this : http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

It was also posted on the previous page. Read the thread...then come back and start your ravings if you'd like.

So what? All that means is that common sense is an uphill battle, but then again it always has been.

Common sense or humanism?

[Schmeltz]

As for all written records...how do you VERIFY that they are accurate?


Corroboration against other written records, archaeological finds, and genetic and climatological data, as any historian would respond. We know what we know about the Roman Emperors not because we take the written accounts as gospel (we are indeed unable to because many of them are contradictory and heavily biased) but because we formulate a probable picture, constantly redebated and redefined, based on a synthesis of multiple critically assessed sources of diverse origins. Same with Alexander. Abraham, on the other hand, is totally unverifiable - but his tale, like much of the Old Testament, gels nicely with many elements common to ancient near eastern mythology.

All that learning and you didn't come away with any of these points? Makes me wonder just how intensive your study was.


the current Bible we read is 99.999% accurate


The patriarchs never existed, the Exodus never occurred, the kingdom of Solomon is a much embellished half-truth. Everything prior to Josiah is extremely contestable and highly improbable, and many of the prophetic works are now dated to much later times than were traditionally accepted. The Pauline authorship of many of the Epistles is disputed on pretty solid grounds. The Bible is an important book, but it's hardly representative of textual accuracy by even the most lackadaisical standard.


Look at ESTIMATED population statistics during the first half of the last milennium.


All the population statistics I've seen for late antiquity and the early middle ages have Europe's population (which wasn't homogenously Christian until the later middle ages anyway) as much smaller relative to other areas. The non-Christian populations of the Middle East and Asia were (and mostly still are) vastly greater, not to mention the uncounted heathen millions living in Africa, the Americas, the Australias, Japan, etc. There is no population statistic you can give me that will demonstrate that Christians outnumbered non-Christians at any point in the history of the world. None. You're making shit up.


See this:


I did, and it bears out exactly every single point I made to you! I cited your "middling amount" of non-Christian humanity as two-thirds of the people on the globe and that's exactly the proportion given by that chart. I gave the examples of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, traditional indigenous religions, and secular non-belief, and those are exactly what the chart cites. Talk about half-cocked - you're citing sources that confirm my own points in specific detail!


Common sense or humanism?


Same thing.

[sam i am]

Corroboration against other written records, archaeological finds, and genetic and climatological data, as any historian would respond. We know what we know about the Roman Emperors not because we take the written accounts as gospel (we are indeed unable to because many of them are contradictory and heavily biased) but because we formulate a probable picture, constantly redebated and redefined, based on a synthesis of multiple critically assessed sources of diverse origins. Same with Alexander. Abraham, on the other hand, is totally unverifiable - but his tale, like much of the Old Testament, gels nicely with many elements common to ancient near eastern mythology.

OK....ready for some actual research or are you just going to completely ignore any evidence that completely contradicts your inborn fear of being wrong? I'll offer you the same deal I offered above : agree to take on what is presented and TRY to be "humane" and rational about it and we'll have a debate. Elsewise, forget about it....we're completely on opposite ends of the spectrum and will never make any headway with each other. Deal?

All that learning and you didn't come away with any of these points? Makes me wonder just how intensive your study was.

ALL of the points you make above can be easily attributed to Biblical research by scholarly sources that have been "...constantly redebated and redefined, based on a synthesis of multiple critically assessed sources of diverse origins..." Take the deal and I'll show you....


The patriarchs never existed, the Exodus never occurred, the kingdom of Solomon is a much embellished half-truth. Everything prior to Josiah is extremely contestable and highly improbable, and many of the prophetic works are now dated to much later times than were traditionally accepted. The Pauline authorship of many of the Epistles is disputed on pretty solid grounds. The Bible is an important book, but it's hardly representative of textual accuracy by even the most lackadaisical standard.

Care to offer your sources and so-called "proof?" Take the deal and let's debate it.

All the population statistics I've seen for late antiquity and the early middle ages have Europe's population (which wasn't homogenously Christian until the later middle ages anyway) as much smaller relative to other areas. The non-Christian populations of the Middle East and Asia were (and mostly still are) vastly greater, not to mention the uncounted heathen millions living in Africa, the Americas, the Australias, Japan, etc. There is no population statistic you can give me that will demonstrate that Christians outnumbered non-Christians at any point in the history of the world. None. You're making shit up.

Again, take the deal and I'll give you my sources. We can have a link war, if you'd like. We'll debate the efficacy of your sources vs. mine. Or, are you too entrenched in your BELIEF in what you BELIEVE to be true to take me on?

