Earlier this year, Mount Merapi Volcano blew in Indonesia. While officials scrambled to evacuate the towns, reporters uncovered a clue about human thinking. Many people there believe that something about the vocano is god and follow animist beliefs and worship ancient spirits. Often at full moons, people trek to crater rims and throw in rice, jewelry and live animals to appease the volcanoes.

you and I know that the volcano is just what it is. A volcano. But the argument i like to offer is if you were taught since an infant that a volcano is a god, you'll always believe that it is. And no amount of convincing will undo that thinking. Take that same statement and apply it to your teachings of YOUR god. and WALA! you were fed shit.

From a biological point of view, there are lots of different theories about why we have this extraordinary predisposition to believe in supernatural things. One suggestion is that the child mind is, for very good darwinian reasons, susceptible to infection the same way a computer is. In order to be useful, a computer has to be programmable, to obey whatever it's told to do. That automatically makes it vulnerable to computer viruses, which are programs that say, "spread me, copy me, pass me on." once a viral program gets started, there is nothing to stop it.

Similarly, the child brain is preprogrammed by natural selection to obey and believe what parents and other adults tell it. In general, it's a good thing that child brains should be susceptible to being taught what to do and what to believe by adults. But this necessarily carries the down side that bad ideas, useless ideas, waste of time ideas like rain dances and other religious customs, will also be passed down the generations. The child brain is very susceptible to this kind of infection. And it also spreads sideways by cross infection when a charismatic preacher goes around infecting new minds that were previously uninfected.

How does your theory explain people who were convinced later in life?

At 20, 30, even 50 or 60 years of age?

Very good question Tofu. And I can only guess that it is a combination of fear factor, conspiracy theories and end-times paranoia. I believe religion sells fear and eventually recruit the elders whom feel thier lives are ending soon.

So if i ever turn 80, maybe i would, for the hell of it due to lack of passion, accept the exsistance of god. Maybe god might understand. Not like I killed anyone.

I wanted to quickly add that prisoners are opt to become believers of god. maybe it is a realization of their mistakes and cant get anyone to forgive. They struggle to forgive themselves and so finding another way helps them coup with life.

I used to think that way to, till around three years ago (I did not belive in the God of the Bible) when I was arguing with a Christian friend of mine, telling him theres no way that the Bible could possably be accurate in the corrupting hands of humans. He just looked at me and asked me "Have you actually read the bible?"

That was kind of embarassing.

So I did, and it wasnt fear that hooked me, nor theories of conspiracy, or even paranoia of the end times.


I read the book and I knew it was true.

I read the bible twice. it is indeed a long ass read. I could never fully remember everything that it talks about. I came to the conclusion that the bible was simply written by people like you and I, motivated by their survival. If you find the bible to hold truth, did you know that god kills children? Not a nice god.

And he went up from thence unto Beth-el; and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him: 'Go up, thou baldhead; go up, thou baldhead.
And he looked behind him and saw them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood, and tore forty and two children of them.

Indeed, it's true. I don't think God was ever described as "Nice"

And as to man writing the books for the purpose of survival, are you speeking only of the OT?

How do you explain the prophecy?

Examples being Daniel stating to the day when the Messiah would ride into Jerusalem, how Isreal would become a nation in one day (1947 anyone? Some people say the bible even said the day that would happen (http://members.aol.com/chursey/bibldate.htm)) etc etc

Lucky guessess?

[QUOTE=czarofzar]I read the bible twice. it is indeed a long ass read. I could never fully remember everything that it talks about. I came to the conclusion that the bible was simply written by people like you and I, motivated by their survival. If you find the bible to hold truth, did you know that god kills children? Not a nice god.

And he went up from thence unto Beth-el; and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him: 'Go up, thou baldhead; go up, thou baldhead.
And he looked behind him and saw them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood, and tore forty and two children of them.


You've probably lurked here long enough to realize that we already have a honegod.

Earlier this year, Mount Merapi Volcano blew in Indonesia. While officials scrambled to evacuate the towns, reporters uncovered a clue about human thinking. Many people there believe that something about the vocano is god and follow animist beliefs and worship ancient spirits. Often at full moons, people trek to crater rims and throw in rice, jewelry and live animals to appease the volcanoes.

you and I know that the volcano is just what it is. A volcano. But the argument i like to offer is if you were taught since an infant that a volcano is a god, you'll always believe that it is. And no amount of convincing will undo that thinking. Take that same statement and apply it to your teachings of YOUR god. and WALA! you were fed shit.

From a biological point of view, there are lots of different theories about why we have this extraordinary predisposition to believe in supernatural things. One suggestion is that the child mind is, for very good darwinian reasons, susceptible to infection the same way a computer is. In order to be useful, a computer has to be programmable, to obey whatever it's told to do. That automatically makes it vulnerable to computer viruses, which are programs that say, "spread me, copy me, pass me on." once a viral program gets started, there is nothing to stop it.

Similarly, the child brain is preprogrammed by natural selection to obey and believe what parents and other adults tell it. In general, it's a good thing that child brains should be susceptible to being taught what to do and what to believe by adults. But this necessarily carries the down side that bad ideas, useless ideas, waste of time ideas like rain dances and other religious customs, will also be passed down the generations. The child brain is very susceptible to this kind of infection. And it also spreads sideways by cross infection when a charismatic preacher goes around infecting new minds that were previously uninfected.

Could not the very same thing be said for a child who has been raised by a family of atheists? Would his/her beliefs not be just as programmed as the child who has been raised by Christians? By your logic, is this not a clue that atheism is a fallacy?

hello ark. can you define honegod? Since you are already assuming, at least tell me what page it is on in the dictionary i am currently viewing. thanks. oh and maybe stfu and post something on topic as so all of us can follow wtf you are talking about. hmmmmk?

Is atheisism something to be taught? It is all about ignoring religion and their teachings.

Indeed, it's true. I don't think God was ever described as "Nice"
murderer of small kids?

And as to man writing the books for the purpose of survival, are you speeking only of the OT?
What is OT? overtime is all i understand about OT.

How do you explain the prophecy?
Lucky guessess?
eventual statements. It took thousands of years for Israel to achieve statehood. it could have been a year after Daniel wroite it to a million.

Is atheisism something to be taught? It is all about ignoring religion and their teachings.

Is that not something that is taught by one's parents?

hello ark. can you define honegod? Since you are already assuming, at least tell me what page it is on in the dictionary i am currently viewing. thanks. oh and maybe stfu and post something on topic as so all of us can follow wtf you are talking about. hmmmmk?

Easy now... Honegod is a member of TFL who almost exclusively frequents the religion forum and apparently shares your view that God murders children.

I didn’t realize that this was your first visit to the lounge.

murderer of small kids?

God created us with a choice to follow or reject him, and ever since the fall (adam and eve chose to reject God), we are all pretty much headed for hell from birth.

You take for granted that we deserve to be treated like we chose God. It is not wrong that the kids were killed, it was justice. we all deserve a similar fate. It is by pure grace that some of us are chosen to follow God and are saved. My guess is that God knew these kids have/would have rejected him.

to approach atheisism, one must reconize between reality and someones beliefs. So if I want to teach my kids something about truth, i would teach them reality...not atheisim. Atheisism just falls in place naturally. not forced by fear.

Easy now... Honegod is a member of TFL who almost exclusively frequents the religion forum and apparently shares your view that God murders children.

I didn’t realize that this was your first visit to the lounge.

he is a person? lol ok sorry about that. fair enough

Reality is what you perceive. It cannot be taught.

very good.
so is there only one true perception? as in accepting the bible words as true and totally factual?

Regardless of what you believe (or don’t believe for that matter) there is only one true reality, we just have no way to ascertain what it is. If there is no god then this true reality is that all that is known and perceived is the result of some natural occurrence. The problem with seeking truth is that we can only be certain of existence itself, nothing more.

What do you think Noah saw after he came off the ark?

starvation.

no fucking plants to feed the animals. meat eating animals just ate all the veggy eating ones. veggy eating ones had nothing to eat. they all died im certain. no trees. no grass. and you people probably still have no fucking clue.

what do you think will happen if we fill up the earth with salt water miles on high just above the highest mountains? let alone that its impossible to do that since earth dont have that much water to produce such an effect. do you think once the water subsided, all the living folage got washed and feels fresh? hahaha fuck that. go ahead and feed your garden with salt water. changed the PH levels didnt it. yeah died on ya. well, youll have to wait a whole year for the new crop to grow, if you found drinkable water soon. now imagine filling a column of salt water on your garden and property filled with trees and grass 3 miles high. think itll drain in 40 days or so? i dont think so but lets give you god. he sticks a straw strait up his nose and snorts up all the water from your property. there. all water gone. what do you think you will have? jesus? no. god? no. happiness, harmony, everything is sooooo better? NOOOOO!

nothing edible will be there. all the sidiment sifted above the dieing plants. youll have muck with a few logs sticking out. but instead just in your yard, its the whole fucking planet!!!!!!! imagine coming off the ark seeing this. all the lions and tigers got off first and waited for the others to come off. an orgy of death. just for survival. YAY GOD!

when did this happen? like 5 thou years ago? yeah, ya dont have to dig deep bro to find proof. the sediment would be evident enough to prove god exsist. or at least that the great flood really did happen.

god was introduced to you by the bible. so go now and wonder if the bible is truth. if you think the bible holds truth, then this picture below is your view what they saw leaving the ark TOTAL COOPERATION OH MY GOODNESSSSSSS! SO BEAUTIFUUUUUUUL!

http://www.childrens-art-prints.com/B100%20Noah's%20Ark.JPG

Who are you replying to?

to whomever finds the bible to hold pure truth.

Regardless of what you believe (or don’t believe for that matter) there is only one true reality, we just have no way to ascertain what it is. If there is no god then this true reality is that all that is known and perceived is the result of some natural occurrence. The problem with seeking truth is that we can only be certain of existence itself, nothing more.
I like what you write.

there isn't a problem. truth is what it is. we live and then we die. The argument I am offering is the End-game. I say, nothing happens to us. we just die. the fact of the matter is, I see a corpse from someone or something that lived a few moments ago. there isnt any evidence that we will be doing something else after that. our only information we have for anything in the so called after life are from people who were LIVING.

All right then, consider this: The Bible says that God is an all powerful being. Now, as far fetched as the story of Noah’s Ark seems, it is certainly within the realm of possibility for the omnipotent. Thus, everything that the story implies (so long as you believe in an omnipotent God) is possible. Suppose then that the story of the Ark was made intentionally far fetched so that the challenge of faith would become evident.

I like what you write.

there isn't a problem. truth is what it is. we live and then we die. The argument I am offering is the End-game. I say, nothing happens to us. we just die. the fact of the matter is, I see a corpse from someone or something that lived a few moments ago. there isnt any evidence that we will be doing something else after that. our only information we have for anything in the so called after life are from people who were LIVING.

There is no evidence that you are here on earth either, yet that doesn't stop you from breathing.

God created us with a choice to follow or reject him, and ever since the fall (adam and eve chose to reject God), we are all pretty much headed for hell from birth.

You take for granted that we deserve to be treated like we chose God. It is not wrong that the kids were killed, it was justice. we all deserve a similar fate. It is by pure grace that some of us are chosen to follow God and are saved. My guess is that God knew these kids have/would have rejected him.
the fact is that 40 kids were killed. I am not interested that someone said god killed em. I'm saying they were mass mudered from a person(s). and to survive, he said god did it. that is being used even today. That is the reality to me.

There is no evidence that you are here on earth either, yet that doesn't stop you from breathing.
bazzar...I have evidence i am sitting on what we call, chair, that stands on carpet, that connects to wood, that connects to dirt. and we call this dirt, Earth.

All that you can be certain of is that in some realm of reality, you exist (as in, “I think, therefore I am”). The fact that you are sitting at your computer right now is something that you take for granted. Do you have any proof that you are not hallucinating? Perhaps you are merely a mass of grey matter floating in a jar, mercilessly being prodded by electrical impulses. Maybe you are the only human alive, where everyone and everything you know is simply a creation of your mind.

What proof do you have of otherwise?

All right then, consider this: The Bible says that God is an all powerful being. Now, as far fetched as the story of Noah’s Ark seems, it is certainly within the realm of possibility for the omnipotent. Thus, everything that the story implies (so long as you believe in an omnipotent God) is possible. Suppose then that the story of the Ark was made intentionally far fetched so that the challenge of faith would become evident.
something happened. huge flood came. so vast it was worthy of being written about. I am more opt to believe it was a reaginal flood writting from a boat merchant than globally. somehow somewhere the story had to be modified into something we read about today. it was modified from a time that people didnt know better. skewed with fear, used to motivate thier following. I would think it has to be believable through out the ages for a god's plan to work. that is, if I was a god. challenge of faith? hell if i know. god made me stupid and so im am already doomed by birth to go to hell like those kids.

