I've met a lot of Christians who know lesser known truths of their religion and in spite of these things they still worship the way they do.

*They don't realize that the very Religion they practice makes them sinners.

*They don't care about the truth as to whom Jesus was.

*They don't care that their 'bibles' are wrongly edited and have been numerously revised.

*They don't care that in every story of the bible there are MAJOR contradictions.

*They don't care about the fact that things in the bibles they've read are/were placed in the book by way of voting. Maybe I'm addressing this to the wrong ppl, I should be asking you Christians. Any thoughts?

-Oopsy-:Type O's:

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 01-14-2005).]

Pt.2

*They don't care about its glaring inconsistancies.

*They don't care that the things in the bible are inane and at many, many times, make absolutely no sense.

*They don't care that the 'Christian' version of the bible is just an incorporation of many different religions, made this wat to satisfy as many people as possible.

*The don't care about the lies as of whom 'the' satan was.

*They don't care that the symbols and everything(just about, anyway) else in the bible considered 'evil' are just symbols and whatnot that comes from other religions in which, these symbols sybolized the very opposite of what is said by the bible makers.

They don't care the that it is THE BIGGEST and MOST EFFECTIVE Demonizer and influencial weapon against the way women are percieved.

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 01-14-2005).]

Proof, direct scriptural qoutes, and all that jazz.......NOW!

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

Pt.1 and Pt.2

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) And why do you care whether we care or not?

If there is no God, then what does it matter?

quote:*They don't realize that the very Religion they practice makes them sinners.

Everyone's a sinner.

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:

Proof, direct scriptural qoutes, and all that jazz.......NOW!

Sir, yes Sir!....

Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) And why do you care whether we care or not?

Umm.....Because we share this earth. And a lot of 'you' run various countries, more specifically, the one I live in, U.S/A.

quote:If there is no God, then what does it matter?

Whether there is or isn't a a God/god(s) matters NOT. The discussion is of why people (Christains) believe what they believe when a lot of it can be proven false. And why they practice a religion which comdemns them to hell.

Again, it matters because, we share the earth, and a lot of 'you' run countries, namely, mine, the U.S/A. So 'it' matters whether there is or isn't a God/god(s). How can you even ask such a question when that, in all trueness, what IS and what IS NOT, is irrellevent when it comes to practicing religious belief.

What matters is, people's faith in what they believe and how they let it effect and affect their lives as well as those around them.

And also, who(m) are you to assertain that there is no God, or god(s)? Or rather, why'd you ask me that question? Because I have NOT hinted at the idea that I believe in God, nor otherwise, that I do NOT believe in God?

I am NOT atheist, nor am I agnostic, or Faithful. I'm simply a person who lives in his head and sadly not always in the real world. I don't take ANY sides when it comes to religion, save the things I know to be False and/or illogical or impossible.



-Sublog-:Ay ay yi! the redundancy! http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif) :

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:

Proof, direct scriptural qoutes, and all that jazz.......NOW!

Seconded

I'd like to see biblical proof backing up these statements.

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

I am NOT atheist, nor am I agnostic, or Faithful. I'm simply a person who lives in his head and sadly not always in the real world. I don't take ANY sides when it comes to religion, save the things I know to be False and/or illogical or impossible.[/B]

By taking the stand that something is false, illogical, or impossible, you have taken a side against whatever concept you have concluded that about.

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

*They don't realize that the very Religion they practice makes them sinners.

It is a basic tenet of biblical Christianity that all human beings are sinners. We have the opportunity to be saved from our sins through the blood of Jesus Christ, but that does not make us less of sinners, just means that we have accepted the payment for the cost of our sins.

Once we have received our new bodies, we will be sinless like Adam was before the fall.

I always thought one of the prerequisits of a good argument was evidence for the prepositions. Apparently I'm right.

metalligod, your original generalization about christians is true as far as generalizations go. the reason for it is simple... it's a fault of the human character, not the christian religion... general belief is often more convenient, efficient, and effective than searching for actual answers to very difficult questions. there are pros and cons to it. sometimes, you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you.

ironically, your post rather proves the point. after all, you don't sincerely believe that christianity is the most glaring example of humanity's close-mindedness do you? that would be a very simplistic belief.

