Aside from Tofuball, YZF and myself, who else here claims to be a Christian?

me. seriously. I was brought one for sure. and pratice it the best of my ability, short of worshiping anyone as god.
I am a christian because I agree and apply with Jesus' teachings. Well, most of it.

I'm not sure if in your eyes I would qualify as a Christian on account of the fact that I don't believe in Hell and that I'm skeptical about other aspects of the Bible. That being said, I'm not sure where exactly I fit in.

U can hang out with BATMAN's middle kingdom afterlife.

Unlike Heaven, u can have straight pipe exhaust, shoot God's little critters with a ghostly pellet gun, fornicate for eternity, cuss, fart, and eat real food, none of that nectar crap.

BUt u won't suffer the consequences of Hell...... cuz that is for fucked up fockers like *cough* YZF-R1..... http://www.espiritoshp.hpg.ig.com.br/poltergeist.jpg

I'm not sure if in your eyes I would qualify as a Christian on account of the fact that I don't believe in Hell and that I'm skeptical about other aspects of the Bible. That being said, I'm not sure where exactly I fit in.

It doesn't matter what I think. I don't think "not believing in Hell" will keep anyone out of heaven provided they've met God's requirements for entrance.

It doesn't matter what I think.

but it does. it is all about you.

you must figure out what bribe god demands to open the gate for you.
then you must judge whether you will willingly pay the price.

so far I think the price, abdicating my humanity, is too steep.

I am not a christian.

It doesn't matter what I think. I don't think "not believing in Hell" will keep anyone out of heaven provided they've met God's requirements for entrance.

by default, following the Word as God intended DOES require that one believe in Hell. Remember, to be accepted by God, you must believe that the Word is the 100% truth, and the concept of hell is certainly a part of that Word.

It is not possible to "meet God's requirements for entrance" without accepting the Word of God as He intended it--100% of it, without exception. What you are saying reminds me of the old "buffet" analogy.

but it does. it is all about you.

you must figure out what bribe god demands to open the gate for you.
then you must judge whether you will willingly pay the price.

so far I think the price, abdicating my humanity, is too steep.

And don't forget, you have to figure out which god is the truth.

I am not a christian.

Thank you for your candor.

by default, following the Word as God intended DOES require that one believe in Hell. Remember, to be accepted by God, you must believe that the Word is the 100% truth, and the concept of hell is certainly a part of that Word.
What you are saying reminds me of the old "buffet" analogy.

Very good Skydivr7673! I think you may be partly correct. Please remember, I'm no official judge of these sorts of things, so what I say comes only from my own personal study. I suppose there are 2 ways to get into Heaven.

Method A: Keep the law without error as yzf has expressed in an earlier post. I use Matthew 5:20 to defend this POV:

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (And these guys tried hard)

Method B: Repent (surrender) & Believe that Christ is he who he said he was and cling to it. Here I use Acts 20:21:

I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.



Can you scripturally back up your position? I am not trying to embarrass you. If you have some truth that I don't, I want to know it.

I agree that buffet style is not good. I would even suggest it breaks the 2nd commandment, since one who does this is making there own god.

Also, do you claim to be a Christian?

I have declared to both Jews and Greeks

as an aside, what is with jesus and the greeks ?

the bible was either written in greek, or translations INTO greek are all we have left of the original god breathed gosple.

there is a greek orthodox church that managed to keep away from rome and expand all the way up into russia.

while having no hell of damnation and punishment.

It is not possible to "meet God's requirements for entrance" without accepting the Word of God as He intended it--100% of it, without exception. What you are saying reminds me of the old "buffet" analogy.

I don't believe that I've ever heard that view before. Mind enlightening me as to where it came from?

Very good Skydivr7673! I think you may be partly correct. Please remember, I'm no official judge of these sorts of things, so what I say comes only from my own personal study. I suppose there are 2 ways to get into Heaven.

Method A: Keep the law without error as yzf has expressed in an earlier post. I use Matthew 5:20 to defend this POV:

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (And these guys tried hard)

Method B: Repent (surrender) & Believe that Christ is he who he said he was and cling to it. Here I use Acts 20:21:

I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.



Can you scripturally back up your position? I am not trying to embarrass you. If you have some truth that I don't, I want to know it.

I agree that buffet style is not good. I would even suggest it breaks the 2nd commandment, since one who does this is making there own god.

Also, do you claim to be a Christian?

Scriptually, it is evident that there is only one way to get into Heaven, not two.

Matthew 7:21-23

21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

The only way to enter Heaven is to do the will of God. If God speaks of a Hell and you choose not to believe that, then you are not believing everything that God has spoken, correct? The concept of Hell is more than just "believe it or dont"....it is a very clear message of two things:

1--it shows God's love for us that He possesses the grace and the desire to save us from such a place

2--it shows what will happen to those who do not follow Him.

If you begin taking parts of God's word and throw them out, then you are doing nothing more than "cherry-picking" the Word of God. This will not get one to heaven.

Matthew 10:26-28

26"So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

This was Jesus speaking. He was saying that one should not be afraid of those on Earth who would persecute the faithful, but rather be afraid of God, who would not only kill the body, but the soul in hell. This is a specific reference to hell as it applies to the concept of God--it is not there by mistake.

As for your thoughts on the two ways to enter heaven, they must be combined. It is not possible for a man to follow the law without error, because no one is perfect. because of this, it is inevitable that even the ones who work the hardest to follow God's law will still sin. No matter how hard one works to obey the law, if that man sins and does not repent with his heart, he will not find Heaven. God obviously knows that we are not ever going to be perfect in this life and He does not hold that against us. Your first scripture--Matthew 5:20--speaks of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. The thing is, at that time, neither of those groups was obeying God's law. The idea expressed in that scripture is to be more righteous and obey God's law more than those who claim to, but do not.

Remember the story of Peter? he was the key to heaven after Jesus was crucified. He told of the one and only way to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit--to repent with your heart for the forgiveness of all your sins. Repent means to "turn away from"....it is much more than just saying "sorry". So, according to Peter, the only way to reach heaven is to turn away from your sin with God in your heart. This is not a one-time event, but rather it is a change in your entire life. The point is to live your life from that point on with God as your priority. Living that way cannot happen if you pick and choose which parts of the Word are real to you and which are not.

As for me, I believe in God. I believe in Heaven and Hell. I believe in God's grace. There is a reason why the concept of Heaven is mentioned more times in the bible than the concept of hell. If that means that some will consider me a christian, then that is their view. The term Christian appears only five times in the entiee Bible, and not one of those times was it spoken by God or by Jesus. The term was first used at Antioch, when Barnabus and Saul were teaching there. I am just as certain that others will not consider me a christian,and that could not mean less to me to be honest. One person in particular violates the law of God on too many occasions, as we all do, but then goes so much further by trying to use the Word to justify his actions, so whatever he thinks of me is irrelevant in any forum.

99% of the world's population would say that, and they won't ever see the Kingdom

Now you know the percentage of people that get into heaven?

Holy shit.

So basically anyone who hasn't studied the Bible and agreed with it 100% is going to Hell then. Infants, the mentally disabled, those who have never heard of Christ, are all exempt from the Kingdom of God.

What makes this even more perplexing is that people do not freely choose God, God chooses them. Same thing applies for those who are not saved. They are damned to Hell because God wants them to be.

To clarify my position, I do not believe that Hell is a fallacy because I don't like the idea of it. I don't believe in it because the entire concept is beyond my comprehension. Fiegning belief would serve no benefit as surely God can tell the difference. I guess in essence you could say that this is still "cherry picking."

If you begin taking parts of God's word and throw them out, then you are doing nothing more than "cherry-picking" the Word of God. This will not get one to heaven.

Matthew 10:26-28



This was Jesus speaking. He was saying that one should not be afraid of those on Earth who would persecute the faithful, but rather be afraid of God, who would not only kill the body, but the soul in hell. This is a specific reference to hell as it applies to the concept of God--it is not there by mistake.


jesus spoke in hebrew, didn't he ?

is the book of Matthew, that quotes jesus speaking, written in hebrew ?
or greek ?

are jesus ORIGINAL WORDS AVAILABLE OR ONLY A TRANSLATION into greek?

if Matthew DID write his gosple in hebrew , who translated it into greek ?

why do you accept a translation of unknown accuracy by an unknown translator, as 100% true and accurate

So basically anyone who hasn't studied the Bible and agreed with it 100% is going to Hell then. Infants, the mentally disabled, those who have never heard of Christ, are all exempt from the Kingdom of God.