All that you can be certain of is that in some realm of reality, you exist (as in, “I think, therefore I am”). The fact that you are sitting at your computer right now is something that you take for granted. Do you have any proof that you are not hallucinating? Perhaps you are merely a mass of grey matter floating in a jar, mercilessly being prodded by electrical impulses. Maybe you are the only human alive, where everyone and everything you know is simply a creation of your mind.

What proof do you have of otherwise?
hehe im having a conversation with you aren't I. And are you not experiencing the same event with me? maybe we both are on mars, no?

Maybe I don't exist....

Maybe I don't exist....
i have a fake black baby on my lap while my daughter grabs the groceries. we are white. as a high school student, she is learning how to care for her own baby if that should ever happen. i am learning how to be a good grandparent by her design.

edit: and so, I am not confused by the notion I dont exist

My intent is not to confuse you. Rather it is to point out the flaw in your argument. You claim that believing in the Bible is illogical because there is no proof to support that His existence is real.

when did this happen? like 5 thou years ago? yeah, ya dont have to dig deep bro to find proof. the sediment would be evident enough to prove god exsist. or at least that the great flood really did happen.


Yet you believe that the world as you see it is real when you also lack proof.

My intent is not to confuse you. Rather it is to point out the flaw in your argument. You claim that believing in the Bible is illogical because there is no proof to support that His existence is real.



Yet you believe that the world as you see it is real when you also lack proof.
Correction...I do indeed claim that believing the bible as pure truth is illogical... that argument isnt flawed. at least it is something we both agree that we disagree about. And the world is real. I 'see' the proof. together we can both find out if YOU are still unsure. we will meet someday, if you wish, and we will both look at the something at the sametime at the same moment. and then we will open some bottles up, drink and be merry! I'm think a party coming soon :)

Sounds good but I live in Canada.

hi there nieghbor :)
how bout we bypass all that visiting and just open bottles up? BOTTLES UP!

Cheers

"you believe that the world as you see it is real when you also lack proof."

consistancy.

god is inconsistant, unique.

reality IS consistant, apparant inconsistancies consistantly turn out to be poor measurements.

all proof of god consists of inconsistancies.

god = poor measurements.

ah, there you are honegod. thank you for adding to the thread. and thanks to everyone else for sure.
I am struggling to understand the meaning of the word you are using... poor measurment. can you clarify this on your next post? pre thanks

Rationalize it all you want but at some point you take reality for granted and make a leap of faith (regardless of how small it may seem). Consistancy hardly equals proof, especially when you consider the possibilty that it could all just be vagrant illusions of an unaware mind.

Consistancy hardly equals proof, especially when you consider the possibilty that it could all just be vagrant illusions of an unaware mind.
im starting to understand where you are coming from, Ark. you make consistant counter arguments stating the possibility of the boogyman looking strait at you yet you cant see him. that is you, sir.

I should add that if a self perceived reality brings one to the conclusion that consistency is an indication that this said reality is as it is perceived, then this consistency would hardly constitute proof.

I should add that if a self perceived reality brings one to the conclusion that consistency is an indication that this said reality is as it is perceived, then this consistency would hardly constitute proof.
overstated...we all agree that there is a tree here. it is consistant. what isnt consistant, among everyone that is, is agreeing that there is a god.

murderer of small kids?

Does it bother you that someone with all knowlage might deem it proper to destroy a child? Do you think that we, mere humans, are able to even comprehend the true nature of such an act with the information we have available to us?

What is OT? overtime is all i understand about OT.

Old Testament

Eventual statements. It took thousands of years for Israel to achieve statehood. it could have been a year after Daniel wroite it to a million.

Do you know the statements that I refer to? Daniel speeks TO THE DAY of Christ's arrival.

"Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree [a] to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, [b] the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble." - Daniel 9:25

And what other nation has become a nation in one day?

"Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall a land be born in one day? shall a nation be brought forth at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. " - Isaiah 66:8

I am struggling to understand the meaning of the word you are using... poor measurment. can you clarify this on your next post?

an example, disease was a curse from god that proper sacrifice could cure.

then the microscope and french wine turned disease into germs.

the microscope allowed measurement of the consistancy of the presence of specific germs in diseased subjects.

no vector of disease has proven to be consistantly god.

so as the measuring ability gets better, the "god field" of unpredictable inconsistancy shrinks.

last I read, it's currently somewhat less than Planck length.

{ except maybe in isreal }

Does it bother you that someone with all knowlage might deem it proper to destroy a child?

absolutely.

the number one use for ANY knowlage is to prevent the destruction of a child.

"women and children first." is an absolute moral statement.

there are no circumstances where the destruction of a child is not evil.

so someone with all knowlage who chooses to destroy a child chooses to do evil.

Do you think that we, mere humans, are able to even comprehend the true nature of such an act with the information we have available to us?

yup.





And what other nation has become a nation in one day?

"Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall a land be born in one day? shall a nation be brought forth at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. " - Isaiah 66:8

4 july 1776 ?

oh, weren't we supposed to ?

absolutely.

the number one use for ANY knowlage is to prevent the destruction of a child.


Vast theoretical, False.

"women and children first." is an absolute moral statement.

False. Back this up.

there are no circumstances where the destruction of a child is not evil.

False. State why.

so someone with all knowlage who chooses to destroy a child chooses to do evil.

Logical conclusion . . . using three false statements.

4 july 1776 ?

oh, weren't we supposed to ?

Nope. Just one of our many steps to becoming a nation. War and all. Took many moons.

overstated...we all agree that there is a tree here. it is consistant. what isnt consistant, among everyone that is, is agreeing that there is a god.

Once more, common perception means nothing when everyone else could be a figment of your mind. The fact that we can both look at the same thing at the same time and come to the same conclusion does not dispel this.

As for perceived consistency, this is also irrelevant. When we dream we often experience events that, when contrasted with this world, are extremely inconsistent, yet these consistencies seldom seem inconsistent while we dream.

Do you know the statements that I refer to? Daniel speeks TO THE DAY of Christ's arrival.

"Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree [a] to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, [b] the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble." - Daniel 9:25

And what other nation has become a nation in one day?

"Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall a land be born in one day? shall a nation be brought forth at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. " - Isaiah 66:8

I really like the similarities between what you placed in front of me, to Israel today.

By the grace of Mohamad, this was eventual. However, the race to dominance was lost by 'the bad guys'. These boys got bigger weapons. And they just delivered a shit load of punch.

Does it bother you that someone with all knowlage might deem it proper to destroy a child? Do you think that we, mere humans, are able to even comprehend the true nature of such an act with the information we have available to us?

Then the father is at fault. Therefore Jesus teachings, teaches to disobay god.

you're wasting your time with this guy, jason, but more power to ya (I guess)

he hates God, and always will....he's beyond warped

God created weeds

This from frustration? yes, I'm sure life feels unfair in a struggle between good and evil.

Once more, common perception means nothing when everyone else could be a figment of your mind. The fact that we can both look at the same thing at the same time and come to the same conclusion does not dispel this.

Still looks like magic tricks. I am not a magician.

As for perceived consistency, this is also irrelevant. When we dream we often experience events that, when contrasted with this world, are extremely inconsistent, yet these consistencies seldom seem inconsistent while we dream.

Who cares about the degree of perceived consistency; it was relevant to my argument. I am also not a dream expert. perhaps bring to us what you mean by how dreams play a part of our perception. I may find that interesting.

Vast theoretical, False. False. Back this up. False. State why.
Logical conclusion . . . using three false statements.

the destruction of a child is always evil.

because I can conceive of no circumstances whatsoever where destroying a child is not evil.

this is falsifiable by creating a circumstance where the destruction of a child is good, and not evil in any way.

Quote:
"women and children first." is an absolute moral statement.


False. Back this up.

ok, it is false because god says that "might is right", the strongest have the most right to survive.
women and children, being weaker than adult males {the image of god} go to the back of the line.




Quote:
there are no circumstances where the destruction of a child is not evil.

False. State why.

we are toys god made to play with, he can break us any way he wants to.

{why do people teach their own children that they are slaves ?}


Logical conclusion . . . using three false statements.

I did more to disprove my {True} statements than you did.

:40oz: <--- remember, Pepsi.

Still looks like magic tricks. I am not a magician.

I hand carved a magic wand out of a walnut billet of firewood, a birthday present for the now 6 year old, who asked me if it was a Real Magic Wand ?

"absolutely", says I.

but it is a baby Magic Wand and doesn't know any magic yet, you have to teach it.

is she likely to lie to Her Magic Wand ?

we watched 2010, she thought the government was mean to Hal.

the destruction of a child is always evil. because I can conceive of no circumstances whatsoever where destroying a child is not evil.

Because you cannot conceive of it, it could never be? Thats a little concieted :P

this is falsifiable by creating a circumstance where the destruction of a child is good, and not evil in any way.

God knows the future of thie children. If He destroys them, He knows full well what He has done.

An example to falsify the declaration you have made, by your definition, would be the simple "What if he was going to grow up to be the next Hitler" or something similar.





- - - - - - -

We are born evil.

We deserve nothing

Christ saves us and we don't deserve it.

I hand carved a magic wand out of a walnut billet of firewood, a birthday present for the now 6 year old, who asked me if it was a Real Magic Wand ?

"absolutely", says I.

but it is a baby Magic Wand and doesn't know any magic yet, you have to teach it.

is she likely to lie to Her Magic Wand ?

we watched 2010, she thought the government was mean to Hal.

I heard a story about a ringling brother person who said he used to literally 'fly' around in his basment until his mother caught him doing so. Her remark was "you are not suppose to fly!"

And to this day, he can't fly.

I've heard of these 'magic wands' before, but i never had one. Btw, I'd rather make wishes than lies.

do you feel loved or something special when ya born again? That feeling isnt holy spirit. you are just totally convinced you are saved. but you are not. Only feeling good. but that feeling goes away real quick when reality sinks in. Nothing can match that feeling? ask this lady.

Dear helen,
i just wanted to thank you so much for the divine love enrichment session yesterday. The infusion of divine love from Venus, the goddess of divine love, was so delicious and so deep. when it was over i felt like one big smile all over my body and sparkly inside and out.-e johnson, toronto, canada

this from www.ascending-with-love.org

so the point is, you alone can make yourself feel good if you BELIEVE! so does god, assuming that god makes the rules, wants you to skip church and go to divine love sessions? nothing in the bible said you cant.

Think he's a troll?

interesting to hear someone speak of something they have zero knowledge of
I'm not sure what you mean. Like your knowledge of god?

Actually he seems to have a good grasp of the book. As for him being a troll I doubt it, he isn't starting fights just having a conversation, you have yet to add one post in this thread that wasn't bashing him.

do you feel loved or something special when ya born again? That feeling isnt holy spirit. you are just totally convinced you are saved. but you are not. Only feeling good. but that feeling goes away real quick when reality sinks in. Nothing can match that feeling? ask this lady.

Dear helen,
i just wanted to thank you so much for the divine love enrichment session yesterday. The infusion of divine love from Venus, the goddess of divine love, was so delicious and so deep. when it was over i felt like one big smile all over my body and sparkly inside and out.-e johnson, toronto, canada

this from www.ascending-with-love.org

so the point is, you alone can make yourself feel good if you BELIEVE! so does god, assuming that god makes the rules, wants you to skip church and go to divine love sessions? nothing in the bible said you cant.


Fear is the begining of wisdom.

Not some happy feeling of a big smile.

Fear is the begining of wisdom.

Not some happy feeling of a big smile.

I'm listening. How do you mean?

When I belived, it wasnt a "Woo Yay" feeling. It was "Oh crap, what have I done?" feeling. :O

Because you cannot conceive of it, it could never be? Thats a little concieted :P

that would be.

Because I cannot conceive of it, it is not now.

I can conceive that there are things that I cannot conceive of, and so am open to new concepts that will change my conception of what is.


God knows the future of thie children. If He destroys them, He knows full well what He has done.

god does evil, and scapegoats the evil onto those he sends to hell !!!

hell exists to hold GODS sin, the damned are GODS sacrifice to purify HIS soul.

{I know, you won't like it, but it flows PERFECTLY with the established behaviour of god. }



An example to falsify the declaration you have made, by your definition, would be the simple "What if he was going to grow up to be the next Hitler" or something similar.

but since you murdered him before he became hitler he did not become hitler,
so you murdered him for not being hitler, a trait most babies share.

that flows with condemning babies for the sin of adam, just reversing the time arrow.


no, killing baby hitler is still totally evil in its own right.

1 if you have time travel to get future information in to the past then you have the ability to alter the future from the past.

so you could work to change hitlers youth to change his path.

possibly by seeing that he is taught the truth, not lied to by gods servant ?


2 killing baby hitler is equally evil as his killing babies later in his life, two wrongs do not make a right, neither does one wrong make a right.

the lesser of two evils is still evil.

We are born evil.

We deserve nothing

Christ saves us and we don't deserve it.