"They don't care the that it is THE BIGGEST and MOST EFFECTIVE Demonizer and influencial weapon against the way women are percieved."

btw, i can't believe you said this. cut back on the weed. i know you smoke it, i can tell these things... you're probably experimenting with other shit too. you're gonna damage your brain, shithead. that statement is truly stupefying.

fucking jackass.

I'm not a Christian but I agree that it would be nice if you didn't say "They this" and "They that" without backing it up with hard evidence from the source. Without giving any defense for your argument your post is just wasting time.

I'm sure there are plenty examples of the things you mention but I'd like you to give us some of them, if you happen to know any at all that is. Were you perhaps going off what others have said and you dont' actually know of any yourself?

quote:Originally posted by cerebraldisorder:

By taking the stand that something is false, illogical, or impossible, you have taken a side against whatever concept you have concluded that about.

I don't mean to be rude, but....

Are you really that fuckin dense??? I think you should read more carefully before you assertain anything on any issuse. It helps your case.

I believe what I said was,

"I don't take ANY sides when it comes to religion, SAVE the things I know to be False and/or illogical or impossible."

I was deeply annoyed by your assertion, so I will ahead of time like to say that yes I was a little...Aggressive in my response.

But you can't ignore that fact that the word, Save, is in the very sentence you're using for your argument. Save, means, 'except for', I'm a lazy bastrd and didn't want to type more than what I needed to say.

Sorry, but it is your own fault.

my favorite is what you said. how the stories in their bible are there by way of voting which stories should go in and which should stay out. i suggest every christian read these stories that got left out. they contain the words of the christian god as do many of the stories. these stories are only *slightly* more insane though http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

BTW im working on finding these stories online so you can have some of that "proof" you crave so much.

[This message has been edited by Clifford the Big Red Bong (edited 01-16-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Clifford the Big Red Bong:

BTW im working on finding these stories online so you can have some of that "proof" you crave so much.



http://www.bessel.org/bibles.htm

here is a list of what diferent denominations use in their Bibles. it should make it easyer to find the texts. There are these "Gnostic Texts" that I here people talk about, not sure if they are included in any of those Bibles or if you need to find them seperatly.



[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 01-16-2005).]

So Metalligod, you ever going to back up any of the statements you made?

I'm working on becoming the 'new' Metalligod (not really), so I'll try to stay as nice as possible.

I asked the questions the way I asked them for various reasons. It is VERY, VERY sad that you ppl cannot/did not pick up on that. I know better than any1 that you need to backup what you say, ESPECIALLY in the My God forum.

However, sadly, YOU ARE ALL PROVING MY POINT! You've, so far, proven that you DON'T care. And you likewise, don't pay attention.(I don't say this offensively, but litterally)

You're taking part in a religion you know LITTLE or NOTHING about, the same goes for your understanding of it. And to top it all off, you DON'T Care.

Most of these things can be found in the VERY FIRST STORIES OF THE BIBLE.

Now I will give refferences to which pages to read, but I won't type all that shyt again. You can all thank Totse.com for that. When everything was purged, the info I'm going to reshare with you all was erased. (The last time I typed EVERYTHING and it took about 2.5hrs) -Too bad it wasn't archived, it sure had enuff responses-

Plz b patient, I'm going about things in this manner to prove something.

It's not that people don't care, it's just that you said a whole lot of shit and you expect people to take those statements at face value.

Also, could you do it by author and verse. I don't have a bible near me now, so page numbers would do little for me.

And what in this thread shows that people know nothing about christianity? The fact that they don't believe someone who provided no evidence to back up what they said?

I'd also like you to remember that the bible 'stories' aren't meant to be taken as literal. The church has their own set of teachings which are based off of the bible, but do not correlate directly to what's in the bible.

Christianity is a fucking joke.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

BLAH BLAH BLAH, I'M AN ASSHOLE

AND BLAH BLAH...

btw, i can't believe you said this. cut back on the weed. i know you smoke it, i can tell these things...

No bitch, you know nothing. I don't smoke weed and I never have. Now shut the fuck up, k?

quote:...BLAH BLAH BLAH, I'M STILL TALKING BULLSHIT BLAH BLAH...

you're probably experimenting with other shit too. you're gonna damage your brain, shithead.