I did, and it bears out exactly every single point I made to you! I cited your "middling amount" of non-Christian humanity as two-thirds of the people on the globe and that's exactly the proportion given by that chart. I gave the examples of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, traditional indigenous religions, and secular non-belief, and those are exactly what the chart cites. Talk about half-cocked - you're citing sources that confirm my own points in specific detail!

Calm down, man. I just wanted to be sure you actually looked at the source before you jumped all over me. I apologize if my implication was that the current situation in world adherents was a Christian majority. I was actually, if you look through the whole thread, arguing much more that people of faith outnumber people of non-faith. We can talk about faith adherency through history, as per my points above, if you'd like.

Same thing.

Here lies the crux of the problem and why I won't debate it further with you without an upfront agreement to look at sources as objectively as possible and to assess and debate based upon the material presented, not on preconceived notions and stereotypical breast-beating.

[Funkaloyd]

Christians believe in the Old Testament, which is what Judaism believes in.
So do Muslims! (http://isaalmasih.net/bible-isa/tawrat-zabur-injil.html) And like Christians ("I'm allowed to eat pork 'cause Jesus died"), they ignore vast portions of the Torah pretty much at will.

What's YOUR source?
Take your pick (http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=rig-veda+bc+OR+bce&btnG=Search&meta=).

As for employing geocentrism vs. heliocentrism as a foil for your anti-Christianity, I'll wager you believe in global warming being PRIMARILY caused by human means, not by solar influences.
What does this have to do with anything? Have I ever made the argument that "lots of people believe that humans are responsible for global warming, therefore humans must be responsible for global warming", or that "the theory that humans are causing global warming is over 10 years old, therefore it must be true!"?

Btw, in this case it's not so much anti-Christianity as anti-bullshitism. You're (incredibly obviously) employing fallacies in your posts here.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

[Funkaloyd]

countless agnostics and atheists in Western countries especially.
Actually, the Far East seems to be putting us to shame in that regard. I believe that Japan has some of the most freethinkers per capita in the world.

[Schmeltz]

OK....ready for some actual research


I'm not interested in looking at whatever "research" or "sources" you think will alter the scholarly consensus on the Abrahamic figures in ancient near eastern mythology.


Care to offer your sources and so-called "proof?"


As somebody with a command of history, you ought to be familiar with them. I don't see any reason to retread such a well-travelled road. If you're that ignorant of the academic consensus on issues like the patriarchs and the Exodus, not much I can say is going to change your mind. If you seriously believe in the Old Testament as fact, instead of the mythology it has been conclusively proven to be, then we really are on opposite ends of the spectrum and I have absolutely no desire to approach the side you occupy.


Again, take the deal and I'll give you my sources.


Not interested. There is nothing you can put forward that can possibly demonstrate that Christians have outnumbered non-Christians at any time in world history. Well, nothing worth reading, anyway.


Here lies the crux of the problem


You got that right! What's the deal with religious people anyway?

[Schmeltz]

Actually, the Far East seems to be putting us to shame in that regard.


More's the pity. Still, if it means moving to Japan, then I'm all for it.

[ASsman]

Hahah, that is all I have to say. Ha...ha...

[Ali]

Hahah, that is all I have to say. Ha...ha...Best post in this thread :p

[greedygretchen]

True Christians believe because they have found EVIDENCE for their faith.

um, I think the main point of FAITH is that there is no EVIDENCE

[discopants]

As fictional stories go, it is quite funky.

[ASsman]

um, I think the main point of FAITH is that there is no EVIDENCE
Yah, thats kinda what faith is all about....

Except instead of being too old to believe in Neverland, if you know too much and are not ignorant of the ways of reasoning and science... you can't believe in Religion, or that it is any different from other religions/cults/ABC programing.

[minijosh]

I believe in ........ well I won't say because you will destroy what I keep sacred in my heart and mind. This has been one of the bests discussions about religion and nobody has said mine is better than yours because you are stupid and believe wrong truths.

[Ace42X]

This has been one of the bests discussions about religion and nobody has said mine is better than yours because you are stupid and believe wrong truths.

If you really believe this, I feel sorry for you. We've had some PROPER discussions on this subject on this forum, before it got filled with the ignorant sort of shit RacerStang comes out with.

[minijosh]

Dang I found this forum too late then.

[sam i am]

I'm not interested in looking at whatever "research" or "sources" you think will alter the scholarly consensus on the Abrahamic figures in ancient near eastern mythology.