Fear is the begining of wisdom.

Not some happy feeling of a big smile.

When I belived, it wasnt a "Woo Yay" feeling.

It was "Oh crap, what have I done?" feeling.

you are born with the ability to tell good from evil.

do you fear good ?

if we deserve nothing then we do not deserve evil as much as we do not deserve good.

christ saves us from the hate of god. which we also do not deserve.


fear is the beginning of hate.


the evil we are born with is the ability to make god fear us.

When I belived, it wasnt a "Woo Yay" feeling. It was "Oh crap, what have I done?" feeling. :O
And you felt this way because you realized you were short from the kingdom of god? And how do you feel now since you have accepted jesus as your personal savior? Do you still fear of not going to heaven? Or are you jubilant and confidence that the matter is out of your hands now and into god's?

Hebrews 4

For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is nothing hidden from His sight, but everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of Him to whom we must give account

False.
a two edge sword will kill jo. word of god was never uttered so likely glanced off someone without knowing about it.

I don't know. I'm guessing Peter was likely bi-polar. It amazes me to this day, and I am strictly thinking for myself (yes, unlike yzf), that for someone to witness a person (jesus) doing god like acts (raise the flipping dead, making drunk-ass wine, calmed the storming sea, etc, etc...) to deny, EVER, to know jesus because peter was afraid. I mean, how close do you have to be to god before you actually believe in him and you will go to heaven? It isn't like peter wasnt a brave person. Didnt he cut off a guard's ear to protect jesus?

Peter had a secret. True, jesus is a son of god and so are we (if there is a god but they truely thought that there was a god back then). Peter amitted to that. But that is where it stops. There was nothing spiritual about jesus. jesus did something else special. he was tired of the stupid jewish laws and he had the balls to change things.

I agree with a lot of jesus's teachings. It seems back then, if you wanted to make changes, it had to be indorsed by god. thus, jewish laws (but there isnt a god, right?). So maybe it was a good thing biblical writters claimed jesus was god's direct son.

I just wanted to say i believe jesus fought for the rights we enjoy today. And no...there isn't a god. Just people with a lot of balls. and a lot more that still believe in spiritual magic. and that is ok too.

http://www.normalbobsmith.com/hatemail230_me3.jpg

That is right. no magix powas no resurrections

yzf-r1, good reply. and you didnt even trash talk me in no way and i thank you for that.

False.
a two edge sword will kill jo. word of god was never uttered so likely glanced off someone without knowing about it.

the gosple of jesus is noticably lacking in any version of the bible.

could jesus read ?

all that knowlege of the scriptures stuff as a youth could have just been him remembering what happened.

of course, all that gloating at the screaming, perishing, multitudes wouldn't have flowed well with the love stuff of the real bible.

the gosple of jesus is noticably lacking in any version of the bible.

could jesus read ?

all that knowlege of the scriptures stuff as a youth could have just been him remembering what happened.

Well, I could imagine jesus reading. at least the intelligence to read. I did read something in the past about him reading older scriptures since he seems to be well versed in jewish laws. that would mean he was educated in some form. He had some kind of gift or insight. Made him depressed, i'm telling you that much, to cause the attention (death wish?) he got.

of course, all that gloating at the screaming, perishing, multitudes wouldn't have flowed well with the love stuff of the real bible.

I bet he shit his pants and sent peter to go fish for food like real quick. Oh right. 3 fish and some bread? maybe not a lot of folks showed up. or they left really hungry. Beginning of welfare, huh?

insightful review from Amazon:


In a nutshell, MacArthur attempts to take on the concept that people can make allegedly sincere professions of faith in Christ and then be considered a Christian with certain eternal security even if their life bears no good fruit after their supposed conversion. This is an important question, both from a theological standpoint as well as from a Christian living perspective. An increasing number of churches, particularly a number of megachurches, have appeared to shy away from topics that remind people of the reality of sin, the need for repentance and forgiveness, and the important desire of being obedient to God and His Word because such sentiments are increasingly unpopular within the realm of comfortable Christianity. MacArthur argues that good works are not a precondition of salvation, thus affirming the historic Protestant position of salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ and relying on His grace. But having affirmed this position, MacArthur then goes into fabulous Biblical detail concerning the FRUITS by which genuine salvation can be measured. Critics of MacArthur's book have argued that MacArthur is preaching a works based salvation, but I think it's clear that MacArthur is not doing that. What he is saying is exactly what the Bible says, and what the historic Christian church has long affirmed - that salvation is by faith alone in Jesus Christ, and that genuine faith in Christ will produce good works via the influence of the Holy Spirit that is indicative of genuine salvation and the genuinely changed life that the Bible repeatedly speaks of for people who are truly converted. If critics want to call this a works based salvation, I believe this to be a serious oversight of the clear distinctions MacArthur makes between salvation by faith, versus the logical and Biblically outlined fruits of genuine salvation.

MacArthur further demonstrates that those who affirm easy believism and decry this as a works based salvation stand on extremely problematic ground relative to their own position on salvation. MacArthur points out that it is highly dubious to offer an easy believism salvation that basically states that as long as we make some kind of supposedly sincere affirmation of Jesus, we can then claim we are saved while continuing to live an unsaved life and not worry about whether our salvation is certain or not. This is an extraordinarily cheap form of salvation as a matter of Christian living. And I also believe it is catastrophic as a matter of theology. If all are agreed that the Holy Spirit enters a person's life upon faith in Christ, and all are agreed that the Holy Spirit is fully divine, how do the proponents of easy believism reconcile the notion that someone who is supposedly right with God and who has the Holy Spirit in them can continue to live an apostate life? What does that say about the omnipotence of the Holy Spirit if the Spirit can enter someone, but not change them? It seems to me that to believe in the concept of the 'carnal Christian' who never repents, never seeks forgiveness, never acknowledges sin, and never seeks to be obedient to God - all the while claiming that the Holy Spirit is in this person, almost automatically forces an argument for the impotence of the Holy Spirit as a matter of theology. Not only does this not make sense and cheapens both the Christian life and the Christian God, it results in a different gospel.

In conclusion, I believe that MacArthur has written an important book that is well documented Biblically. The Bible does not teach the concept of apostate Christians, it does not teach easy believism. It does teach that salvation is by faith, and that when a person makes a truly sincere profession of faith in Christ, the Holy Spirit will enter that person, and change that person over time by conforming him/her to the image of God. It does not teach that someone can make a profession in Christ at some point, and then God leaves that person alone to continue living a life that doesn't look any different from the life they lived prior to professing Christ. Nowhere does the Bible say that. So I am very happy to see MacArthur meticulously deconstruct the tenets of easy believism in favor of what both Jesus and the apostles repeatedly affirmed throughout the New Testament about the nature of salvation and living the Christian life.

didn't read

amazing isn't it? one minute the Jews of Nazareth are praising Him and next trying to kill Him

isn't that incredibly human?

This is probably one of your better posts. Seriously.
I like to hear more of what Yzf has to say. not luke or some long winded post from a 'whocares' author.

do unto others......

well perhaps you could show a slight bit of respect for others' beliefs, then

why ?

you believe in terrorism as the grearest possible good, I find this belief to be ... utterly evil.

I do not respect terrorism in any form, and you worship terrorism in its purest form.

your god is the ultimate terrorist.

I find you to be almost the moral peer of the 911 hijackers, almost because you lack their depth of faith in your own god inspired hate.

you know hate is sacred, but you are contaminated by all the false interpretations that cite love as the highest virtue.
so you leash the hate rather than releasing it in a monumental terrorist atrocity that would serve your function of making everybody fear god.

the message of the gospel is divisive, it is antithetical, it offends people (when it isn't sugar coated, as so many in 2006 try to do, who have no part in the faith)

how is God a "terrorist"?

had you read my posts as you battled my heresy all these years you would laugh at that post as I did. :D

the destruction of sodom and G, as an example. for example.


Fear the LORD. lest you evoke his rage, and brutal wrath.

what was the point of the recent Tsunami ?

{ I was standing Topside watch on the Submarine when subpac called with a tsunami warning. I phoned the OOD who told me to climb the sail if it looked big, but to wake him up again first. I logged a possibly slightly larger than norml ripple at the appointed time. :blah:

the cartoon showed the Captain asking the Eng when he would be done connecting the wheels to the prop.. }

natural disasters are part of the fallen world we live in...people who point to specific events as evidence of God's wrath are mistaken

Luke 13

There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”

That's odd, coming from you...imagine that--the guy who once tried to say that I lost my house in the hurricane because of God trying to tell me something, is now the same guy that says this.....

That's odd, coming from you...imagine that--the guy who once tried to say that I lost my house in the hurricane because of God trying to tell me something, is now the same guy that says this.....

There ya go, provoke a fight with yzf!

There ya go, provoke a fight with yzf!

All I did was state the truth--you, on the other hand, are describing yourself to a T. My comment was even relevant to the way he took this thread--yours is just nothing more than an attempt to start shit.

Tell you what--why dont you simply stop trying to harass me all over the place and get on with your life? If I choose to post to Marky it is hardly any business of yours. Thanks for the concern....now, kindly go away

SPEAKING OF LUKE...

Luke 2:1-3 states Ceasar Agustus ordered a census. Quirinius was governor of Syria. joe and mary went to bethlehem to register. out popped jesus from the vagina.

Herod the Great died 4 - 2 BC. According to matthew 2:16, and assuming the King was motivated to kill any threat to his throne, something to do with a kid name jesus, i dont know, harod ordered all children under 2 years to be killed in Bethlehem.

given these facts, scholars believe jesus was born between 6 - 4 BC.

Now hold on a damn moment.

Josephus, a well-known historian wrote quite extensively about Herod the Great. His works give an important insight into first-century Judaism. Josephus passage in The Antiquity of the Jews, he writes that Quirinius was governor of Syria around 7 AD. Also never documented the slaughter of the innocents.

Just another example of how people get bunyonized. The tales grow taller as time goes on.

natural disasters are part of the fallen world we live in...people who point to specific events as evidence of God's wrath are mistaken


wrong, floods, famines, droughts, and earthquakes are all tools god has used to punish people.

and you know it.

so the question is, are you DELIBERATLY lying or just wrong ?

the REASON god inflicted a "natural" disaster is known only to god, and whatever 'elect' he might want to share it with, but the fact that every such 'disaster' is purely according to gods plan is unquestionable.

sure, but it's incorrect to say any natural disaster is the result of Divine intervention

God intervenes supernaturally in the natural order of things He estaablished very seldom

not really, ALL disasters are produced by god from the beginning, he knew everything that would die, and judged to make reality work that way.

you are talking about him CHANGING things to make disaster happen, I am talking about him making them happen in the first place, different things, yes ?

for example, the Flood.
he KNEW he was going to murder the planet and so could set things up so that global devastation would occure at the schedualed time while he was creating earth, BEFORE he created adam.

the Tsunami could have been to murder a 10 year old Thai who would have started a worldwide buddist cult that would have spoiled gods plans for worldwide war starting in the middle east.

sure, but it's incorrect to say any natural disaster is the result of Divine intervention

God intervenes supernaturally in the natural order of things He estaablished very seldom

the Tribulation will be an exception to that, when God's fury of Divine judgment is unleashed on the earth....Katrina was a gentle breeze by comparison to what is predicted....try 100 lb hail stones
I would think the Earth would need to spin faster to produce the winds to do just that. It would indeed require a god. or a large ass meteor. either way i'd be dead and wouldn't care.

Yes, indeed isaiah wrote that. Beautifully written to a culture devestated with war.

Lincoln called it "... the altar of freedom."

God spoke? I never heard a god's voice before, so no. And don't forget about Isaiah's wife who supposely had these prophilic powers. I'd listen and obediant to my wife if she grants me certain things willingly, too.

Ummm...what about words that were preserved yet not god inspired?

2 Timothy 3

In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

exactly what does this scripture mean to you so we can be all clear on this

in layman's term sir. I am retarded you know.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.[/i]

what does this mean? in yzf's words

who cares about my words...I can't speak for how this process occured with the apostles and prophets

you inserted a scripture as to answer my question about other works that were preserved over the ages. It didn't explain why this was so. So what I need from you is what exactly did you mean to place that scripture in there to answer my question. I just dont have the intelligence to see how it was anyway relevent to my question except making me feel very dumb.

So did god tell you to place that there since you cant explain it also?

if God breathed out the scripures to the apostles and prophets through His Spirit, if He created man in His image, than He is certainly powerful enough to preserve His Word for all generations, against enemies who would seek to destroy/pervert it

and He has....artifacts such as the scrolls prove it

If you are trying to prove that god had a hand in preserving his works
I can certainly accept this as the answer expected.

Again.... my question was about other non god artifacts and writtings that survived the ages as well.