Look bitch, you need to learn a new fucking word, ok? Something other than, 'shit', and variations of it. I didn't ask you what you eat, or what your breath smells like. So stop bring up 'shit'.

quote:...I USE SHIT-TACS INSTEAD OF TIC-TACS, BLAH BLAH...

that statement is truly stupefying.

fucking jackass.[/B]

WHOA JACK! Firstly, I did NOT fuck you! And secondly, the statement I made has plenty of fucking merrit. Had you allowed yourself to own a scintilla of operable intelligence, your dumbass would have taken the time to learn a lil-bit about the religion you blindly dove into without any menial or historical knowledge.

You assinine, Uber-Queer from hell! I'd love to un-sterilely castrate you, and watch you get your testes gnawed off by wolves. Don't fuckin post if you're not going to contribute.

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 01-16-2005).]

I've held my fucking tongue for far too long. Am I conversating with pre-schoolers? That's not rhetorical.

Grow the hell up already. G fuckin whiz. I can't make shit any clearer. If it's going to be this hard for us to commune like civil ppl then just call it quits. And just so you don't have to guess, I'm am now speaking to:

Napolean, and Eil, especially!

Give me a friggin chance, you need to read before you assert ANYTHING!

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

It's not that people don't care, it's just that you said a whole lot of shit and you expect people to take those statements at face value.

I can't make things any clear, and I won't try. I wrote lines specifically for your like:

quote:I asked the questions the way I asked them for various reasons. It is VERY, VERY sad that you ppl cannot/did not pick up on that. I know better than any1 that you need to backup what you say, ESPECIALLY in the My God forum.

Read and Ye shall find the answer.

quote:Also, could you do it by author and verse. I don't have a bible near me now, so page numbers would do little for me.

I didn't litterally mean, pages. Saying pages is a lot more efficient than saying, "I will...post the authors and..."

Or are you not human, and therefore, couldn't understand that?

quote:And what in this thread shows that people know nothing about christianity? The fact that they don't believe someone who provided no evidence to back up what they said?

No asshole. The fact that you need the proof, when the proof is in the sole foundation of YOUR/THEIR religion, proves that you know little or nothing about it.

The foundation being, The 'Good Book', or The 'Bible', for those who seem to think I write in code.

quote:I'd also like you to remember that the bible 'stories' aren't meant to be taken as literal.

I'd like for you to take heed and take note, this time I do mean LITTERALLY: I'M NOT THE ONE WHO NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STROIES IN THE BIBLE, THOSE THAT FOLLOW THE RELIGION ARE!

The shit I post isn't Da Vincian. Note that.

quote:The church has their own set of teachings which are based off of the bible, but do not correlate directly to what's in the bible.

Irrelavent.

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 01-16-2005).]

Jesus you're childish. I tried to add some intelligence to this thread, but with your presence, it seems like a fruitless endeavor. And how the fuck was I not being civil? You're the one who curses at people who don't agree with you in every other statement.

You're an idiot who says stupid things.

Not all christians know the bible front and back. Not all christians read the bible. So expecting christians to know where to look in the bible is rediculous



All I want to see is biblical evidence. You said you would provide evidence, but I have yet to see any.

Just provide the evidence, and I'll be happy.

Metalligod - thanks for communicating to the Christian world that which we all feel and know. I'm glad you do so I don't have to. I'm in total agreement, although comments such as yours do tend to cripple an intelligeable conversation. But, with Christians, that probably won't happen regardless of what is said. Again, thank you.

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

WHOA JACK! Firstly, I did NOT fuck you! And secondly, the statement I made has plenty of fucking merrit. Had you allowed yourself to own a scintilla of operable intelligence, your dumbass would have taken the time to learn a lil-bit about the religion you blindly dove into without any menial or historical knowledge.

You assinine, Uber-Queer from hell! I'd love to un-sterilely castrate you, and watch you get your testes gnawed off by wolves. Don't fuckin post if you're not going to contribute.



i'm not christian, einstein. bet you'd feel stupid if you weren't so stupid that you don't even realize how stupid you are. how's that for a new word, stupid?

quote:Originally posted by chaski86:

Metalligod - thanks for communicating to the Christian world that which we all feel and know. I'm glad you do so I don't have to. I'm in total agreement, although comments such as yours do tend to cripple an intelligeable conversation. But, with Christians, that probably won't happen regardless of what is said. Again, thank you.