What makes this even more perplexing is that people do not freely choose God, God chooses them. Same thing applies for those who are not saved. They are damned to Hell because God wants them to be.

To clarify my position, I do not believe that Hell is a fallacy because I don't like the idea of it. I don't believe in it because the entire concept is beyond my comprehension. Fiegning belief would serve no benefit as surely God can tell the difference. I guess in essence you could say that this is still "cherry picking."

please understand, I am not trying to pass judgment on your beliefs or you. I am just stating what is in the Bible.

As for the first part of your post, the only answer I can give is that this is not my rule or law. I did not write it or invent it. I merely showed that this is what the Bible says, nothing more. I do not pretend to know more than you or others on the topic. Think of it from a strictly logical point of view though--

1--there is one true God.
2--Jesus is his son.
3--there is one true Word of God--the Bible.

This being the case, why would God or Jesus talk in that Bible about things that they did not want you to believe in? The concept is from God, and the Word is to teach about God.

I guess the only right answer is that there is in fact only one way to get to Heaven--by the grace of God. Whatever He chooses to accept is not within my knowledge admittedly. I am only going off of what is in the Bible. I hope that made sense.

jesus spoke in hebrew, didn't he ?

is the book of Matthew, that quotes jesus speaking, written in hebrew ?
or greek ?

are jesus ORIGINAL WORDS AVAILABLE OR ONLY A TRANSLATION into greek?

if Matthew DID write his gosple in hebrew , who translated it into greek ?

why do you accept a translation of unknown accuracy by an unknown translator, as 100% true and accurate

1--what makes you think that I did not look further into the translation issue?? Because you have not, suddenly no one else has? You need to do better than that.

2--why? because I choose to. I am entitled to that. You are likewise entitled not to. I am not here questioning everything you say, so do me the same favor and dont embark on such a quest with me.

3--the translation of writing happens every day, in a whole lot more than just the languages you indicated. If translating could not be reliably done, then it would be glaringly obvious by now. But like I said, you are welcome to believe whatever you choose, and I will leave it at that.

Whoa... I could have sworn yzf's posts weren't there when I last checked on this thread. Weird.

As for your thoughts on the two ways to enter heaven, they must be combined. It is not possible for a man to follow the law without error, because no one is perfect. because of this, it is inevitable that even the ones who work the hardest to follow God's law will still sin. No matter how hard one works to obey the law, if that man sins and does not repent with his heart, he will not find Heaven. God obviously knows that we are not ever going to be perfect in this life and He does not hold that against us. Your first scripture--Matthew 5:20--speaks of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. The thing is, at that time, neither of those groups was obeying God's law. The idea expressed in that scripture is to be more righteous and obey God's law more than those who claim to, but do not.

Very good, Skydivr. The first method is obviously impossible. I throw it out there to open the door for discussion and to help people see that they've broken the Law. I have no doubt that none can keep the law.

As for me, I believe in God. I believe in Heaven and Hell. I believe in God's grace. There is a reason why the concept of Heaven is mentioned more times in the bible than the concept of hell. If that means that some will consider me a christian, then that is their view. The term Christian appears only five times in the entiee Bible, and not one of those times was it spoken by God or by Jesus. The term was first used at Antioch, when Barnabus and Saul were teaching there. I am just as certain that others will not consider me a christian,and that could not mean less to me to be honest. One person in particular violates the law of God on too many occasions, as we all do, but then goes so much further by trying to use the Word to justify his actions, so whatever he thinks of me is irrelevant in any forum.

Christian/Follower of Christ whatever term pleases you. The term means nothing. Calling yourself a Christian will not get one into heaven, neither will belief in God and Jesus get anyone into heaven. I'm not saying that you are not, I'm just clarifying.

I have no doubt that none can keep the law.

what is the point of a law that is IMPOSSIBLE to obey ?

what is the point of punishment for breaking a law that is impossible to obey ?

what is the point of a law with no punishment for disobedience ?

what is the point of a law that will only be enforced after death ?



the translation issue

any translation is, by definition, a change in what was said.
an interpretation of the translator, an not the because there are any number of possible translations of a given work depending on the understanding of the translator.

any translation is a new work, based on what was translated, but NOT the same as the original.

{note: my previous rantings in other threads were about copys rather than translations. I see a difference ;) }

so if a book in the bible was originally written in hebrew and then translated into greek, and no copy of the original hebrew is available, what reason has anyone to believe that the book is 100% accurate ?

this was inspired by a recent link where the guy translated the greek back into hebrew to see what it said in english.

not having the ACTUAL words jesus spoke in hebrew but only a greek translation of His Word[s].

not even copies of the hebrew, copies of the translation.

and that is all that there has ever been.

by the time, 300 years after god spoke, the various 'books' were judged inspired enough to be in the bible there were no surviving copies of the original hebrew gosples.

in the gosples actually originally inspired in greek, are jesus' words rendered in greek or hebrew ?


to be a christian one needs to follow the words of christ.

which are not available, and they say the law cannot be obeyed.

what is the point of a law that is IMPOSSIBLE to obey ?

The point is not to be perfect--it is to always work to better yourself because a man with God truly in his heart will want to work to get closer to God. A man without God in his heart will nto have such a priority. God knows the difference, and now you do too.

what is the point of punishment for breaking a law that is impossible to obey ?

Again, the objective is not to be perfect--it is to have a pure heart. We all will fail, but those with a pure heart will fail and then work to better themselves for God. Some people will go through their entire lives making the same mistakes and not caring one bit about it. Others will work to not make the same mistake next time. Again, God knows the difference, and now you do too.

what is the point of a law with no punishment for disobedience ?

The fact that you see no punishment for disobedience points to the fact that you believe that life ends when you leave this world. because of this, you do not understand. The punishment is most definitely there....but it comes down to your beliefs. You believe that when this life ends, all that is there waiting is death, so I see where you are coming from. I believe that this life is a test to see where we belong in the next one--the eternal one.

what is the point of a law that will only be enforced after death ?

Again, you clearly believe that once you die here, that's all folks. Respectfully, you will never be able to convince me that there is nothing more than a slow ride in a hearse and thats it. My belief is that this life, and with it this death, are not permanent. That is where "punishment after death" comes in.

I think when honegod says: "what is the point of a law with no punishment for disobedience ?" He is refering to when man sins, asks God for forgiveness and is always forgiven. Regardless of what honegod may or may not believe, he generally appeals to Christian beliefs when he argues against them. I do not believe that he says anywhere that there is no after life.

I think when honegod says: "what is the point of a law with no punishment for disobedience ?" He is refering to when man sins, asks God for forgiveness and is always forgiven. Regardless of what honegod may or may not believe, he generally appeals to Christian beliefs when he argues against them. I do not believe that he says anywhere that there is no after life.

May be so, but not everyone who asks for that forgiveness will get it. Anyone can say sorry, but remember--not all who call His name will do so with a true heart. That is a part of the deal that many overlook

Speaking of those who genuinely seek to be forgiven though, they ask that their sins may be pardoned when knowing full well that they will be committed again. I think the point that was initially raised is that this is a rather arbitrary circle. The question being what virtue can one obtain through such redundancy?

Speaking from my own point of view, there is much to gain from this cycle. Perhaps honegod disagrees?

jon talks alot about a "true heart"...I honestly have no idea what that means, and I don't think he does, either

with your history on this forum and others, I am frankly not surprised to hear you say that

Perhaps it will make more sense to you if I use words like "cut to the heart" by the spirit. One cannot find salvation unless they let God into their heart, correct?? If you do not understand the choice of words I used, then at least be decent enough to simply ask for clarification rather than try to insult me because you have a lack of understanding...fair enough??

like "cut to the heart" by the spirit. One cannot find salvation unless they let God into their heart, correct??

only if the bargain is sealed by an actual spilling of blood, that the blood was spilled 2000+ years ago doesn't count.

what counts is that the innocent blood splashing on the ground was spilled to please god.

it is GOOD to sacrifice human blood to the lord, somebody elses blood, yours isn't good enough.


"If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other."

so is that a quote of jesus, speaking in hebrew, translated into greek, then translated to english ?

don't argue with your fellows who are also still dripping with the holy blood of the lamb slaughtered for the LORD.

the blood is the life,

the issue is being filled with the Spirit

and you drink the blood of the vampyre, you accept jesus pure blood to wash away the sin inherent in your human blood.