EDIT: for example (so this pulling teeth to get info wont go on so far......)

oops, in my discovery, using your logic, another god is alive and well. For Thoth, ancient Egyptian god, breathed out the scripures to the egyptians throuh His Spirit, if he is powerful enough to preserve His Word for all generations, against enemies who would seek to destroy/pervert it, than He certainly created man in His image,

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/img/palaeo/thoth_writing.jpg

yeah, i agree. egyptians walk funny anyhow. And thew epic of Gilgamesh, I never studied it. Until i get my lazy ass up to study that, I will suppose you are right. If you ever get the time, can you post that information and it's similarities for us?

God spoke...Isaiah wrote it down

Isaiah is one of the dead sea scrolls perfectly preserved for 2000+ years...God has preserved His Word...undeniable


except that what was preserved was NOT what "God spoke...Isaiah wrote it down" it was COPIES that CLAIM to correspond to what Isaiah wrote.

the ORIGINAL GARUNTEED INERRANT MANUSCRIPT of what god wanted written down IS LOST .

no part of the bible is DIRECTLY BASED on ORIGINAL writings.
only what claim to be copies.

with NO WAY to check the validity of those claims.

all you can say is "Yes .... but ...."

but you CANNOT produce ANY example of Isaiahs handwriting.

which is undeniably lost.

we do not have the original manuscript, true

however, of the many copies of Isaiah available in the scrolls and other artifacts, there is remarkable consistency, which indicates there must have been an original

if that kind of logic cannot work for "evolution" why should it work for Gods Word ?

we do not have the original manuscript, true

however, of the many copies of Isaiah available in the scrolls and other artifacts, there is remarkable consistency, which indicates there must have been an original

it implies that what is written in the copies had an original but it in no way implies that the original of the copies WAS what Isaiah originally wrote.

considering that satan uses mystical powers to delude and mislead humanity SPECIFICALLY about how to worship god, where better could he work than by destroying the original inerrent manuscript and substituting his own writings in their place ?

as opposed to the real Word of God just casually getting lost or destroyed ?

it implies that what is written in the copies had an original but it in no way implies that the original of the copies WAS what Isaiah originally wrote.

considering that satan uses mystical powers to delude and mislead humanity SPECIFICALLY about how to worship god, where better could he work than by destroying the original inerrent manuscript and substituting his own writings in their place ?

as opposed to the real Word of God just casually getting lost or destroyed ?

That theory has a very striking counter... God is more powerful.. so couldn't he prevent it?

Your post was useless.

That theory has a very striking counter... God is more powerful.. so couldn't he prevent it?

Your post was useless.

not so fast--your statement opens up a whole new can of worms there--if you say God was strong enough to prevent Satan from destroying the books that were in human hands, then you could say in the same manner that God is strong enough to prevent Satan from working on man at all. Obviously, this is not the case because Satan works every day on man. Before you deem something worthless, at least think on it for a minute. The entire premise here is that God wants us to CHOOSE to follow Him--but with that choice must also come an alternative choice, or it really is not us choosing. That alternative choice could be anything--if God could keep Satan from doing some things to man, why cant He keep Satan from doing other things to man? The answer is simple--God does not prevent the destruction of those books. To do so would interfere with the free will that He desires in us--if He makes the choices for us, what would the point be?

we do not have the original manuscript, true

however, of the many copies of Isaiah available in the scrolls and other artifacts, there is remarkable consistency, which indicates there must have been an original

yes, but what he is trying to tell you is that there is absolutely no way you can prove to him that this book of Isiah--the one we see today made from the many copies--is identical to the actual one true original book. He is saying that at least the possibility exists that the copies you speak of could have come from someone else's original instead....of a different story. See the point?

at least the possibility exists that the copies you speak of could have come from someone else's original instead....of a different story.

who would want to do such a thing ?

satan would want to change the scripture, so as to fool myriads of people into worshipping a false god, suckering them away from the one true faith.

islam and catholicism for example. one of them is clearly the direct work of satan and successfully deludes millions of faithful souls into damnation.

{islam also lacks any source documents.}

so satan clearly has the ability to falsify what appears to be True scripture to even the most devout believers.

method, means, motive, opportunity.

where did god say to write a bible ?

was it one of the 10 commandments ?

no ? how do you know ?

the Ark of the Covenant, containing the REAL Word of God is missing too.


Originally Posted by Zero
That theory has a very striking counter... God is more powerful.. so couldn't he prevent it?

of course he could, he didn't.

he is the one who gives satan every bit of the magic that satan uses against us.

it is satans JOB, given him by god himself, to trick humanity into false worship. to drag as many souls to hell as possible with the full support and approval of god.

who do you think created the notion of thousands of holy books with all save {possibly} one being false ?

the Ark is so holy that it is death to touch with sinful hands.

yet somebody took it from the holy tabernacle inhabited by god in person, against the will of god Himself ?

but the True scripture has always been there....they have no excuse

just as the person who buys a Ford Probe and really believes it's an FD has no excuse


what happened to the bit jesus said about 'if you believe strong enough it WILL be true' ?

you have faith that your copy is a true copy, but you CANNOT know because there is no True Scripture to compare yours to.

your chosen scripture didn't exist until 1978.
before that was only the proven inaccurate king james, preceded by the even wronger catholic version.


if there are no FDs to compare with, how can he possibly know he is wrong ?

what happened to the bit jesus said about 'if you believe strong enough it WILL be true' ?

you have faith that your copy is a true copy, but you CANNOT know because there is no True Scripture to compare yours to.

your chosen scripture didn't exist until 1978.
before that was only the proven inaccurate king james, preceded by the even wronger catholic version.


if there are no FDs to compare with, how can he possibly know he is wrong ?

wow! That even shut me up right there. but im pretty comfortable knowing that the writtings we see today are very close to the originals. Including Isaiah. You can feel Isaiah's despair and triumphs. but...still there is not a god.

the fool has said in his heart, there is no God...

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I"M MELTING!!!!!

wow! That even shut me up right there. but im pretty comfortable knowing that the writtings we see today are very close to the originals. Including Isaiah. You can feel Isaiah's despair and triumphs. but...still there is not a god.

all or nothing, my way or the highway, absolutely True or absolutely false.

very close to the originals, the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free, slips that may have crept into the text .


god said "the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. " ?

all or nothing, my way or the highway, absolutely True or absolutely false.

very close to the originals, the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free, slips that may have crept into the text .


god said "the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. " ?

It dosent matter how accurate imo. All the inconsistancies in seperate books dispells the whole notion that the bible is pure truth. To me, if it isnt pure truth, why are we waisting our time trying to live like what a person wants us too? like what moses suggests. No, not entirely like jesus. he didnt like women so much.

three glaring spelling errors in that post alone! nice work...

Jesus didn't like women? where do you get this stupid stuff? there is no basis for it
I am sorry for my spelling. Not my forte. however im good with other things????
Yes, jesus didnt want the 'V'. The bible never talked about it so im pretty sure that is the case. But I did read that Jesus had 12 guys hang out with him.

I probably am. Just wondering why it was so. Maybe it is a subject you never tried to defend before. You will be asked of this again. Why not learn what weapons you will need to counter a retarded question like that? So bring it. Since you seem to be a Master at catholic religion,(as proof you tell others to run from it), why do catholic priest, who pratice avoiding 'V', are likely more succesful as Homose****?

its all good friend. At least you didnt run me out as promised. My questions will still stand here. not to be answered by you. maybe someone else will. who knows. I still await.

you aren't here to ask questions

Is than an "assessment" I see?

Mark--I agree that he does not come off as a plain old curious student of your posts, but is it seriously that bad for you to just lay off the judgments and such and just discuss??? People are not supposed to always agree with everything you say, so why should you treat people like this every time they dont??

there are a few translational minutia errors, generally associated with poor word choice, but these are easily rectified by studying the earlier manuscripts, that's why Biblical scholars exist

as opposed to having an actual first edition of the Word of God to compare with.

god can't write a book that is simple, clear, and authoratative.

he even had a pair of sinless hands to write it with.

what is the point of a book if the holy spirit invests your soul and changes you into a new creature ?

can a demon posessed soul not sin ?

no ? how can a soul inhabited by god sin ?

especially one wearing those holy nighties.

:40oz: <--- Pepsi :bigthumb:

2000 years is a long time for goat skin and paper to remain...that's why the Dead Sea Scrolls are all the more amazing

people who deny the scriptures will always find another excuse to do so, even if "someone appeared from the dead"

yeah, that whole 'carve the words into stone and put them in a big gold box guarded by two angels' bit failed so misrebly.

too bad.

yeah, that whole 'carve the words into stone and put them in a big gold box guarded by two angels' bit failed so misrebly.

too bad.
gosh.
lol good point. What took you one minute, took me hours

For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven,
And do not return there

so the water evaporating and going back up into the clouds to fall again bit I told the 4 year old is a LIE ?

the water really is on a one way trip down from heaven into the earth where it STAYS forever and NEW rain follows it.

gosh, what a fountain of wisdom is your version of the bible.

so the mystery of where all the Flood waters went can be solved by tracing where all the rain water goes.


hmmm, maybe the increase in ocean level isn't due to Global Warming {there's a Religion for you} but rather just all that accumulated rain and snow.


are stone tablets somehow eternal?

the paper and stone is gone...the Word lives on


So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;

but,,, he is not talking about it being WRITTEN, he is talking about his SPOKEN word.

talking to His prophets to tell them His will is a whole 'nother thing, not the same as writing stuff down so some folks will have something to read in the bathroom.

this whole "writing stuff down" business seems to be just another pharasee invention, to let them SHOW how much more godly they are than everybody else.

at least that hasn't changed.

:bowdown: :screwyou:

because you're even dumber and more goofy than he is?

why boast in your shame?

this forum is such a waste of my time

There will be NO personal attacks allowed....

All Religions (or lack of Religion) will be treated with RESPECT.

A week-long ban was obviously not enough to get you to keep the promise you made to Kevin about following these rules, I see....

what, nothing to say about honesty in your face? Why am I not surprised....

Anyways, I personally have trouble taking spiritual advice from the same guy that buries himself in this kind of hypocrisy. This is not an attack on you--I am truthfully speaking about your actions. You bring up a ton of good info, but when you then go and act like this, it chases people off from the info you post. Think about it....

I understand the attack on yzf character. he found somewhere and is convinced that it is OK to be that way and still find a place in heaven. this is typical in all walks of christians' faith. YZF is a good person and is placed somewhere between the guy who shoots abortion doctors and Mother Teresa (true Saint). God will take 'em. not everyone is the same. That is why you get so many different variations of christains that behave different ways.

Again, YZf falls somewhere in between those people. A devoted christain and a wacko christian.

oh sorry, how do you mean my spelling?

Mother Teresa was a "saint" based on who's judgment? yours?

fact is, she was a dyed-in-the-wool Roman catholic who worshipped Mary, she may not even be in the Kingdom, no one here can say

again, no amount of works won't get you into the Kingdom, people always seem to miss this (I suppose because of catholic doctrines, and the fact that people are always looking for some type of spiritual yardstick)...instead, good works are motivated by genuine faith

What is wrong with you??

The guy gave you a compliment, so in reply you are rude like this?? Dude, what is your malfunction? He called you a good person....and you insult him for it!

As for Mother Theresa, your own post clears this one up--true, she worshipped Mary as Catholics do, but you specifically stated that good works motivated by genuine faith are the key. That describes Mother Theresa to a T.....if God takes that as something of higher importance than which "denomination" you come from, then by default she is in the Kingdom. And, even if she is not, who are you to insult not only someone who compliments you(I know, I know--how dare he??:eek: ), but someone else who has done far more good on this rock than you ever have or ever will??

Get over yourself Mark....really....

He called you a good person....and you insult him for it!

a scabby non-christian spending her life helping other scabby non-christians is not what yzf sees himself as being.

try ...


Tomás de Torquemada

Llorente computes that during Torquemada's office (1483-98) 8800 suffered death by fire and 9,654 were punished in other ways

{ok, he was a catholic, but he tortured to death THOUSANDS of catholics, jews and moslems, that HAS to count for the good.}


Oliver Cromwell

speech to the people of Dublin after his arrival in Ireland. (16 August, 1649)

God has brought us here in safety... We are here to carry on the great work against the barbarous and blood-thirsty Irish... to propagate the Gospel of Christ and the establishment of truth... and to restore this nation to its former
happiness and tranquillity.


In August 1649, Cromwell and 12,000 soldiers arrived in Ireland. During the next ten years of bloodshed it is estimated that about a third of the population was either killed or died of starvation. The majority of Roman Catholics who owned land had it taken away from them and were removed to the barren province of Connacht. Catholic boys and girls were shipped to Barbados and sold to the planters as slaves.





Cotton Mather

I. Some Accounts of the Grievous Molestations, by Doemons and Witchcrafts, which have lately annoy'd the Countrey; and the Trials of some eminent Malefactors Executed upon occasion thereof: with several Remarkable Curiosities therein occurring.