As somebody with a command of history, you ought to be familiar with them. I don't see any reason to retread such a well-travelled road. If you're that ignorant of the academic consensus on issues like the patriarchs and the Exodus, not much I can say is going to change your mind. If you seriously believe in the Old Testament as fact, instead of the mythology it has been conclusively proven to be, then we really are on opposite ends of the spectrum and I have absolutely no desire to approach the side you occupy.



Not interested. There is nothing you can put forward that can possibly demonstrate that Christians have outnumbered non-Christians at any time in world history. Well, nothing worth reading, anyway.



You got that right! What's the deal with religious people anyway?

More's the pity. I would have enjoyed discussing it with you, but we are truly on opposite ends of the spectrum.

I support your right to hold your ideals and to be true to them. Respect.

[sam i am]

[Funkaloyd]

I won't say because you will destroy what I keep sacred in my heart and mind.
I'll go easy on you as long as you don't say something like "I believe this because lots of other people believe this." If you want to say then go ahead, by all means.

[Funkaloyd]

Sam, I for one would like to see the evidence for your faith that you told checkyourprez you have. Is it "all the history, archaeology, morals of societies, etc." that I'm apparently ignoring?

[ASsman]

Don't worry my son, Jesus loves you.

[sam i am]

Don't worry, my son, Jesus loves you. Unless you deny him for all eternity.

THAT'S ^^^^ the best post of this whole thread.

[minijosh]

I'll go easy on you as long as you don't say something like "I believe this because lots of other people believe this." If you want to say then go ahead, by all means.


Ummm I'm a Mormon.



Runs for cover because people will now throw stones.

[sam i am]

Ummm I'm a Mormon.

Runs for cover because people will now throw stones.

That was hard to guess, considering your tagline :p ;)

Anyhow, Mormons are people too....and humanists love people....so they wouldn't dare attack your beliefs, now would they? ;)

[Funkaloyd]

I'm not a humanist, and beliefs aren't people.

I totally didn't see that signature.

[ASsman]

This thread is just , wow. Like watching Japanese soldiers spear small babies beeing thrown in the air....

I just can't get it through my head, like woah.

[Ali]

And now for something completely different (http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20051215/lnq051215.gif)

[ASsman]

*Twilight zon theme*



I still think my Matrix theory holds more water than this "Jesus" crap. We are all just providing electrical power to super advanced intelligent robots.

[minijosh]

If that's the case, I got screwed. Where can I sign up to become part of Mr. Smith's payroll?

[sam i am]

*Twilight zon theme*



I still think my Matrix theory holds more water than this "Jesus" crap. We are all just providing electrical power to super advanced intelligent robots.

Must be nice to think so....are you the "One?" :rolleyes:

[100% ILL]

Anyhow, Mormons are people too....and humanists love people....so they wouldn't dare attack your beliefs, now would they? ;)

Humanists only love themselves. It's a self-centered idiology.

[Funkaloyd]

Whereas Christians love whoever they need to love to get rewards.

Sluts.

[100% ILL]

Whereas Christians love whoever they need to love to get rewards.

Sluts.


I see martyrdom in your future......... but then dying for the humanist cause would be pointless. :D

[ASsman]

Must be nice to think so....are you the "One?" :rolleyes:
Bitch please, before I Matrix kick your are ass.

[Funkaloyd]

I see martyrdom in your futureI've thought it over, and decided that I'm going to die for notoriety rather than idealism.

[100% ILL]

I've thought it over, and decided that I'm going to die for notoriety rather than idealism.

Excellent choice. Will you be opting for the box or the equally stylish urn?

[ASsman]

Hmmm, they should make a movie about the Bible... or atleast the first half about it. I'm sure enslaved Jews would make for a great movie...

[100% ILL]

Hmmm, they should make a movie about the Bible... or atleast the first half about it. I'm sure enslaved Jews would make for a great movie...

Yes, Shindler's List was certainly good.

[ASsman]

Am I right or am I right?

I'm having a brainstorm here, maybe, maybe Charlton Heston would make a great leading actor... sure hes crazy, but if we could somehow go back in time and make him younger.. I'm sure it would work out.

[sam i am]

Am I right or am I right?

I'm having a brainstorm here, maybe, maybe Charlton Heston would make a great leading actor... sure hes crazy, but if we could somehow go back in time and make him younger.. I'm sure it would work out.

Wow. What an idea.

You the man, assman.

[Ali]

Bitch please, before I Matrix kick your are ass.Don't fuck with him. He's Agent Smith. He admitted it.