I would be thoroughly impressed if there was a miraculous consistant change in the DNA code of genuine christians, they all change to the same blood type as jesus.

heh, a ready supply of Truely universal donors would be cool, or do you think jesus blood would be toxic to the unsaved ?


spreading christianity one transfusion at a time.

{it's better than the other way ?}

only if the bargain is sealed by an actual spilling of blood, that the blood was spilled 2000+ years ago doesn't count.

thats a lovely little theory, but it has nothing to do with actual truth. The Bible shows plenty of people that find favor with God, like Lazarus, where no blood was spilled by that person. If God wanted us to kill in His name, then no one would get to Heaven unless they did that. Lazarus and Job are but two examples of people that do not support your theory.

honegod--with all respect, this is what happens when someone tries to debate chrisitanity without actually reading all about it. If you read the bible you will have a better idea of this--and I dont just mean a few scriptures here and there.

I believe in Christ, if that's what you mean.

Do you believe that Christ is the Son of God? So does the devil. Do you claim to follow Christ?

it has nothing to do with actual truth. The Bible shows plenty of people that find favor with God, like Lazarus, where no blood was spilled by that person.

lazarus was a jew, and under the law. he had to constantly give blood sacrifices to the lord to pay for his minor sins.

as did job.

lots of animal blood was replaced by jesus blood, one human blood sacrifice to take the place of constant animal blood sacrifice.

able was the first human to give god a blood sacrifice, followed by cain


If God wanted us to kill in His name, then no one would get to Heaven unless they did that.


who can get to heaven without the innocent blood of jesus unjustly shed ?

who can get to heaven without the innocent blood of jesus unjustly shed ?

??

The fact that you see no punishment for disobedience points to the fact that you believe that life ends when you leave this world. because of this, you do not understand. The punishment is most definitely there.... That is where "punishment after death" comes in.


punishment = incentive to modify behaviour.

pavlov and his dogs.

the point is what happens AFTER the punishment. has the behavour been modified ?

hell is not punishment because there IS no after hell in the afterlife..

the point of hell is not to change those who are there.

the point of hell is to THREATEN those who are not being tortured in hell.
yet.

unjustly

??

what law required jesus' death ?

what justice was served by nailing him to a tree ?

by who's authority was he rightfully and justly executed ?

what was the crime for which he was punished with the (next to) highest penalty ?


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=2&version=9&context=chapter

13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

what law required jesus' death ?

Jesus accepted the penalty for our sins upon himself.

The penalty for sin is death.

penalty, not punishment, yup, that is better

penalty = attempting to modify behaviour before the bad act is comitted by inspiring fear of an artificial resulting sacrifice.

so the penalty is death, either yours, or that of an innocent who doesn't deserve it.

but ALL must deserve it, by being human.

some of us are ALLOWED to choose another sacrifice to bear the burden of our punishment.

as in some are allowed to escape the penalty that all are subject to, others are not allowed to bathe in the Blood.

but the Blood that washes away sin has to be special blood, shed in the proper way to act as a substitute.
you cannot just stomp on a toad to get out of your sins.

You cannot dispute Honegod. He uses only the logic of your own Biblical explainations and judices to demonstrate how illogical & fucking wrong you all are.
:)

How in the world is he refuting anything?

Jesus had the authority and the ability to take our punishment on himself, and He did.

honegod agrees with that, so what is there to debate?

You cannot dispute Honegod. He uses only the logic of your own Biblical explainations and judices to demonstrate how illogical & fucking wrong you all are.
:)

here's the part where you really make no sense at all....

first, several of us, myself included, have not given you guys a shred of grief over what you believe. We readily accept and acknowledge that you are free to believe as you wish....so why should you get your panties in such a knot because of what we believe? If I am wrong, does it REALLY impact your life so much that you need to act like this? You obviously do not share my beliefs, and that is your right--so since you have the right to believe as you wish, perhaps you should stop stepping on our same right to believe as we wish. I dont ever recall trying to ram my beliefs down your throat--so do yourself and me the favor of not trying to ram yours down mine.

Second, honegod is expressing his OPINION. He is not expressing the logic of the Bible when many people have to quote the scriptures for him so he knows what they are talking about. Again, he is welcome and free to have that opinion....just like I am free to have mine. I dont have to like his, and you dont have to like mine. Fair enough??? I think so....

Expressing your interpretation of a couple of scriptures while taking them out of context does not in any way qualify as "using only the logic of the Bible", Dennis....you are smarter than that. For example, he claimed that my example of Lazarus was a poor one because he says Lazarus spilled the blood of animals in sacrifices to God. Lazarus was a beggar that did no such thing as far as what the Bible says--there is not one recorded instance of this taking place in the Bible with reference to Lazarus. When you take everything out of the original context and try to make up your own as you go, this is the kind of error that routinely takes place.

here's the part where you really make no sense at all....Ok, so you're bored. I understand, Jon. But really... -You're gonna start gunnin' fer me?
Well, OK, I guess. But I WILL give it right back when you begin to make it personal, and just like your twin sister, you ALWAYS make it personal. ;) first, several of us, myself included, have not given you guys a shred of grief over what you believe.Are you double-dosing? :scratch: WTF are you talking about, dude? With Mark being the most obnoxious offender, you most certainly enjoy your share of letting everyone else know just how wrong they are, especially when it comes to politics. Just like Mark, there's "The facts", and then there's "Your facts", and then there's what everyone else believes, which are simply all just lies, right?
We readily accept and acknowledge that you are free to believe as you wish....so why should you get your panties in such a knot because of what we believe?You've humbly accepted the role of Christian FL Religion Section spokesman suddenly? Why, cause we're seeing less of Mark these days? Or are you concerned about "less days" in general? I like how you infuse the same old Jon "panties in a knot" tough-guy shit in with your pathetic attempt at humbly asking me to be nice.
-Gives a warm, fuzzy, stinky feel to the whole thing. :bigthumb: If I am wrong, does it REALLY impact your life so much that you need to act like this? You obviously do not share my beliefs, and that is your right--so since you have the right to believe as you wish, perhaps you should stop stepping on our same right to believe as we wish. I don't ever recall trying to ram my beliefs down your throat--so do yourself and me the favor of not trying to ram yours down mine.So you recently found out you're terminal, ehh? My thoughts are with you, Jon. ...I mean, it's the only thing I can come up with here. YOU telling anybody that what one person believes doesn't impact the life of another after all your childish bullshit with Mark? -Your legendary, epic, puerile, never ending battles with The ChristiaNazi God?!
Get the fuck outta here, man! Who the fuck do you think yer kidding?
You must be ill.
Second, honegod is expressing his OPINION. He is not expressing the logic of the Bible when many people have to quote the scriptures for him so he knows what they are talking about. Again, he is welcome and free to have that opinion....just like I am free to have mine. I don't have to like his, and you don't have to like mine. Fair enough??? I think so....Sooooooooo.....Don't fucking LIKE mine, M'kay Pumpkin?
I mean really, what the fuck are you talking about? I expressed MY opinion, and YOU seem not to be able to adhere to your own 'happy-happy' Rodney King forum shit here. So go ahead, don't like my OPINION, and, uhhmmmm... shutdafuckup, kay?
Heyyyy! Yer right! -It really works! :bigthumb: Expressing your interpretation of a couple of scriptures while taking them out of context does not in any way qualify as "using only the logic of the Bible", Dennis....you are smarter than that. For example, he claimed that my example of Lazarus was a poor one because he says Lazarus spilled the blood of animals in sacrifices to God. Lazarus was a beggar that did no such thing as far as what the Bible says--there is not one recorded instance of this taking place in the Bible with reference to Lazarus. When you take everything out of the original context and try to make up your own as you go, this is the kind of error that routinely takes place.I don't know shit about Lazarus. In fact, I don't know shit about the Bible!
But I'll tell ya what I DO know; that all of the people here who claim know shit about it, are absolutely, without a doubt, fulla shit.

I don't give a flippin fuck who you are or what you believe; -If you refuse to preclude your explaination of your faith with anything less than "This is the way it is...", then you should be shot through your fuckin head, because NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY! knows anything beyond the realm of their present existance, and every single man who is convinced that he holds the truth to the future believes himself better than anyone else on Earth who does not believe him.
(drumrole....-I present to you Mark "Chicken Little" Cartman.)
These are the people who keep our world divided, Jon.