It cost the Court a wonderful deal of Trouble, to hear the Testimonies of the Sufferers; for when they were going to give in their Depositions, they would for a long time be taken with fitts, that made them uncapable of saying any thing. The Chief Judge asked the prisoner, who he thought hindred these witnesses from giving their testimonies? and he answered, He supposed it was the Divel. That Honourable person then reply'd, How comes the Divel so loathe to have any Testimony born against you? Which cast him into very great confusion.



aahhh, the Good Old Days.


:bowdown: :screwyou:

John 4 sums it up

You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.

God's Spirit cannot function in an environment of error...especially an environment of idolatry....anyone who worships Mary and commits idolatry cannot be saved...not possible...I don't care how "good" they appear

and this means John Paul II did not know the Truth either, because he was absolutely obsessed with Mary

lol yzf! if only you were the third party reading this. That is YOUR take on people's souls. Not her's. And to write off all her works whos live the way jesus discribes clearly in the bible how you should live, it doesnt amount to beans to you. This is just a character inside you that no amount of bible reading will cure. However I will accept the way you are :jerkit:

But again you missed my entire point, Mr Team Impact Wantabe. I was placing you in between a good christian person, who was indeed by far and everyone it the whole world knows it except mountain people in NC, the ultimate useful person around, to another christian who wasnt. You only wasted your time stating what you wrote about Mary or w/e here thus resulting you looking like you just grew thumbs in your blood line.


Your whole thing is...off kilter. Everything you have been trying to teach us counterdicts your teachings. You present nothing solid. How bout starting a new thread about how damn sure you are right about Mother Teresa. im sure it would be educational. because, again, nothing you wrote here was clear.

John 4 sums it up

You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.

God's Spirit cannot function in an environment of error...especially an environment of idolatry....anyone who worships Mary and commits idolatry cannot be saved...not possible...I don't care how "good" they appear

and this means John Paul II did not know the Truth either, because he was absolutely obsessed with Mary

This is absolutely false.

"God's Spirit cannot function in an environment of error..."

WE ALL LIVE IN ERROR. By the standard you just wrote, NO ONE would ever get to the Kingdom.

Not too long ago, you said that you honestly felt that there were some Catholics who were on the right path--well, dont all catholics have the same principles in place in their churches?? Dont they all pray to Mary? HMMM.....someone's contradicting himself again.

God's spirit is evident on this earth every day....so tell us again how it cannot function in an environment of error. There is not one place on this entire earth where perfection among humans is to be found....that in itself nullifies your post.

a scabby non-christian spending her life helping other scabby non-christians is not what yzf sees himself as being.

try ...


Tomás de Torquemada

Llorente computes that during Torquemada's office (1483-98) 8800 suffered death by fire and 9,654 were punished in other ways

{ok, he was a catholic, but he tortured to death THOUSANDS of catholics, jews and moslems, that HAS to count for the good.}


Oliver Cromwell

speech to the people of Dublin after his arrival in Ireland. (16 August, 1649)

God has brought us here in safety... We are here to carry on the great work against the barbarous and blood-thirsty Irish... to propagate the Gospel of Christ and the establishment of truth... and to restore this nation to its former
happiness and tranquillity.


In August 1649, Cromwell and 12,000 soldiers arrived in Ireland. During the next ten years of bloodshed it is estimated that about a third of the population was either killed or died of starvation. The majority of Roman Catholics who owned land had it taken away from them and were removed to the barren province of Connacht. Catholic boys and girls were shipped to Barbados and sold to the planters as slaves.





Cotton Mather

I. Some Accounts of the Grievous Molestations, by Doemons and Witchcrafts, which have lately annoy'd the Countrey; and the Trials of some eminent Malefactors Executed upon occasion thereof: with several Remarkable Curiosities therein occurring.

It cost the Court a wonderful deal of Trouble, to hear the Testimonies of the Sufferers; for when they were going to give in their Depositions, they would for a long time be taken with fitts, that made them uncapable of saying any thing. The Chief Judge asked the prisoner, who he thought hindred these witnesses from giving their testimonies? and he answered, He supposed it was the Divel. That Honourable person then reply'd, How comes the Divel so loathe to have any Testimony born against you? Which cast him into very great confusion.



aahhh, the Good Old Days.


:bowdown: :screwyou:

yes, but he actually used the words "you are a good person" in his post. Regardless of the different opininons about Mother Theresa, there is no mistaking the intent of that post. Unless of course you are Mark, apparently....

I think he's saying that the bottom line is that God doesn't care about good.

I think he's saying that the bottom line is that God doesn't care about good.

No, he is trying to say that God only cares about one specific kind of good, and anything else is not good enough. Although, Mark seems to waver back and forth as to the defined lines of that good.

first off, your judgment of anyone means less than nothing
I also believe she was a universalist
You are not being clear...again.

I'm from Detroit
Sorry. I lived off 8-mile and hoover. A once nice neighborhood. And in any case, I envy you living in NC. Beautiful country.

no, YOU are "off kilter", YOU are so far removed from the Truth, so ignorant in everything you say, so mindless, that every word that every comes out of your mouth is nauseating
Thank you. I am just doing my job. tyvm.
/smile
/smile
/smile

I told you what I think: anyone who worships Mary doesn't know the Truth...I also believe she was a universalist
Teresa only desire was being loved by people. it was a gift god gave to her. I have a different gift. Objectivity.

I have a different gift. Objectivity.

Given to you by whom?

not at all

I'm saying salvation is not by good works...it's very hard for Catholics to let go of that false doctrine


So good deeds are important to God yet they mean nothing upon one’s judgment?

Given to you by whom?

I do not know and I am not curious enough to investigate deeper. My argument, however, is if you believe in god, he made you with the gifts. So you cant fault Mother teresa nor I. We didnt ask for these gifts. To fight agaisnt your gift seems self defeating and unnatural.

you certainly do ;)

haha w/e smartypants.

it's absolutely correct



doctrinal error

why do you always butcher everything I say and come up with some tangential comment?

because you have zero discernment, jon

Why do you go against the Bible so much?

Doctrinal error?? THAT IS THE ONLY KIND IN GOD'S EYES.

Remember, "make your life your doctrine"?? God instructs you to live your doctrine. ANY way you live is then your doctrine. If you claim your doctrine to be one way and live another, then your so-called doctrine is nothing but a false claim on your part! Make sense? It should--it isnt that difficult a concept.

In other words, WE ALL face doctrinal error in our lives! AGAIN, then I say that if your statement was true, no one would ever reach the kingdom. You cannot possibly know what Theresa prayed about to God, can you? Just like the robber on the cross, GOD'S GRACE is what saves. And you are nowhere near the authority or knowledge required to make such a definitive claim about her status to us.

you mentioned idolatry, which I remind you was JUST AS BAD IN GOD EYES AS THE REST OF SIN. yet sinners DO reach the kingdom of God....so who in the world are you that you think you can tell us what became of her soul?

I do not know and I am not curious enough to investigate deeper. My argument, however, is if you believe in god, he made you with the gifts. So you cant fault Mother teresa nor I. We didnt ask for these gifts. To fight agaisnt your gift seems self defeating and unnatural.

Unless what you percieve as gifts are actually flaws and the gift is the ability to overcome these flaws.

Unless what you percieve as gifts are actually flaws and the gift is the ability to overcome these flaws.

You are killing me ark :)
excellent point!

you mentioned idolatry, which I remind you was JUST AS BAD IN GOD EYES AS THE REST OF SIN. yet sinners DO reach the kingdom of God....so who in the world are you that you think you can tell us what became of her soul?

An excellent post. Who is to say which sins are pardoned and which aren't (except for God of course).

I don't waver at all! I don't go there!

"good" is NEVER good enough!! (how many times have I said this?)

you may as well long jump to the moon....

You most certainly have gone there....care to see for yourself?

http://www.theforumlounge.com/showpost.php?p=98757&postcount=57

I said there are people...individuals...from just about every denomination of Christtianity that hold to the correct, vital docrines (basically the apostle's creed) and do know the Lord, even Roman Catholic....the true church is ONE, but the true (unseen, spiritual) church is not a building, and not a denomination....do you get it?

which is why knowledge of sound doctrine is so vital to separate the sheep from the goats, although only Christ Himself truly knows all those who are His...many wear a mask

here, we see you saying that there are people within many churches, including the Catholic church, that hold to the correct doctrine, and therefore, are in the Kingdom. Dont tell me that you never went there....you just did.

Also, note the last part of that quote--ONLY CHRIST HIMSELF TRULY KNOWS ALL THOSE WHO ARE HIS....therefore, who do you think you are that you think you are good enough to tell us about Mother Theresa like you did? you clearly overstepped your bounds, as only Christ can make such a determination.

EDIT--lets go further--this is from you in this thread:

anyone who worships Mary doesn't know the Truth

This is proof positive of you flip-flopping about who is and is not holding to the right doctrine. First, you said that some Catholics are no doubt on the right track--but Catholics by default pray to Mary....and now you say that anyone who worships Mary doesnt know the truth. Now, I agree with you on this latest comment, but you really should just pick one pov and stick to it. And dont tell me that you think some catholics dont worship Mary--if not then why would they go to a catholic church and call themselves catholic??? They would certainly not continue to be catholic if they did nto believe as catholics do. Why would someone intentionally include themself in a doctrine if they knew it to be false? Wouldnt that defeat the entire purpose of a doctrine to begin with?

They would certainly not continue to be catholic if they did nto believe as catholics do. Why would someone intentionally include themself in a doctrine if they knew it to be false? Wouldnt that defeat the entire purpose of a doctrine to begin with?

I like your shit, Sky. This is probably the smartest thing anyone ever said today.

again, both you guys are completely missing the point

the point is, God cares that you believe what is RIGHT, that your doctrine is sound, according to the scripture, not just whatever you think is right

quite from Mother Teresa, from the link I posted:

"Mother" Teresa, and those who worked with her, never tried to convert to Christ the dying people for whom they cared. Instead, "Mother" Teresa declared: "If in coming face to face with God we accept Him in our lives, then we are converting. We become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Catholic, a better whatever we are. ... What God is in your mind you must accept" (from Mother Teresa: Her People and Her Work, by Desmond Doig, p. 156).

that is NOT right doctrine...period! that is a lie, that is damning doctrine

again, I Corinthians 1, this cannot be any more clear

Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

truth matters! tolerance is NOT the issue!

the universalist movement is, without question, the most seductive, dangerous, and widespread teaching in the world today: that is, it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you are a "good person"

wrong! and that's why discernment is so vital

Funny--you telling someone else about discernment....look, Mark--I quoted you specifically saying a very similar thing to what she said, that you now point out. You have clearly stated that there are no doubt people from many other denominations and churches who will find the Kingdom...that is basically the same as what she said!

If there is an error in my post, then it came from reading your contradictions in this forum. So tell us again about discernment, Mark. You didnt even remember that you said that until I posted the quote....

Oh, and take note here--you are in error. I am NOT saying that being a good person is the goal. But it is a hell of a lot better to be a good person than to be a bad one, no?? Where most of us come from, being told that you are a good person, THOUGH IT IS NOT ENOUGH BY ITSELF TO ENTER HEAVEN, is STILL a compliment--and you treated it like something to wipe your ass with. There is no excuse for that.

simple: because if someone doesn't know sound doctrine, man made philosophy or tradition easily fills the vacuum...why are there so many false religions and cults in 2006? there are HUNDREDS of "christian" cults alone

Let's get real here--if one "does not know sound doctrine", then they do not know that! It isnt like people go around saying "I really want to find the one doctrine, but I cannot find it, so I will believe in this cucumber and avocado salad instead...."

GET REAL....

When someone DOES NOT KNOW what the one true doctrine is, they STILL follow the one they believe, dont they?? I specifically talked about people following other doctrines, and you are talking about people who cherry-pick. A perfect example of this is the catholic church--if you call yourself catholic, but you do not pray to Mary, THEN YOU ARE FOOLING YOURSELF. YOU ARE NOT A CATHOLIC simply because you SAY you are. you make it out to be like these people know they are wrong and believe it anyways. Before you were saved, did you always know you were wrong?? I will guarantee you that you did not.

People need something to believe in, yes, I agree....but people dont usually go around believing in something that they know is in error just to believe in something. If they KNEW, then that would be cause to look for the right one, see? Your logic has holes in it on this point.

and no, jon, not all catholics worship or pray to Mary

Really?? If you call yourself a football player, do you play football? If you say "I am a bartender", do you not pour drinks? If you say "I believe in abstinence", do you find a new hottie each weekend and hit it?? Name ONE legitimate catholic church that does not pray to Mary. If you say "I am catholic", but you do not follow the doctrine of the catholic church, then guess what?? YOU ARE NOT CATHOLIC....you are only fooling yourself. Being catholic, like any other religion, means that you actually follow what Catholics do. And, this is a decent description of what Mary means to the catholic faith:

http://www.ancient-future.net/basics.html

Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man, thus she is called theotokos (God-Bearer) and "mother of God." Catholics, like Protestants, believe that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. However, Catholics and Orthodox believe that Mary remained a Virgin her entire life. Mary was conceived without original sin in order to be a sinless bearer of God incarnate: Jesus Christ. This is known as the immaculate conception. This sinlessness was accomplished only because of the merits of Jesus Christ. At the end of her life, Mary was assumed into heaven, like the great saint Elijah. Mary is the Mother of us and the mother of the Church, and just as Christ is the new Adam, Mary is the new Eve, who obeyed God where Eve disobeyed.