The end is coming, but it won't be at the hand of "God".
It'll be by our own hands, because we were too wrapped up in fighting over imaginary means of salvation that we failed to work together and fix the little things... -Ya know, like that gapping hole in our stratosphere, disassembling all the left over nukes, -silly little shit like that.

But hey; y'all keep arguing over what's really important: Your OWN, individual salvations.
Buncha selfish motherfuckers, man!

Ok, so you're bored. I understand, Jon. But really... -You're gonna start gunnin' fer me?
Well, OK, I guess. But I WILL give it right back when you begin to make it personal, and just like your twin sister, you ALWAYS make it personal.

Look, jack, you need to tone it down a notch or four. Not one thing I said made it personal unless you chose to take it as such. I stated that you made no sense, because you seriously did not. This was because you attributed qualities to honegod's posts that simply are not present. Wanna take that personally?? Knock yerself out.

based on your instantly 'gonna pretend like I'm offended" reply, I think we all can see who is bored here, but thanks for your concern.

Are you double-dosing? WTF are you talking about, dude? With Mark being the most obnoxious offender, you most certainly enjoy your share of letting everyone else know just how wrong they are, especially when it comes to politics. Just like Mark, there's "The facts", and then there's "Your facts", and then there's what everyone else believes, which are simply all just lies, right?

This is where you are way off. For one thing, I dont even go near the political forum in here. There is a reason for that. Second, I am speaking about SPIRITUAL BELIEFS. If you now wish to muddy the water by trying to bring in politics, then that is your mistake. you cannot compare FACTS, which can be proven, to BELIEFS, which cannot, and think you are onto something.

For example--

FACT--John Kerry has a proven history of flip-flopping his mind on the issues.

This is easy to PROVE.

NOW, compare this to a BELIEF, which is simply what one person chooses to have faith in. NOT proveable. There you have it--either stick to the topic or stop trying to pick a fight altogether. I posted very politely to you--if you cannot do the same, then move on.

You've humbly accepted the role of Christian FL Religion Section spokesman suddenly? Why, cause we're seeing less of Mark these days? Or are you concerned about "less days" in general? I like how you infuse the same old Jon "panties in a knot" tough-guy shit in with your pathetic attempt at humbly asking me to be nice.
-Gives a warm, fuzzy, stinky feel to the whole thing.

Again, this is simply about beliefs. You seem to have no problem excercising your right to your own--why is it so ridiculous for you to even think about letting someone else have that same right to theirs?? Does it REALLY affect you that much if someone believes in the Bible??? TELL ME, how is that going to hurt your life, Dennis???

Again, stop trying to pick a fight--you obviously cannot handle politeness when it puts you in your place. The right to believe as we all individually choose CANNOT apply to you if it does not apply to others, so get over yourself.

So you recently found out you're terminal, ehh? My thoughts are with you, Jon. ...I mean, it's the only thing I can come up with here. YOU telling anybody that what one person believes doesn't impact the life of another after all your childish bullshit with Mark? -Your legendary, epic, puerile, never ending battles with The ChristiaNazi God?!
Get the fuck outta here, man! Who the fuck do you think yer kidding?
You must be ill.

You obviously have not been paying attention. Let me make this perfectly clear to you--I NEVER ONCE claimed that Mark did not have the right to BELIEVE as he chooses. Why do you think this is some mystical contradiction??? How many times have I said that the MESSENGER was the issue, NOT THE MESSAGE??? You obviously just do not get it, and that's your malfunction, not mine.

I question Mark's true heart, you betcha, because of his actions, but that is NOTHING CLOSE to stating that everyone has the right to choose what they put their faith in! NOTHING CLOSE, so once more, get over yourself. You may think you can dazzle some people around here, but in this case, you are simply mistaking and misinterpreting. Deal with it.

For the really slow ones in here, and you know who you are, I will say it again--

WE ALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO BELIEVE AS WE CHOOSE.

I will also say this again--I NEVER ONCE tried to proclaim you wrong because of what you believe. I never once tried to proclaim Mark wrong for what he believes either--I proclaimed him wrong because of how he acts, yessir. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE--go learn it. You can believe there is a God all day long, but if you intentionally run around breaking God's commands, that belief and your actions are NOT THE SAME, are they??? Didnt think so.

Oh, no, I am not terminally ill, either, just to settle your 'obvious' concern for my well-being....:bigthumb:

Sooooooooo.....Don't fucking LIKE mine, M'kay Pumpkin?
I mean really, what the fuck are you talking about? I expressed MY opinion, and YOU seem not to be able to adhere to your own 'happy-happy' Rodney King forum shit here. So go ahead, don't like my OPINION, and, uhhmmmm... shutdafuckup, kay?
Heyyyy! Yer right! -It really works!

that's really funny, coming from the guy that thinks he knows enough to tell someone that their BELIEF is wrong....you readily admit that you DO NOT KNOW what is out there, but at the same time you THINK you 'know' enough to tell me that my faith is misplaced....way to contradict yourself!!:bowdown:

In fact, let's study some of your contradictions a little further:

In the same post you have said--

NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY! knows anything beyond the realm of their present existance

...AND.....

The end is coming, but it won't be at the hand of "God".
It'll be by our own hands

SO....those who think they know what is coming, in your own words, should be 'shot through the head'.....yet you suddenly think you KNOW that this is how the end will come?? Well, pardon me while I laugh at the blatantly obvious error in your 'knowledge' there.....

Again, this is an obvious case of you whining about someone else's faith....when in the real world, if you were really so sure of your own faith and where you have placed it, the faith of everyone else combined would have no effect on your life whatsoever. Maybe you shoudl stop the whining abd just stick to your beliefs.....I could care less if you think that a cucumber is the answer to life--that is your right. And again, I would love for you to show me where I EVER proclaimed that you dont have the right to that choice....or anyone else for that matter....let me know when you are tired of searching for it....:blah:


I don't know shit about Lazarus. In fact, I don't know shit about the Bible!
But I'll tell ya what I DO know; that all of the people here who claim know shit about it, are absolutely, without a doubt, fulla shit.

Let me clarify this for you--if you do not know anything about the Bible, then you do not know exactly what it contains. how can you even begin to make such a judgment without even finding out what's in it first?? THINK, Dennis--this isnt rocket science, I promise....

How can ANYONE say that something is 100% wrong when they dont even know 5% of what it says?? That is just plain old ignorance right there....no mistake about it. The same exact principle applied when Kevin and others were giving Marky a hard time about the Quran--Marky never read the whole thing, yet instantly he proclaimed it to be nothing but garbage....same thing applies here.

I always took you for smarter than this....oh well....

It'll be by our own hands, because we were too wrapped up in fighting over imaginary means of salvation that we failed to work together and fix the little things... -Ya know, like that gapping hole in our stratosphere, disassembling all the left over nukes, -silly little shit like that.

Really??

Let's compare this to other things in history....

Illnesses like the bubonic plague were once thought to be the big scourge. Today, those same illnesses, in most cases, either do not even exist anymore or are now easily treatable. BUT--back in that day, when they did not know about ozone or nukes, THAT was their "silly little shit".

It is a safe bet that such illnesses have BY FAR killed more people than nuclear weapons have....and also killed far more than the ozone layer hole has too.....so what is your point now?? Oh yeah, you were still trying to come up with it. Good luck with that....oh, not to nitpick, but it's GAPING, not "gapping". Somehow, I dont think that the ozone layer is adjusting spark plugs up there....:peace:

But hey; y'all keep arguing over what's really important: Your OWN, individual salvations.
Buncha selfish motherfuckers, man!

I want you to find JUST ONE example of me EVER saying that I was saved and you were not, etc etc. I NEVER get into such a mess and everyone here knows it. In fact, there has only been one person to ever go there--and everyone knows who that is, so get over yourself and fast. You are so wrapped up in looking for something to complain about that you now cannot even tell the truth about my actions! GIVE IT A REST--I do plenty wrong, so you should not have to make crap up as you go just to have something to whine about.

There has not been one single time where I have EVER argued over "my own individual salvation" with ANYONE, so once again, if you cannot be polite enough to even tell the truth, then seek life elsewhere.

honegod is expressing his OPINION. He is not expressing the logic of the Bible when many people have to quote the scriptures for him so he knows what they are talking about. Again, he is welcome and free to have that opinion....just like I am free to have mine. I dont have to like his, and you dont have to like mine. Fair enough??? I think so....