Tell me again how not all catholics do this. If someone calls themself catholic and does not, then they are fake. Just like all the ranting you do about what a "true christian" must do to actually be one, it is the same with this situation. Why dont you grasp this?

The entire premise of calling yourself such a label as "catholic" is to state what your beliefs and doctrine are. Why in the world would you possibly say you were something that you truly were not??

simple: because if someone doesn't know sound doctrine, man made philosophy or tradition easily fills the vacuum...why are there so many false religions and cults in 2006? there are HUNDREDS of "christian" cults alone!

people don't bother to study the Word, and, more importantly, God has not called them, so they believe lies

2 Corinthians 11

Oh, that you would bear with me in a little folly—and indeed you do bear with me. For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!

For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles. Even though I am untrained in speech, yet I am not in knowledge. But we have been thoroughly manifested among you in all things.


notice how no one here except me can quote scripture to back up their points?

You are at this point just lying now....how many times have others, especially me, posted scripture to prove our points?? dont lie now, Mark....the proof is all over the forums.

I knew of a family that were in a splinter group called 'chrismatic catholics'. Mainly ran by house wives who married into traditional catholic ways. They dont dare worship mary and the lot. They are good people too, still involved with the church and played hymns with their guitars. One stated that Elton John may be the Beast (666).

No, he is trying to say that God only cares about one specific kind of good, and anything else is not good enough. Although, Mark seems to waver back and forth as to the defined lines of that good.

killing evil sinners is always good.

hence my choice of folks who did truely Good works.

actually that mother T bit where she let the dying curse themselves to hell was just about evil, I mean Good, enough.

you must remember, god hates the majority of humanity enough to send them to hell for eternity.

I don't need much to post scriptures to prove my points, whatever yzf posts generally does the job nicely.

:bowdown: :screwyou:

I knew of a family that were in a splinter group called 'chrismatic catholics'. Mainly ran by house wives who married into traditional catholic ways. They dont dare worship mary and the lot. They are good people too, still involved with the church and played hymns with their guitars. One stated that Elton John may be the Beast (666).


Exactly--a "splinter" group. They left the catholic church....this means they are not catholics. They are now something different. That was my point. Either you are catholic, and follow the catholic doctrine, or you are not a catholic, no matter what you may call yourself. This is simple common sense at work. The church is not a buffet, where you can take the parts you like, skip the rest, and think you are of that doctrine.

actually, false doctrines are analogous to a buffet for some: they pick and choose whatever they like

still, I'm convinced there are some genuine Christians within the catholic system...not many, but some (note I don't refer to that system as the Church)

I never said you did....and the only reason I referred to it as a church is because it is one....

In either event, I see that you failed to reply to the points I made.

correction, mankind wants nothing to do with God, and only through God's electing love can anyone be saved

all of mankind is cursed to hell, "and only through God's electing love can anyone be saved" from that curse.

mankind knows nothing true about god because what mankind does know about god comes from satan.
those who god elects to recieve the truth are unable to spread the word because it is the will of god that the majority of humanity remain in the darkness that god made for them and wants them to remain in.



when you do post scripture, it is usually snippets pulled out of context

if I want to show that god hates I do not need the context just the statement "god hates".

all of mankind is cursed to hell, "and only through God's electing love can anyone be saved" from that curse.

mankind knows nothing true about god because what mankind does know about god comes from satan.
those who god elects to recieve the truth are unable to spread the word because it is the will of god that the majority of humanity remain in the darkness that god made for them and wants them to remain in.
This makes sense.

"all sins will be forgiven men, except blaspheming the Holy Spirit"

what is blaspheming the Holy Spirit? basically, calling God's Truth a lie, and denying that Jesus is the Christ: "THE way, THE truth, and THE life"..."salvation is by no other name"

that is the unpardonable sin..not believing that, and slandering the Spirit of Grace and Truth

And again you are wrong. Saul denied and slandered God's truth....to the point of killing those who followed Him! AND WHERE DID SAUL END UP??

Truth is, most people(at least) at one point or another in their lives denied God. Many of them knowingly do it, while others do not. "unpardonable"?? Try again--if a Muslim, who spent the last thirty years actively and intentionally denying God's truth, were to convert today and declare Jesus to be his lord and savior, HE WOULD BE SAVED, Mark. Unpardonable, my ass....how many people that get saved later in life did NOT deny God's truth earlier?? Gimme a break--that goes completely against the mercy and grace that is promised to us in the Word.

Gee YZF. Wake up on the wrong side of the bed? On a Sunday even. While you were at church, presumingly, I just pulled a lot of weeds and killed a lot more with weed killer. Then the family is going for a Sunday drive to check out Cabellas. yeah, I am a non church goer evil family guy.

ha...no, I just find jon extremely irritating (and I'm not the only one here who shares that opinion)

how old are you? either really young or very old....you're on here 24/7

Just finding out that Sky is no dumby? He is only keeping you cornered. A good place for people who flipflop a lot.

Telling you my age dosent seem to benefit me in anyway. Why dont you just wish me to be 16? I would appreciate that.

I persecuted the church of God. a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly,

he obviously had the right stuff, violent persecuter of those he believed wrong.

so all the Spirit had to do was aim him at the correct people to hate.

"I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief"

since ignorance and unbelief are the natural cursed state of ALL mankind it is clear that his acting was what drew the spirit to him.

what were the actions that demonstrated his suitability for service ?

Violent Persecutions.

just like moses, and like moses he didn't live in a cave.

{like moses in that moses streight up murdered a man, attracting the Spirit to himself by his violence.}

edit;

Exodus 2 (King James Version)


11 And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.

12 And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.

13 And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews strove together: and he said to him that did the wrong, Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow?

14 And he said, Who made thee a prince and a judge over us? intendest thou to kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian? And Moses feared, and said, Surely this thing is known.

15 Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well.

WOW, you just fall right into it every time, dont you???

You say he acted out of IGNORANCE, right? Tell us, when you bitch about Mother Theresa, CANT YOU THEN SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT HER?

In regards to the one true church, SHE WAS IGNORANT OF IT. She THOUGHT she already was of the right church! SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE that Saul was worthy of a second chance by God's grace and in your eyes she was not? THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE in the scenarios--he was ignorant of the truth, and she was likewise ignorant of it. Only their resulting actions were different! They BOTH thought that they were doing the right thing at the time, isnt it fair to say??

SURELY, if God has the grace to forgive the ignorance of a man who murders true believers, then He SURELY has the grace and compassion to forgive the ignorance of a woman who spent her entire life in the cause to help others so selflessly, dontcha think there, Marky??

After all, she spent her life as a catholic--it isnt like she was a part of the true church and then left it in favor of the catholic faith, am I right? THAT IS THE SAME KIND OF IGNORANCE THAT GOD FORGAVE IN SAUL. Neither one was exposed to the true church before, so they were acting on what they felt was right! Tell us--where is the difference?? BOTH were told that their ways were wrong, no doubt, and both ignored those words, no doubt.....NO DIFFERENCE.

Class dismissed.

Oh, one more thing--you dont school anyone, oh arrogant one. God's word is there to HELP PEOPLE, not to carry around like your own personal beat-down. And the Word even states that, should you get to an impasse where your words are not heeded, then LEAVE. Dont even think of pretending to act like you are following God's word--persistence, yes, but TO A POINT, even according to GOD HIMSELF. You are wrong. Good day.

you understand NOTHING

I understand that I just beat you at your own game....again....like I have done before. SO, apparently this "ignorant" demon-spawn that "knows NOTHING" knows enough to point out your glaring errors.

absolutely not

she has scripture available to her to read....Paul didn't (at that time)

there is no excuse for ignorance now

This is the absolute best excuse you can come up with?? WHY did Saul need scripture? TELL US....why? Didnt the faithful go about spreading the good word? SURELY there is no doubt that Saul knew of their actions, because he was trying to round them all up and kill them! HE HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO PARTAKE OF THE WORD JUST AS SHE DID. No amount of your trying to manipulate such details changes this fact. The faithful were travelling from place to place and preaching the good news of the Word....and Saul wanted to kill them for doing it! Saul KNEW about the message that they brought--and he took much satisfaction from their persecution anyways, did he not? he stood by in approval when Stephen was stoned to death...didnt he?

YOUR ARGUMENT IS DISMISSED, since it is BS. he had every chance to listen to these people, and knowing that they brought a message, he instead chose to chase them down and have them killed. YOU ARE AGAIN WRONG. He did not need for it all to be written down in a book--it was happening right in front of him! AND, even if he did need a book, you just lied anyways, because you said that he did not have the scriptures....but he DID. You forgot all about the old books--the ones written well before Jesus walked on the earth. In the old testament, it is prophesized that Jesus would come, is it not? Yet Saul, having all these opportunities, STILL MADE THE CHOICE to kill them! You lose.

nope....she had access to the same scripture anyone else does, she chose to believe lies

....as did Saul, when he CHOSE to ignore their preaching about God and kill them instead. YOU ARE WRONG.

in your wildest dreams, jonnie

ya think?? Then explain this rather ignorant oversight on your part that I just brought to light.....you cannot even win at your own game, Marky....that is really sad....

you said it....

from what you have told me about your past, you are the apostate, you are the blasphemer, you are without hope

interesting that you've been through cancer and many other life threatening issues, but you're still a rock head....think maybe God is saying something to you?

1--whatever God is telling me most definitely is not comign from you. That's a sure bet. No one would actually be coming in the name of God in the manner that you do. If God wanted to kill me off, He would have already. one thing you have not thought about either--if those of us in here are truly as far beyond all hope as you claimed, then why would we still even be alive? If this life is a test to see who passes to eternal life and who doesnt, then those who have failed to the extent you claim we have would certainly not serve any purpose by being allowed to keep living on this rock, would we? You really need to get a clue, Mark....at the end of the day, your contradictions and lies paint a far different picture from the one you wish people to believe about you. Perhaps God will work in your own heart so that you can effectively work in the hearts of others, because you sure do suck at it now. I give you props big-time for your persistence, but there are times in this life when persistence works against you. Persistence in error is fruitless.

You two know something? ...you two make good points. you two need to find a closure before the name calling gets the $100 attention. Which we don't need in here. Perhaps the line "I agree that we both disagree on this matter" might help. And maybe later, both of you fellas might start to enjoy each others company.

who are you to challenge what the scripture clearly says?

Leviticus 14:19
And the priest shall offer the sin offering, and make an atonement for him that is to be cleansed from his uncleanness; and afterward he shall kill the burnt offering:


Leviticus 7:2
In the place where they kill the burnt offering shall they kill the trespass offering: and the blood thereof shall he sprinkle round about upon the altar.


Leviticus 1:6
And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces


Leviticus 9:12
And he slew the burnt offering; and Aaron's sons presented unto him the blood, which he sprinkled round about upon the altar.

Ezekiel 44:11
Yet they shall be ministers in my sanctuary, having charge at the gates of the house, and ministering to the house: they shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister unto them.

Ezekiel 40:42
And the four tables were of hewn stone for the burnt offering, of a cubit and an half long, and a cubit and an half broad, and one cubit high: whereupon also they laid the instruments wherewith they slew the burnt offering and the sacrifice.

Leviticus 4:33
And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering.

Ezekiel 40:39
And in the porch of the gate were two tables on this side, and two tables on that side, to slay thereon the burnt offering and the sin offering and the trespass offering.

Leviticus 6:25
Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD: it is most holy.

2 Kings 16:15
And king Ahaz commanded Urijah the priest, saying, Upon the great altar burn the morning burnt offering, and the evening meat offering, and the king's burnt sacrifice, and his meat offering, with the burnt offering of all the people of the land, and their meat offering, and their drink offerings; and sprinkle upon it all the blood of the burnt offering,

2 Chronicles 29:34
But the priests were too few, so that they could not flay all the burnt offerings:



2 Kings 3:27
Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall.



Judges 11:31
Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.


Judges 11:39
And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed:



Deuteronomy 12:27
And thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the LORD thy God: and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the LORD thy God, and thou shalt eat the flesh.


who are you to challenge what the scripture clearly says?

:bowdown: :screwyou:

wait a minute here, psycho jonnie

apparently you don't believe the scripture at all (well, I already knew you denied the global flood), so now you are saying that what Paul wrote "I acted in ignorance" is a lie? what are you smoking?? who are you to challenge what the scripture clearly says? and this is why arguing with you is such a completely waste of time, I prove you wrong, time and time and time again, and still you wave your arms around and type out another page long rant in all caps...Paul, inspired by the Spirit God, stated he acted in ignorance! who are you?

get the heck outta here

First off, you cant even get my statement correct. I NEVER CALLED HIM A LIAR, Mark. I clearly stated that they BOTH acted in ignorance! You claimed that he did not have the same opportunities that she did to get it right--and I proved you wrong. THEY BOTH were ignorant, just like you were about my last post.

If youre gonna bitch at someone, you could at least be decent enough to get what they said correct first. Good luck with that.

you're dense...beyond dense

Paul hated Christians with intense zeal...he saw it as nothing more than a cult that challenged the O.T. scriptures, he did not recognize Christ as the Messiah until Jesus appeared to him on the Damascus Road...he acted in ignorance and any pastor-teacher in the world worth a plugged nickel would back up my point of view, not your (worthless) ramblings

Right--I am the dense one...that is why you totally screwed up the meaning of my post??

He saw it as a cult--that only backs up what I said earlier...that he had the same opportunities and he CHOSE his path. Just like she did. Thanks for playing. So....tell me again about my so-called ramblings and what I meant in them, champ....funny thing too--this was clearly stated in that post from me:

HE HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO PARTAKE OF THE WORD JUST AS SHE DID.

I CLEARLY put them both in the same category of ignorance there, no?? Perhaps you, with all the higher education, should make a better effort to read the post before you try to "school" someone on its contents next time. You fail.

God is merciful...fortunately for you

Fortunately for EVERYONE, Mark. Get off your high horse there. You are in no better position than anyone else is to act so arrogantly. and you would be smart to realize that.

You two know something? ...you two make good points. you two need to find a closure before the name calling gets the $100 attention. Which we don't need in here. Perhaps the line "I agree that we both disagree on this matter" might help. And maybe later, both of you fellas might start to enjoy each others company.

czar--take a closer look. You will see that the name calling only goes one way. Note that I have not called him any name. I am merely stating my point of view. As for enjoying each others company, not a chance of that anytime soon. Be careful with this guy over there--tell him just one thing about your personal life and he uses it as some kind of weapon against you later on. Where do you think all the references in his posts to cancer and hurricanes came from?

Besides, you yourself have learned this--you dont call him names, yet look at the way he insults you at evry turn. As for 100T2, he already notices things, but that does not change anything on Mark's part. He was just banned for a week recently because he does not know how to act around others....you can see for yourself how much good that did.

by that logic, then, anyone involved in a cult, "Christian" or otherwise, acts in ignorance and is not responsible for that ignorance

clearly that argument is wrong, because the truth is scripture is the witness against them

and whoever loves and practices a lie.

and that includes the lie of universalism

at first reading the lie that is loved is a lie that you made up knowingly, but a bit of thought shows that a lie that someone else made up and that you believe is also covered.

even though the truth is HIDDEN.

so satan, telling a lie that god has approved to hide the truth from those god has not chosen to reveal the truth to, can make lies that generate LOVE .

so a belief that generates love is a lie from satan, because the Truth generates FEAR of the Lord.

love a lie, fear the truth.


love is a lie, fear is the truth.

Ezekiel 40:39
And in the porch of the gate were two tables on this side, and two tables on that side, to slay thereon the burnt offering and the sin offering and the trespass offering.


2 Kings 3:27
Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall.



Judges 11:31
Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.


Judges 11:39
And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed:

Leviticus 9:12
And he slew the burnt offering; and Aaron's sons presented unto him the blood, which he sprinkled round about upon the altar.


Deuteronomy 12:27
And thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the LORD thy God: and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the LORD thy God, and thou shalt eat the flesh.


who are you to challenge what the scripture clearly says?

czar--take a closer look. You will see that the name calling only goes one way. Note that I have not called him any name. I am merely stating my point of view. As for enjoying each others company, not a chance of that anytime soon. Be careful with this guy over there--tell him just one thing about your personal life and he uses it as some kind of weapon against you later on. Where do you think all the references in his posts to cancer and hurricanes came from?

Besides, you yourself have learned this--you dont call him names, yet look at the way he insults you at evry turn. As for 100T2, he already notices things, but that does not change anything on Mark's part. He was just banned for a week recently because he does not know how to act around others....you can see for yourself how much good that did.

Yes sir. We all have noticed. He's been trying, like asking about my age and photo. All to instill anger.

You've already seen the soul of Mark. Yet it's masked by.........

Recognise that even I can quote bible references on winning the side of xtain arguments. Once you see that...you will see YZF.

Welcome back YZf. ty for not name calling any more. Makes things easier. How was your day?

i sweated in this humidity that I made gravy in my underpants...howd you do? Why long day?

by that logic, then, anyone involved in a cult, "Christian" or otherwise, acts in ignorance and is not responsible for that ignorance

clearly that argument is wrong, because the truth is scripture is the witness against them

Clearly that argument is NOT wrong--after all, you were trying to use the ignorance card yourself just a day or two ago on this very topic! So, DO TELL, Mark, how is it right when you use it and wrong when someone else says the same thing?

Couldnt be more of your "know-it-all" arrogance and pride seeping out there, could it now???:bigthumb:

Revelation 22

Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.

and that includes the lie of universalism

AGAIN, this puts both of them in the same boat, something I have been trying to tell you and something you have been trying to disagree on!!! WHOEVER LOVES AND PRACTICES A LIE, it says, right?? That means ANYONE....Saul, Theresa, ANYONE....yet you claimed that she had the scriptures and therefore was more at fault....if they BOTH practiced lies, (which they did), and Saul was forgiven his sins and allowed to enter Heaven, then WHY in the world is it such a stretch for you to imagine that someone else could also have entered the kingdom?? You cannot change the rules based upon who is playing the game, Mark....one Word, one standard, one set of rules for everyone--dont try to change things just because you now need to cover your error from before. Saul was forgiven, NOT because he asked for it...NOT because it was in his heart....God made him blind WITHOUT him changing his behavior, am I right?? Theresa at least spent her energy trying to HELP people....but because she prayed to Mary, you forgot all about her helping those people, and then you look the other way when Saul murdered Christians....good call....

huh?

Mother Teresa saw Christ as a cult?

no, Mr. Wizard, when I said "just like she did" I was saying JUST LIKE SHE CHOSE HER PATH. Stop being so ignorant just to start your shit already. She chose to follow the catholic church's doctrine, and she had the answer in the Word. And JUST LIKE SAUL, even though they both had access to the truth at will, they both CHOSE TO FOLLOW A DIFFERENT PATH. Thanks for playing.

hardly....but she worshipped Mary, and thought any religion was just another way to God (in contradiction to what the Word clearly says), the quote I posted clearly indicated this

Mary was a good indication of her doctrine....seeking out, arresting without cause, and then murdering Christians was a good indication of his doctrine. BOTH are big no-no's in God's Word, so you can stop trying to blow smoke up our butts anytime now about how she was so much worse than he was. They were both, according to the Word itself, in the same boat.

Better luck next time, champ....:bowdown:

the antichrist will preach tolerance and peace, God labels him straight out of hell
Christianity will always be offensive....being a Christian isn't mr. rogers neighborhood, it's a battle against a world [/nonQUOTE]

:bowdown: :screwyou:

note: Paul repented and changed the direction of his theology

there is no evidence to suggest Mother Teresa ever repented of her universalist beliefs

another interesting point: the antichrist will be a universalist, he will preach tolerance and peace, he will solve the middle east problem by means of religious tolerance (same thing Mother Teresa believed in), and the world will consider him the greatest man that ever lived

but God labels him straight out of hell

to the deaf and blind, the antithetical side of Christianity will always be offensive....being a Christian isn't mr. rogers neighborhood, it's a battle for the truth against a world that wars against it

this whole tack started when you claimed that blaspheming God was an unforgivable sin. That is when I brought up Saul in the first place. And NOW, you say that he repented and was forgiven! If it was an unforgivable sin, then he never would have been forgiven, would he?

And the contradictions just keep on coming....

since the H S is a guide and you mentioned samson {prototype suicide bomber} speaking in ways that were not approved by the spirit, does that count ?

it doesn't say it but this disrespecting of the hs, how can it count coming from one who has only heard tales about it ?

as in only someone who has been infected, oop, invested by the spirit would know enough to really badmouth it.

considering that almost all of the information available is satans lies, and the ability to discern the truth is hidden, a person who badmouths a FALSE understanding does no wrong .

so, being blinded by the will of god, I cannot commit that sin.

but you, knowing the Truth, can.


but then again, taunting a prophet brings bears to rip children {KJ} so I guess that enforced ignorance is no excuse.

we already went over this, and I defined what blaspheming the Spirit of God was

He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Well, you just dont get it as usual, Mark. Post all the points you like--they all still point to EXACTLY what Saul did. he did not kill Christians because of JESUS, Mr. Wizard. he was very obviously acting against the spirit, not the entity of Jesus! How much further do we need to dumb this down for you?? When Stephen was stoned to death, Saul looked on in approval NOT because of Jesus, champ--but because he opposed the holy spirit!

Thanks for playing....you lose....Saul did EXACTLY what I said he did, and that amounts to EXACTLY what you claimed was unforgiveable....yet he was in fact forgiven. Have a nice day!!

Another clue that there isn't a god....

Ecclesiastes 3:19

For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity.


The man below was attacked by a bear.

So if that same bear who attacked the unfortunate man below and disfigures him, the bear is going to hell?

We are just animals, people. We are special because we can lie. Thus, making up things like there is a god.

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn9010/dn9010-2_250.jpg

plenty of the usual jon phrases, I wonder if you can get through a post without "have a nice day", "thanks for playing", etc

but, whatever...so now you are claiming Paul was guilty of blaspheming the Holy Spirit? "opposed" is not necessarily the same as "blaspheme"

and no Bible scholar would agree with you that Paul was guilty of such

ignore all you like, Mark, but the fact is clear....let's stop trying to make ridiculous contradictory excuses to cover previous mistakes already and grow up.....

No personal attacks. - $100T2

LMFAO
Religious discussions never cease to entertain me...I would like everyone to know something, religion is entertainment. thats how this whole thing began, someone heard about something, then they embellished it, made it into a story, then as it got passed down, it was further embellished until they got it how they wanted it, and voila! the bible was born.
LOL, I just know you are gonna jump on me for that one.
Heres the deal. Do I believe that I (human) are of the greatest power in the universe-No, but I don't believe there is a "God" that controls my life, or your life either. Everything comes down to choices. You make the choice to follow "gods" voice in your head, does that mean theres a god? no it just makes you a paranoid schizophrenic who hears voices in your head.

nah, that's you, moron

here's a little hint, psycho jonnie: when you make it to the Judgment, the apostle Paul will be in the kingdom, I'll be in the Kingdom, and you'll be on the outside with your "hero", mother teresa...and there's no "h" in that, bonehead

see ya there....you lose...eternally

what?? more insults? With such a blatant attitude like this, which goes against the Word, you arent going to be anywhere nice when the day comes champ. Salvation was not ever given as something to brag and boast about, Marky....once again your true colors cannot be hidden. And, if you cant keep them hidden here, you KNOW that God is watching.....good luck explaining that one.

"but....but....but....but they did it to me first!!!"

Good luck with that....really....

As for misunderstanding thing, yes, Mark, you did at every turn.

--You thought that I said Teresa thought God was a cult....
--You thought that I said Saul did not act out of ignorance....

All you need to do is read the actual words in front of you, and your errors would not take place. But hey--you're Marky Mark, right?? The big bad "saved" christian with the puffed out chest, who breaks God's laws at every turn just so he can brag to others about how they break Gods laws. Why would you need to read??:blah:

tell you what--when you can have an intelligent conversation on the topic without having to resort to insulting each and every person that does not agree with you, let us know. Until then, you can talk to yourself. God instructs the saved to seek out and save those who are lost--He does not say that you are to try to insult, mock, or ridicule them. But then again, you think you know it all anyways, so even when God speaks to you, you are too busy marvelling over your self-perceived superiority to pay any attention....

godzers hehe

God is essentially never mentioned....Solomon reflects on the meaning of life without God in the picture


Ecclesiastes 3:10 I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.

Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
























Denied

Originally Posted by yzf-r1
God is essentially never mentioned....Solomon reflects on the meaning of life without God in the picture

Perhaps then, you can explain why God is mentioned 37 different times in those 12 chapters??

Here are some examples, just for you:

Ecclesiastes 1:13
I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men!

Ecclesiastes 2:24
A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. This too, I see, is from the hand of God

Ecclesiastes 2:26
To the man who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

Ecclesiastes 3:10
I have seen the burden God has laid on men

Ecclesiastes 3:11
He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.

Ecclesiastes 3:13
That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil—this is the gift of God.