Expressing your interpretation of a couple of scriptures while taking them out of context does not in any way qualify as "using only the logic of the Bible", he claimed that my example of Lazarus was a poor one because he says Lazarus spilled the blood of animals in sacrifices to God. Lazarus was a beggar that did no such thing as far as what the Bible says--there is not one recorded instance of this taking place in the Bible with reference to Lazarus. When you take everything out of the original context and try to make up your own as you go, this is the kind of error that routinely takes place.


if lazarus did NOT sacrifice to the lord what the lord specified in the law that he must sacrifice to wash away his sins, then he was going to hell.

one or the other, and god lovingly specifies exactly what, how, and when he wants his ritual bloodlettings in the Law.

shucks, we know how to dress to properly handle the sacrificial lifeblood.

except for the ultimate sacrifice, the sacrifice to end all sacrifices,
the Human Sacrifice.

that one was omitted in the list of specifications of other Blood sacrifices.

'get a halfbreed Virgin son of God and a daughter of man, and kill him as messily as possible with whatever you have handy at the moment.'

{addendum omitted by order of god - "don't worry about collecting the blood, he'll be Back for it, and then some. wink wink, nudge nudge." }

brought to you by the same loon who told his people to be sure to keep some of the blood from the next sacrifice and paint it on their door so gods angel of death would know not to come in and kill all the first born present.

presumably lazarus was descended from a second born, or someone who could afford enough blood to cover the whole door.

context. the immediat context that mentions lazarus does not specify his personal day to day life, the rest of the bible does paint the rest of the picture.

I say that lazarus MUST have participated in ritual blood sacrifices to god as a jew living under the Law.

the priests did the actual slaughtering of the innocent sacrifice, so lazarus need not have swung a knife any more than a christian needs to actually cut jesus to make him bleed the sacred sacrificial blood.

but spiritually, both his, and the christians hand IS on the knife.


:bowdown: :screwyou:

I would be impressed by the 2000 year old man nailed to a cross, still bleeding.

somewhere in rome, a fountain of blood.
real human blood that does not die.

the apparantly 35 year old dude dripping blood into the pool would tell anybody in earshot, in greek, that drinking a goblet of his blood is the only way to escape hellfire.

or at least read his book, available in the little stand at the base of the fountain.


for a slight additional fee he will drip especially onto a prepared page in the book, so if you later decide that you want to recieve His Blood you can just tear off a blotter.

when the new edition of the book comes out without Him actually saying anything different he wakes up, tears loose from the cross and beats up the old italian lady sitting in the bookstall, scattering books and the days recipts on the cobblestones .

after yelling at the tourists , in hebrew, he climbs back up onto his cross and goes back to sleep.

{that one was made up, not based on anything other than the character in the bible.}

if lazarus did NOT sacrifice to the lord what the lord specified in the law that he must sacrifice to wash away his sins, then he was going to hell.

Lazarus was a broke beggar, honegod--he did not have the means to get an animal to do such a sacrifice. He did not own any animals, and he did not have the means to purchase one. Sacrifices were not simply done on a random animal you found out in the field, and this is yet another example of how your limited knowledge of the Bible is doing you no favors. The sacrifice was to give some of what you had to God--he simply had nothing. He was brought to Heaven because of his heart and the hardships he suffered during his life here, not because of how many animals he killed, champ. Better luck next time.

brought to you by the same loon who told his people to be sure to keep some of the blood from the next sacrifice and paint it on their door so gods angel of death would know not to come in and kill all the first born present.

presumably lazarus was descended from a second born, or someone who could afford enough blood to cover the whole door.

Well, wrong again...Lazarus did not even have a door to spread blood upon! He was a beggar that sat outside a rich man's home begging for scraps. Here's a hint--if you actually READ the Bible instead of trying to pick out one incriminating verse at a time out of context, you may have better luck.

context. the immediat context that mentions lazarus does not specify his personal day to day life, the rest of the bible does paint the rest of the picture.

Wrong yet again--you cannot use the action of someone else to determine what Lazarus did. You are correct in that the context does not say what you claim--so you invented your own context and tried to make it stick. Sorry--I'm not buying it. It's kinda hard to accurately interpret ANYTHING when you dont even read it first. You are smarter than this.

Also, he was a beggar--during this time, beggars were shunned. No one cared if they kept to the law or not. They were outcasts. So, if he did not participate in something "under the law", it is highly unlikely that anyone would have bothered to care.

SIGHHHHHH.

Part I :

Look, jack, you need to tone it down a notch or four. Not one thing I said made it personal unless you chose to take it as such. I stated that you made no sense, because you seriously did not. This was because you attributed qualities to honegod's posts that simply are not present. Wanna take that personally?? Knock yerself out.I don't need to "tone down" shit, JACK. Your post was not an 'opinion' of my post that you were so kindly sharing, Jonny. Your post was DIRECTLY aimed AT ME, and stated that I made no sense, when in fact, that's your ....(c'mon, you can guess...) OPINION! (-Should I do your silly-ass "ding-ding-ding" thing, now?) based on your instantly 'gonna pretend like I'm offended" reply, I think we all can see who is bored here, but thanks for your concern.OH GOD... OH GOD.... YA GOT ME. OMG...OMG....OMG...
-You just try too hard, Jon. A little less effort and a little more cynicism, and you won't seem so fucking constipated in your efforts to make others look dumb, Jonny. Are you double-dosing? WTF are you talking about, dude? With Mark being the most obnoxious offender, you most certainly enjoy your share of letting everyone else know just how wrong they are, especially when it comes to politics. Just like Mark, there's "The facts", and then there's "Your facts", and then there's what everyone else believes, which are simply all just lies, right?This is where you are way off. For one thing, I dont even go near the political forum in here. There is a reason for that.* Second, I am speaking about SPIRITUAL BELIEFS. If you now wish to muddy the water by trying to bring in politics, then that is your mistake. you cannot compare FACTS, which can be proven, to BELIEFS, which cannot, and think you are onto something.

For example--

FACT--John Kerry has a proven history of flip-flopping his mind on the issues.

This is easy to PROVE.

NOW, compare this to a BELIEF, which is simply what one person chooses to have faith in. NOT proveable. There you have it--either stick to the topic or stop trying to pick a fight altogether. I posted very politely to you--if you cannot do the same, then move on.Uhmmm, OK now you've got me all confused. Are we talking about facts here, or opinions?
-How about "opinions based on facts"? This way we all win. I concur that most of the events that took place in the Bible are true, and this way you get to base your spiritual opinions on some mutually respected facts, while the factual way in which you act affords me the foundation upon which to base MY opinion that you are a fucking idiot.

Are we good now? :bigthumb:

(..."not PROVABLE"" = you setting definitive parameters to what constitutes an "opinion". Important, later on...)
(*= a simple question of curiosity, "What is the reason")Again, this is simply about beliefs. You seem to have no problem excercising your right to your own--why is it so ridiculous for you to even think about letting someone else have that same right to theirs?? Does it REALLY affect you that much if someone believes in the Bible??? TELL ME, how is that going to hurt your life, Dennis???I make it quite clear how detrimental organized zealotry, such as Christianity, is to society, and I give a tiny example of why. I didn't even go into the FACT-laden history of bloodshed over Christianity (and other religions) to demonstrate my point. (I didn't think I really needed to, but perhaps I underestimated you afterall.)Again, stop trying to pick a fight--you obviously cannot handle politeness when it puts you in your place. The right to believe as we all individually choose CANNOT apply to you if it does not apply to others, so get over yourself.Jon you couldn't be polite on an internet forum if the cure to cancer was in sight. You're about as polite as a rabid dog, so forget that silly shit. You do seem to get wrapped up (...did I spell "wrapped" correctly?!) in the dialog with someone and forget about your audience or something, because you seem to forget that they all know full well what an internet asshole you are, Jon.
I mean, who the fuck do you think you're fooling? ME?! :lol: You obviously have not been paying attention. Let me make this perfectly clear to you--I NEVER ONCE claimed that Mark did not have the right to BELIEVE as he chooses. Why do you think this is some mystical contradiction??? How many times have I said that the MESSENGER was the issue, NOT THE MESSAGE??? You obviously just do not get it, and that's your malfunction, not mine.Oh bullshit, Jon. I'm too tired to go thumbing thru all your monotonous little kiddie threads, but you've told Mark many times that he has no right to believe what he believes, -Because he believes that everyone who doesn't believe what he says they should is completely out of touch with God and has no idea whatsoever about what it truly means to be a Christian, and only he does, and on&on&on&on... and you were right, too! -But this is an exception because Mark is fucking whacked, just like Geoffry Dalmer has no right to believe that some chick's appendage should be on his TV dinner tray, right?
Other than these sickos, yeah, people do have a right to their opinions.I question Mark's true heart, you betcha, because of his actions, but that is NOTHING CLOSE to stating that everyone has the right to choose what they put their faith in! NOTHING CLOSE, so once more, get over yourself. You may think you can dazzle some people around here, but in this case, you are simply mistaking and misinterpreting. Deal with it.Uhhhh...Who'm I "dazzling" in here?? :scratch: For the really slow ones in here, and you know who you are, I will say it again--

WE ALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO BELIEVE AS WE CHOOSE.
I will also say this again--I NEVER ONCE tried to proclaim you wrong because of what you believe. I never once tried to proclaim Mark wrong for what he believes either--I proclaimed him wrong because of how he acts, yessir. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE--go learn it. You can believe there is a God all day long, but if you intentionally run around breaking God's commands, that belief and your actions are NOT THE SAME, are they??? Didnt think so.I dunno; I can't tell if what you're doing here is "flip-flopping" or "back-peddling g". It's so...Kerrian, ya know?Oh, no, I am not terminally ill, either, just to settle your 'obvious' concern for my well-being....:bigthumb: Actually, I'm glad for that. But if you were you would still be fair game in arena as there's no doubt in my mind you would spend your dying days in your ass groove in your chair pounding the keys with ferocious righteousness at anyone you could try to belittle. -It's how you feed your arrogance and ego. (You never realized how similar you are to Chicken Little? It never dawned on you why it's always the two of you running neck and neck in the "dipshit" marathons?)Sooooooooo.....Don't fucking LIKE mine, M'kay Pumpkin?
I mean really, what the fuck are you talking about? I expressed MY opinion, and YOU seem not to be able to adhere to your own 'happy-happy' Rodney King forum shit here. So go ahead, don't like my OPINION, and, uhhmmmm... shutdafuckup, kay?
Heyyyy! Yer right! -It really works!that's really funny, coming from the guy that thinks he knows enough to tell someone that their BELIEF is wrong....you readily admit that you DO NOT KNOW what is out there, but at the same time you THINK you 'know' enough to tell me that my faith is misplaced....way to contradict yourself!! :bowdown: Oh waiddaminute... I get it....Now we're gonna start replacing the word "opinion" with the word "belief".
-Slick as John Kerry, Jonny. :bigthumb: And since clearly you think others here are "slow", I'm sure you believe they'll buy it, too. :bigthumb:

...On to the next page. :rolleyes: (iddinis fuuuuun?!)

Page II :

In fact, let's study some of your contradictions a little further:

In the same post you have said--NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY! knows anything beyond the realm of their present existence
...AND.....The end is coming, but it won't be at the hand of "God".
It'll be by our own hands
SO....those who think they know what is coming, in your own words, should be 'shot through the head'.....yet you suddenly think you KNOW that this is how the end will come?? Well, pardon me while I laugh at the blatantly obvious error in your 'knowledge' there.....Oh Jezus Karyst, Jon, HERE, have a fucking "IF". I mean reallllllly, you can't do better than that? What's next, criticizing my spelling? :rolleyes: You are really that shallow that you can't draw the differentiation between the global destruction prophesied in the Christian and Islamic religions and my comment that the world will be prematurely destroyed because of human negligence?
-Or are you just so desperate that you need to exploit any contradiction you can find no matter how obviously far out from the point it is in your neverending efforts to try to belittle everyone who disagrees with you?
It's more likely the former, as it goes hand in hand with the fact that you think others here are "slow"; -Slow would have to be key for anybody to buy into your silly shit, Jon.
-Gee, I hope you didn't base much more of your chastisement on that dumb shit...Again, this is an obvious case of you whining about someone else's faith....when in the real world, if you were really so sure of your own faith and where you have placed it, the faith of everyone else combined would have no effect on your life whatsoever. Maybe you shoudl stop the whining abd just stick to your beliefs.....I could care less if you think that a cucumber is the answer to life--that is your right. And again, I would love for you to show me where I EVER proclaimed that you dont have the right to that choice....or anyone else for that matter....let me know when you are tired of searching for it....:blah: Ahhh, yeah, ya did. :rolleyes: -Even tied all your ends together with frayed bailing twine.Let me clarify this for you--if you do not know anything about the Bible, then you do not know exactly what it contains. how can you even begin to make such a judgment without even finding out what's in it first?? THINK, Dennis--this isnt rocket science, I promise....Yes, Jon, judging from the types of idiots who believe the Bible, I'm quite sure it's not "rocket science". I know enough about the content of the Bible to render it a work of fiction though, and to me, fiction may have some facts in it, but if it ain't all truth, then it's bullshit...kinda like you. ;) How can ANYONE say that something is 100% wrong when they dont even know 5% of what it says?? That is just plain old ignorance right there....no mistake about it. The same exact principle applied when Kevin and others were giving Marky a hard time about the Quran--Marky never read the whole thing, yet instantly he proclaimed it to be nothing but garbage....same thing applies here.No, the same thing does NOT apply here. First of all, Mark is an asshole. But aside of that, knowing the content of the Bible, and KNOWING the content of the Bible, and "KNOWING!!!" THE BIBLE, and then toss in the fifty gazillion different interpretations of it, well now we have very much grayed one of the most important lines that some of you fellas love to have everyone else believe are strictly in black and white.
Now, factually speaking, there are varying degrees of understanding of a text as complicated as the Bible.
HOWEVER!!!...When assholes like Mark start spouting their shit, they state, as if it were a fact, that there is only ONE way to know the Bible, and that it's virtually impossible for anyone to ever get to that pinnacle of true understanding, but that they are on the "right path" to that understanding and will find salvation so long as they stay on that path (indicating, or in Mark's case, outright stating -as FACT- that everyone else will be doomed to eternal suffering, yaddayaddayadda...).
Perhaps THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT to the zealot's belief is that every single aspect of the Bible is to believed, whether taken literally or taken subjectively.
Sooooo, which way do y'all wannit? You wannit "all or nothing", or do you want it ..."all or nothing"? :peace:
In other words, if a "supposed believer" believes all but one part of the Bible, he's cast out by the zealous; relegated to "Hell-bound" status. (...Can't get much lower 'n dat, ehh?)
So it only makes sense that if I know ONE thing that is in the Bible, and I don't believe it, I then am also thusly relegated. And so I, according to the zealots, might as well be calling the whole thing "Bullshit"...which I am.

...I'm not really sure, but I think I just owned you're fat ass there. :scratch:

I always took you for smarter than this....oh well....Ohh Owwwwie.
Jon trying desperately to compare the impending ice-age and stockpiles of nukes to the plague]
Illnesses like the bubonic plague were once thought to be the big scourge. Today, those same illnesses, in most cases, either do not even exist anymore or are now easily treatable. BUT--back in that day, when they did not know about ozone or nukes, THAT was their "silly little shit".

It is a safe bet that such illnesses have BY FAR killed more people than nuclear weapons have....and also killed far more than the ozone layer hole has too.....so what is your point now?? Oh yeah, you were still trying to come up with it. Good luck with that....oh, not to nitpick, but it's GAPING, not "gapping". Somehow, I dont think that the ozone layer is adjusting spark plugs up there....:peace: You dumbass. Are you that stupid?!
-Or are you one of those guys that thinks the geologists and meteorologists and volcanologists and astronomers are just all a barrel of head-cheese?
Do I have to explain to you what happens when the climate is heated, the salt conveyor in the ocean stops working, yaddayaddayadda...just go look it up, dipshit. (...plenty of FACT on which to base an OPINION. :p: )
Do I really have to discuss with you the damage and the [i]resulting damages that can be done to global harmony when psychopaths like Chicken Little Cartman here get ahold of some of these stray nukes that are still kickin' around? I mean, really, Jon, that's some pretty thin shit you're shoveling trying to compare the loss of life issue to the plague.
How about a war like the one in Baghdad in London? NYC? Anywhere?
You take the only two examples I provide and you try to make them into nothing, and fail to address what is obviously the point because your goal is not to understand, argue or even disagree with anyone, it's simply to try your best to belittle them. Talk about making shit "personal".
Well, you stupid shit, you inadvertently bring up a great point; What if some Mark Cartman comes up with a virus and a means to spread it? Genetically fucked up grass that spreads like ..., well, -like grass. You name it, the possibilities for destruction of our species is only limited by the human imagination.
But here's the point; (...w-a-i-t for it...w-a-i-t f-o-r i-t...)it's a far more tangible threat that we can all be proactive in preventing than the prophecised Armageddon y'all await.
That was my point, you bonehead. (psssst. -Ya know all these other "SLOW' people? -I'm pretty sure they all got it.)