Ecclesiastes 3:14
I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that men will revere him.

Ecclesiastes 3:15
Whatever is has already been, and what will be has been before; and God will call the past to account.

Ecclesiastes 3:17
I thought in my heart, "God will bring to judgment both the righteous and the wicked, for there will be a time for every activity, a time for every deed."

Ecclesiastes 3:18
I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals.

Ecclesiastes 5:1
[ Stand in Awe of God ] Guard your steps when you go to the house of God. Go near to listen rather than to offer the sacrifice of fools, who do not know that they do wrong.

Ecclesiastes 5:2
Do not be quick with your mouth, do not be hasty in your heart to utter anything before God. God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your words be few.

Ecclesiastes 5:4
When you make a vow to God, do not delay in fulfilling it. He has no pleasure in fools; fulfill your vow.

Ecclesiastes 5:7
Much dreaming and many words are meaningless. Therefore stand in awe of God.

Ecclesiastes 5:19
Moreover, when God gives any man wealth and possessions, and enables him to enjoy them, to accept his lot and be happy in his work—this is a gift of God.

Ecclesiastes 6:2
God gives a man wealth, possessions and honor, so that he lacks nothing his heart desires, but God does not enable him to enjoy them, and a stranger enjoys them instead. This is meaningless, a grievous evil.

Ecclesiastes 7:14
When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other. Therefore, a man cannot discover anything about his future.

Ecclesiastes 7:18
It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. The man who fears God will avoid all extremes .

Ecclesiastes 8:2
[ Obey the King ] Obey the king's command, I say, because you took an oath before God.


Need I go on?? You fail, Mark...as usual...if this is just reflecting on life without bringing up God, then why does he keep saying things that instruct one to follow God?

:owned: at your own game....how sad

my post was 100% accurate
Why are you afraid to be wrong?

Ecclesiastes is Solomon's reflections on the futility of life without God, as an older man
Actually a good reply. Explain thou please.

no, I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, but the central point was the message of Ecclesiastes, not how many times "God" is used, that was ancillary to the whole discussion
We know. You like to quickly write whats on your mind before you think things through. As you probably noticed, it makes you seem inaccurate. That is where we like to poke fun at you.

Mr Mark,

Very well sir.

I see the mess and you spend a lot of time cleaning it up after yourself. It makes you grumpy. I'm not saying im cooler than you. I make more mistaks than anyone. All im trying to say is take your time so you wont seem silly. Take your time bro. Dont worry. youll be saying the same thing to me. I wont like it either. we are both human.

lol

regardless (and you can look up any good study guide on Ecclesiastes), my post was 100% accurate: Ecclesiastes is Solomon's reflections on the futility of life without God, as an older man

If you truly had no problem admitting when you make a mistake, then that post would have simply said that you made a mistake, instead of trying to gloss over that fact with your "regardless..." trick. have a nice day!

czar,

God is rarely discussed in Ecclesiastes, and when He is, it is usually in somewhat existensialist terms (at least until chapter 12)

the problem is I'm dealing with trivial minds here who can discuss Ecclesiastes no more intelligently than a two year old kid....have you even read it?

i have not studied it. Thats why I liked your reply. But the spirit of god is pulsing in its veins. I'm pretty confident of that. its no different than jake begot jane begot manny begot poo begot so on and so on. No god mentioned but it is still there..

czar,

God is rarely discussed in Ecclesiastes, and when He is, it is usually in somewhat existensialist terms (at least until chapter 12)

the problem is I'm dealing with trivial minds here who can discuss Ecclesiastes no more intelligently than a two year old kid....have you even read it?

37 specific overt instances of God being talked about....yet, according to Mark, God is "rarely discussed" in those 12 chapters...

In fact, there are only 2 chapters where God is not specifically mentioned by name--4 and 10. The entire chapter 3 is all about God....half of chapter 5 is about God....and here is the conclusion that is drawn at the end of this book:

13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.

14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.

But no, this book rarely mentions God....

careful, mr. Bible hack, before you quote stuff at random

Ecclesiastes is the most atypical book in the Bible....God is essentially never mentioned....Solomon reflects on the meaning of life without God in the picture (i.e. "everything under the sun"...if the earth and this life was all there is), and concludes "all is vanity" (meaningless)

he's absolutely right...

but you CAN NOT just quote from Ecclesiates without understanding the perspective of the entire book, and note carefully how he concludes in Chapter 12...did you get that far? I highly doubt it!

I showed my wife your reply. My wife agrees with you. Now I got to sleep with her. this sucks. Cuz now I wonder she said that becuse she likes your photo. Are you a chick magnate? Because you are pissing me off right now.

like I said, until chapter 12, God is discussed in somewhat existentialist terms

Wrong.

What you REALLY said was this:

http://www.theforumlounge.com/showpost.php?p=105984&postcount=249

Ecclesiastes is the most atypical book in the Bible....God is essentially never mentioned....Solomon reflects on the meaning of life without God in the picture (i.e. "everything under the sun"...if the earth and this life was all there is), and concludes "all is vanity" (meaningless)

You only changed it after you were proven to be wrong. And even then, you are also still wrong--this latest attempt to act like you know whats up fails.

So....until chapter 12, it is all just in existential terms? The first half of chapter 5 also contains instruction about God--it is even titled "Stand in Awe of God". In there, Solomon is telling the reader what to do and how to act/not to act when he goes to the house of the Lord.....This is just one example of you being wrong yet again.

EDIT--your contention that the book is entirely made up of Solomon talking about life without God is also a lie--there are dozens of times where God is mentioned, and when he mentions God, he is talking about many things, like how to act, what to watch out for, what he has seen, etc etc etc. True, he does discuss things under the sun, but you left out a whole lot in your description....until you tried to change it, that is....

Post something stupid yzf so my wife will think otherwise. youll do it for me friend right? i really need the sleep. you dont need sleep. all you do all day is work out and smell like sweaty socks.

this guy gave his doctoral dissertation on the book....gonna call him a liar, too, asshole?

wow--cursing.....of course, no one cursed at you, did they? Did I curse at you in this thread? I sure didnt think so....once again, Mark acts out of his own prideful sin, tune in next week for the exciting conclusion, where Marky tries yet again in vain to blame his prideful sin on others!!

very well.
hey, looks like your arch enemy, Cath, wants to join forces with you.

The Pope and Darwin
Why Benedict XVI wants to talk about evolution, but won't tread into the U.S. battle over intelligent design

http://www.cnn.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1516073,00.html?cnn=yes

Another clue...
I dont need to say anything about this one....
http://www.sikhtimes.com/warren_jeffs.jpg

nt

For the folks who like to think that prophecies, concerning a man written hundreds of years before his birth, points particulary to King David's allege great great great grand son. jesus.

Ummm, there isnt any genology for jesus.

Jesus had no father. remember?

So it doesnt matter if joesph is from a line of KING OF KINGS himself, he didnt father jesus. so that means the old testement is still looking for the messiah. Jews are right.

But. Unless you are willing to admit joey and mary screwed around behind the pantry out of wedlock, all ancestory of jesus is false. hmmmmmmm?

Look in two places in the New Testament. The genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus.

The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH.

How can this be true? How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.

I just pwned god

Joseph was the husband of Mary, and they had others sons and daughters

conceived by the Holy Spirit, the human/ancestory lineage of Christ was never the issue: Christ is God, completely separate from the human race, yet one of us, this is the mystery of the incarnation
Regarding prophecies, of course it's an issue. It is a big deal. Ask your xtain friend bx7. He thinks Jesus is the blood line of David. I believe your bible does too.
Christ might be perceived as god, but how i understand it, god and jesus are two seperate entities. And you should be careful, of course, of putting jesus before god. That would make your god very angry indeed.

Regarding prophecies, of course it's an issue. It is a big deal. Ask your xtain friend bx7. He thinks Jesus is the blood line of David. I believe your bible does too.
Christ might be perceived as god, but how i understand it, god and jesus are two seperate entities. And you should be careful, of course, of putting jesus before god. That would make your god very angry indeed.

Did someone hack into your account? This post is remarkably legible. Methinks we have a spy among us.

HA!
Maybe my mommy typed that ;)

Or maybe you took DL's comment to heart.

still waiting for an answer: since Jesus isn't in King David's blood line can we logically say the Old Testement is still looking for the messiah? meaning are the Jews right?

I think it's cool Ruth is in the Davidic line. :)

What an awesome proclamation.

Joseph is in the blood line of David, so Christ was both supernatural by conception and human by family line, and he submitted to his parents

God 'came' too early it seems. Jesus doesn't share the seed of 'David' like his half-siblings do.

I think it's cool Ruth is in the Davidic line. :)

What an awesome proclamation.
And someday I hope you will tell us what you mean here as well.

Regarding prophecies, of course it's an issue. It is a big deal. Ask your xtain friend bx7. He thinks Jesus is the blood line of David. I believe your bible does too.
Christ might be perceived as god, but how i understand it, god and jesus are two seperate entities. And you should be careful, of course, of putting jesus before god. That would make your god very angry indeed.

Is this point holding you back from believing that Jesus is the Messiah? Probably not. So what, there are 2 different genealogical records for Jesus back to King David, 1 in Matthew and 1 in Luke. Matthew gives the account for his earthly adopted father and Luke gives the account for his mother. Matthew's account points out that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph so this raises issues with whether or not Jesus could be considered a descendant of David in the legal sense.

The point is moot in consideration of the prophecy concerning the nature of his birth. That he would be born of an 'almah' which is the Jewish word for young woman or virgin. The word almah becomes a point of contention for jews since it does not always explicitly mean chastity. But in the context of the verse from Isaiah 7:14, God says he will give a "sign". What sign is it that any young woman gets pregnant? It isn't. Go to your local high school. Check with your own mammy! Ask her if it's miracle when a young unmarried woman gets knocked up. It is a miracle if she's a virgin. So in the context of the prophecy it's apparent that the son won't have an earthly father.

So why the 2 different accounts? Perhaps there are cultural reasons. Matthew was a tax collector, Luke was a physician. Also consider this, when the Bible was put together, certainly the fact that there were 2 different accounts was known. The texts were completed by the end of first century. If the genealogical records were incorrect they could have been fixed at the time since survivors of the accounts could still be found.

And someday I hope you will tell us what you mean here as well.

Read the book of Ruth, it's in the OT. :)

still waiting for an answer: since Jesus isn't in King David's blood line can we logically say the Old Testement is still looking for the messiah? meaning are the Jews right?

the jews technically are still waiting for a messiah.

the messiah to the jews at jesus's time was one who would overthrow the romans and re-establish an independent earthly kingdom of israel.

jesus coming along kind of fucked that all up.

incidentally, that's also why it's striking that israel is once again a independent earthly kingdom that seems to be kicking everyone's ass, even though it's surrounded and outnumbered.

as for the lineage question, there's an alternate explanation.

this explanation states that the matthew lineage is the line of david down to joseph and the luke lineage is the line of david down to mary. if you accept that view, jesus would be of the line of david, both legally and biologically.

there shall be a great earthquake in the land of Israel.
and I will make myself known in the sight of many nations.

yup, local earthquake.

SOME nations will remain blissfully unaware of your gods murder spree "in the land of Israel"

btw, 95pep, will that be a "local" earthquake??

:rolleyes:


Isn't this what Zechariah is talking about:

And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Regarding bloodline, speculation isn't the answer. If the old scriptures calls out that the Messiah requires a David blood line, then Jesus is not THE messiah.

you must be studying the Book of Ruth?

Nope.

It's just fascinating that a MOABITE woman of all people could be in the "bloodline of kings"

And Boaz was a decendant of Rahab, the harlot of Jericho.

Regarding bloodline, speculation isn't the answer. If the old scriptures calls out that the Messiah requires a David blood line, then Jesus is not THE messiah.

Are you reading my replies? Think. Think. Think. In your own words, explain how a.) Messiah will be from the line of David, and b.) Messiah will born of a virgin.

Are you reading my replies? Think. Think. Think. In your own words, explain how a.) Messiah will be from the line of David, and b.) Messiah will born of a virgin.

Wow.

So women just don't count?

Wow.

So women just don't count?

Of course she does, but legality wise there is a problem for some people. I'm trying to show this guy how Messiah cannot come from a man, and get him to come up with a solution that makes sense and agrees with scripture. He's still not getting it.

57924, 439139

the girl demonstrated that girls DO TOO count.

Are you reading my replies? Think. Think. Think. In your own words, explain how a.) Messiah will be from the line of David, and b.) Messiah will born of a virgin.
Thinking....


Taking the beer can off the bible. Reading....


Interesting read from chronicles. Bloodline from david is not needed. Its a jewish problem that demands a david line to rule israel. At least that is what I understand atm. Isn't there another place in the bible that said the messiah must be born in the david bloodline? Probably residue from the brainwashing i had years ago.

Virgin was used for arguement of bloodline. Not messiah directly.