...Oh, and not to uhhhh...nitpick, but ehhh, -is yer apostrophe button workin' on yer keyboard?
:asshole:
I want you to find JUST ONE example of me EVER saying that I was saved and you were not, etc etc. I NEVER get into such a mess and everyone here knows it. In fact, there has only been one person to ever go there--and everyone knows who that is, so get over yourself and fast. You are so wrapped up in looking for something to complain about that you now cannot even tell the truth about my actions! GIVE IT A REST--I do plenty wrong, so you should not have to make crap up as you go just to have something to whine about.

There has not been one single time where I have EVER argued over "my own individual salvation" with ANYONE, so once again, if you cannot be polite enough to even tell the truth, then seek life elsewhere.Oh "Whaaaa!", Cry me a fuckin' river, ya little bitch.
Here: -Everybody but you.
Ya happy now?
Jeezus Kyrist. :rolleyes:






...Well this certainly has been fun; -Just like old times, Jon. But it's sucked up far too much of my time this morning, and I simply can't afford to play this game any more. Deadlines to meet, stuff like that. So you g'ahead & knock yerself out with the last word, M'kay cutie? :boobies:

Lazarus was a broke beggar, honegod--he did not have the means to get an animal to do such a sacrifice. He did not own any animals, and he did not have the means to purchase one. Sacrifices were not simply done on a random animal you found out in the field, and this is yet another example of how your limited knowledge of the Bible is doing you no favors. The sacrifice was to give some of what you had to God--he simply had nothing. He was brought to Heaven because of his heart and the hardships he suffered during his life here, not because of how many animals he killed, champ. Better luck next time.


Luke 16 (King James Version)

19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

is this Truth Absolute, or a story ?

lazarus dies and is INSTANTLY swept up into heaven, the rich guy dies and instantly wakes in hell. no "sleeping" or Judgement, just poof.

27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.


John 11 (King James Version)

1 Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha.

2 (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)

3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.

this appears to be a whole other lazarus.


Exodus 34:25
Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.

Deuteronomy 16:5
Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee:

Exodus 12:27
That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the LORD's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped.

Deuteronomy 16:2
Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the LORD thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the LORD shall choose to place his name there.

Deuteronomy 16:6
But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt.

1 Corinthians 5:7
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:


2 Chronicles 35:11
And they killed the passover, and the priests sprinkled the blood from their hands, and the Levites flayed them.

Hebrews 11:28
Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.



1 Peter 1:2
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.


John 11 (King James Version)

55 And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves.

56 Then sought they for Jesus, and spake among themselves, as they stood in the temple, What think ye, that he will not come to the feast?

the passover feast was soon, with sacrifice and sprinkled blood by the priests, and a feast, a public feast sponsored by the church it sounds like.



what begger would pass up free lamb chops ?




[QUOTE=skydivr7673]Well, wrong again...Lazarus did not even have a door to spread blood upon! He was a beggar that sat outside a rich man's home begging for scraps. Here's a hint--if you actually READ the Bible instead of trying to pick out one incriminating verse at a time out of context, you may have better luck.

maybe if I practiced ?



Wrong yet again--you cannot use the action of someone else to determine what Lazarus did. You are correct in that the context does not say what you claim--so you invented your own context and tried to make it stick. Sorry--I'm not buying it. It's kinda hard to accurately interpret ANYTHING when you dont even read it first. You are smarter than this.

to get into heaven the covanant has to be obeyed.
the covanant lazarus was living under specified a MANDATORY passover sacrifice.

both lazarii, "sprinkled blood by the priests".




Also, he was a beggar--during this time, beggars were shunned. No one cared if they kept to the law or not. They were outcasts. So, if he did not participate in something "under the law", it is highly unlikely that anyone would have bothered to care.

Gods Law.

God cared, and instructed his priesthood in how to satisfy the demands of god to let his people into heaven.

occult blood rituals.

that lazarus 1 went to heaven between jesus and moses says that lazarus obeyed the law, or went to heaven with sin on his soul.

obeying the Law seems more likely than carrying sin into heaven.

how could a jewish begger get out of going to hell with no way to ever do a blood sacrifice to pay for his sins ?

what begger would pass up free lamb chops ?

You obviously ignored the part where I mentioned how beggars were shunned....let's think this one over for a minute--

1--Lazarus was not in a position to own any animals himself
2--the entire society shunned beggars, and as such it was common for people not to include them--think about it, how often do you think beggars were invited to the rich man's table? Or any table, for that matter? Again, you cannot take scripture out of context and then pretend that your version is the same. It is not.

Whether or not he would have turned down free food is completely irrelevant, considering that he belonged to a group that their society kept their distance from whenever possible. If you would not turn down my car for free, would you still get that car for free if I was not willing to offer it to you?? I didnt think so.

this appears to be a whole other lazarus.

It is actually the same Lazarus. Again, you cannot put spin on the Word and get the same message. He mentions having five brothers, and from the verse you posted, it is clear that he is saying that his five brothers(bretheren) do not know God. He wants them to hear the message so they can be saved too. The sister you mentioned was already a believer.

By the way, if I say "I have five brothers", does that in any way mean that I ONLY have those brothers and no sisters?

to get into heaven the covanant has to be obeyed.
the covanant lazarus was living under specified a MANDATORY passover sacrifice.

Wrong again. To get into Heaven requires God's grace. you can do each and every thing that the law states, like the Pharisee did. BUT, if you only go through the motions, you will not get to heaven. God's grace is what makes that happen. You should go search a bit and read up on faith vs deeds in the bible--Faith without deeds is dead, while good works alone will not get you there either. It takes more than just going through the motions, and God fully understood the fact that Lazarus did not have the means to do such things.

It is also very interesting to note that others besides the Jews did actually find the grace of God.....this alone refutes your claim.

Also, the thief on the cross is another example of this--nowhere does it ever mention him doing anything for passover--he is described as a thief, thats it. He found the grace of God only when he was on the cross next to Jesus. Rather than trying this hard to 'disprove' God's grace, it would be more productive to just be thankful for it.

both lazarii, "sprinkled blood by the priests".

Not according to anything you just posted, except for your own opinion. You looked for scripture that showed Lazarus taking part in passover, didnt you?? Didnt find one, I see.

Hebrews 11:28
Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.

If you would have read any further, you would have noticed that this verse is about MOSES keeping the passover, and not Lazarus. Again, you cannot understand the bible by cherrypicking when it suits you.

lazarus dies and is INSTANTLY swept up into heaven, the rich guy dies and instantly wakes in hell. no "sleeping" or Judgement, just poof.

What are you expecting, that it will be like some television commercial with everyone standing in a line to get to St. Peter??:blah:

I dunno about you, but if I died and suddenly found myself in hell, I think I would know that my judgment had taken place.....dont you??

Or, would you feel more comfortable if finding salvation came with a 7-day waiting period like buying a handgun? Gimme a break already....

Here's a very serious and sincere tip--if you really want to get answers to these questions, ask the One who made all of this. Questioning who God saves and why is like teaching a pig to sing---a waste of time. Lazarus suffered his whole life on earth, and his heart was still such that God saved him. There is a lesson to be found there rather than an excuse to mock.

obeying the Law seems more likely than carrying sin into heaven.

Lest you forget, EVERYONE, whether they go to heaven or not, carries sin. NO ONE is perfect. Because of this, your quote above really makes no sense. The passover feast was not done for forgiveness of sin. And, regardless of the purpose for it, since everyone sins, then no one reaches heaven by being without sin. We ALL carry our sins until they are forgiven. Lazarus was forgiven for his sins. will you be?

You obviously ignored the part where I mentioned how beggars were shunned....let's think this one over for a minute--

1--Lazarus was not in a position to own any animals himself
2--the entire society shunned beggars, and as such it was common for people not to include them--think about it, how often do you think beggars were invited to the rich man's table? Or any table, for that matter?

Whether or not he would have turned down free food is completely irrelevant, considering that he belonged to a group that their society kept their distance from whenever possible.

we are talking about two different things, you are talking about social standing, rich versus poor.

I am talking about the chosen bloodline of God, the Tribe that both the rich man and the begger were PART of.

the children of abraham.

and the established Priesthood of that Tribe who took care of gods day to day demands on His people, so that they, the Chosen People could stay on gods good side.


Esther 9 (King James Version)

22 As the days wherein the Jews rested from their enemies, and the month which was turned unto them from sorrow to joy, and from mourning into a good day: that they should make them days of feasting and joy, and of sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor.

27 The Jews ordained, and took upon them, and upon their seed, and upon all such as joined themselves unto them, so as it should not fail, that they would keep these two days according to their writing, and according to their appointed time every year;

28 And that these days should be remembered and kept throughout every generation, every family, every province, and every city; and that these days of Purim should not fail from among the Jews, nor the memorial of them perish from their seed.


Exodus 34 (King James Version)

22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.

23 Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel.



so the rich could be as snooty as they likedfor most of the year, but god commanded them to share their gifts with their poor brothers at least on official feast days.

It is actually the same Lazarus. Again, you cannot put spin on the Word and get the same message. He mentions having five brothers, and from the verse you posted, it is clear that he is saying that his five brothers(bretheren) do not know God. He wants them to hear the message so they can be saved too. The sister you mentioned was already a believer.

no, the person with 5 brothers is the RICH dead dude, in hell, who is asking ABRAHAM to send lazarus back to the living to show his, the rich guys, still living brothers the truth of heaven and hell.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

abraham says no. lazarus STAYS DEAD.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.




the brother-of-mary lazarus dies and IS brought back to life by jesus, to show the friends of lazarus that jesus DOES have superpowers.


John 12
19 And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother.

20 Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary sat still in the house.



John 12:9
Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.



two different men named lazarus.

Esther 9 (King James Version)

22 As the days wherein the Jews rested from their enemies, and the month which was turned unto them from sorrow to joy, and from mourning into a good day: that they should make them days of feasting and joy, and of sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor.

Using only the scripture you provided, it mentions SENDING GIFTS TO THE POOR. If I send you a christmas gift, then I obviously did not invite you to the christmas party--if you were invited, why would someone have to SEND the gift to you?? Wouldnt you have just received it when you showed up??

This clearly shows that Lazarus, since they 'sent' gifts to the poor, was NOT among those at this feast, getting blood spilled on his hands. The scripture you posted just shot down your own case.

In either case, 'the poor' does not name Lazarus specifically, does it? This man sat outside the door of a rich man begging for anything--would he remain there if he had no need to?? Think about that for a minute before you reply....

two different men named lazarus.

no, wrong again.

Remember when I said that taking it out of context doesnt help?? This is a great example of that. For example, you said "LAZARUS STAYS DEAD". You are failing to grasp the concept of "dead" here. Let me clarify it better--

1--Lazarus dies and goes to Heaven.
2--the rich man dies and goes to hell
3--rich man looks up and sees Lazarus in heaven
4--Rich man asks for him TO BE SENT BACK DOWN TO EARTH to warn his brothers
5--he is told 'no'

NOW, that does not mean by any stretch that Lazarus STAYED DEAD. It means that he STAYED IN HEAVEN when the rich man asked. It simply means that he was not sent back to earth to warn this man's brothers! NOWHERE in that verse does it say that Lazarus never came back down--it only says that the man asked for Lazarus to be sent to warn his brothers and was refused.

If you keep trying to invent your own context, these mistakes will only keep happening.

but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

That right there does not in any way say that Lazarus was never raised. It clearly shows that he was never raised for the purpose of warning this man's brothers.

I'd like to ask everyone here a question. What are you accomplishing? Nobody is going to change their view, everyone will only become angrier and more dissentful to one another...

I'd like to ask everyone here a question. What are you accomplishing? Nobody is going to change their view, everyone will only become angrier and more dissentful to one another...

We just like free bitching with religion overtures. I am on vacation here thou. I had my fill.

Do you realize that by overquoting the religion that you so much love or hate only intrigues us more as to why? Not whether to be or not to be a Chrisitian. you both succeed and fail, I congratulate you on both.


you have no place to tell someone they failed when you dont even know what they are attempting in the first place. This is a discussion about what is in the bible--it is not intended to get him to change his view to match mine, so if you have nothing relevant to add, then kindly move on and stop polluting a thread that is going along civilized just fine without your help

Using only the scripture you provided, it mentions SENDING GIFTS TO THE POOR. If I send you a christmas gift, then I obviously did not invite you to the christmas party--if you were invited, why would someone have to SEND the gift to you?? Wouldnt you have just received it when you showed up??

This clearly shows that Lazarus, since they 'sent' gifts to the poor, was NOT among those at this feast, getting blood spilled on his hands. The scripture you posted just shot down your own case.

nope, accepting the gift is the POINT it establishes the recipient as a participant in the ritual, that is why the gift is given.





In either case, 'the poor' does not name Lazarus specifically, does it? This man sat outside the door of a rich man begging for anything--would he remain there if he had no need to?? Think about that for a minute before you reply....

"give to the poor" used to mean "find a poor dude and give him something."

camping out on a rich mans doorstep is just making it easier for him to find a poor dude {begger} to gift.

as required by god.





1--Lazarus dies and goes to Heaven.
2--the rich man dies and goes to hell
3--rich man looks up and sees Lazarus in heaven
4--Rich man asks for him TO BE SENT BACK DOWN TO EARTH to warn his brothers
5--he is told 'no'

NOW, that does not mean by any stretch that Lazarus STAYED DEAD. It means that he STAYED IN HEAVEN when the rich man asked. It simply means that he was not sent back to earth to warn this man's brothers! NOWHERE in that verse does it say that Lazarus never came back down--it only says that the man asked for Lazarus to be sent to warn his brothers and was refused.

but lazarus does come back , so why would abraham say no he won't ?

when we die we go to sleep, to awaken at judgement where we are sent to heaven or hell.
right ?

this did not happen with the begger and the rich dude.

so it must be a parable.



That right there does not in any way say that Lazarus was never raised. It clearly shows that he was never raised for the purpose of warning this man's brothers.

but that was exactly why jesus had him raised, to impress people.

abraham was holding for obedience to the law, jesus was changing the law.

nope, accepting the gift is the POINT it establishes the recipient as a participant in the ritual, that is why the gift is given.

no--the gift is given to care for the poor, not to include them in a ritual. THAT is the point. The poor were given food because one of the things that God always intended is for those who had more to help take care of those who were less fortunate. THAT is the point. You missed it.

"give to the poor" used to mean "find a poor dude and give him something."

camping out on a rich mans doorstep is just making it easier for him to find a poor dude {begger} to gift.

as required by god.

Except for one thing--the rich guy in this example, even though it was "easier" because the beggar was at his door, STILL gave him nothing, and because of it, the rich man found himself in hell. So much for it being "easier", huh??

I will say it again--the only way to really understand what the bible says is to READ IT. And by read it, I dont mean cherrypick a verse here and there. Unless you take the time and actually do this, you will keep missing the point by a country mile like this.

but lazarus does come back , so why would abraham say no he won't ?

Now you are trying to spin a verse to mean what you want it to. Lets read what Abraham said again:


27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

He DID NOT ONCE say that Lazarus would never be raised from the dead, so why are you claiming that?? He said that 'sending one back from the dead will be pointless if your brothers refuse to listen to the living'. Like I told you earlier, your interpretation of these words is way off. There is a very big difference between someone saying "I wont send one from the dead to talk to your brothers when they wont listen to the living" and "Lazarus will not ever be raised from the dead". Stop trying to spin scripture--it says what it means all by itself without someone who wont even read the whole book trying to change the meaning.

but that was exactly why jesus had him raised, to impress people.

abraham was holding for obedience to the law, jesus was changing the law.

Wrong once more. You did not even get the part right about Lazarus being raised to begin with, so how can you now expect to be correct in taking that one step further? Lazarus was raised by the grace of God. By that same grace, the rich mans brothers were given living prophets to listen to, so they could still find God.

This would really work so much better for you if you actually took the time to read the book rather than treating it like a buffet table. Even if you never decide to follow God, you should at least read it before trying to claim that it is a bunch of garbage. how can anyone make such a judgment and expect to be anywhere near correct if he cannot even see what it says first?