Are you fucking joking? This guy is a fucking asshat.

He posts all these ridiculous claims, then when multiple people kindly ask for scriptural evidence (that is, just the chapter and verse he is referencing) he flips shit.

This entire thread is a waste of space and complete bullshit.

Back your statements up with the chapter and verse you are drawing on before you post anything more you flaming faggot.

You are such a fucking idiot, I don't even know where to begin. How the fuck do you expect people to debate you when you don't provide any goddamn hard evidence?

ALL ATHIESTS ARE QUEERS!

DON'T THEY REALIZE THAT BY PRACTICING THEIR NON-RELIGION THEY ARE INHERINTLY PRACTICING HOMOSEXUALITY?!?!?!

THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH OF THEIR QUEERNESSS.

^^^ look how fucking retarded that seems, that's exactly what your claims look like now.

They could have been semi-respectable if you had just provided sources for each of them, but instead you choose to insult everyone who asks for evidence. That seems more like a cover for your unknowledgable ass.

quote:*They don't care that in every story of the bible there are MAJOR contradictions.

*They don't care about its glaring inconsistancies.

JESUS ON TRUTH OF HIS TESTIMONY (part 1) - John 5:31

"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid."

JESUS ON TRUTH OF HIS TESTIMONY (part 2) - John 8:14

"Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid."

WHO WAS JESUS' GRANDFATHER? (part 1) - Matthew 1:16

Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

WHO WAS JESUS' GRANDFATHER? (part 2) - Luke 3:23-24

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli ...

quote:*They don't care that the things in the bible are inane and at many, many times, make absolutely no sense.

JESUS ON UNDERSTANDING HEAVEN - Matthew 13:11

And the disciples came, and said unto him, "Why speaketh thou to them in parables?" He answered and said unto them, "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given."

WHO DID JESUS CRY OUT FOR? - Matthew 27:46-49 (KJV)

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.

-FOOLS (part 1) - Psalm 14:1

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

FOOLS (part 2) - Proverbs 8:5

You who are simple, gain prudence; you who are foolish, gain understanding-



quote:*They don't care that the 'Christian' version of the bible is just an incorporation of many different religions, made this wat to satisfy as many people as possible.

The Truth About SUNday (http://www.4runnerministries.com/Historic%20Adventist%20Writers/vendenpaganacounterfeits.htm)

As well this day of, Sunday, being made to secretely worship and support the Sun god (known by various names, such as: Amon-Ra, Apollo, etc), the Christian 'Halo', is/was the symbol of Sun gods all around the world for obvious reasons. Anyone who has seen Egyptian 'god Idol' artifacts could attest to this.

For refference, take into account artifacts of the god Anubis, Isis, and obviously, Ra. As time moves on I will add to this as well as other issues if you all want.

quote:*They don't care the that it is THE BIGGEST and MOST EFFECTIVE Demonizer and influencial weapon against the way women are percieved.

PAUL ON WOMEN (part 1) - 1 Timothy 2:9

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shame-facedness and sobriety; not with broided [braided] hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array."

PAUL ON WOMEN (part 2) - 1 Timothy 2:11-15

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

PAUL ON WOMEN (part 3) - 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

PETER ON WIVES - 1 Peter 3:1-2 (NAB)

"Likewise, you wives should be subordinate to your husbands so that, even if some disobey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives' conduct when they observe your reverent and chaste behavior. Your beauty should not come from ******d adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes."

PAUL ON FEMINISM (part 1) - 1 Timothy 2:11-14

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."

PAUL ON FEMINISM (part 2) - 1 Corinthians 14:34

"Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak."

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Jesus you're childish. I tried to add some intelligence to this thread,

You must not have tried very hard, cause I've yet to bare witness to ANYTHING intelligent from you. So far you've shown yourself to be the Primordial Fount of Nothingness...

quote:but with your presence, it seems like a fruitless endeavor. And how the fuck was I not being civil? You're the one who curses at people who don't agree with you in every other statement.

Firstly, I and no other being should be able to hamper the ability of another to impart intelligent information, with their presence alone. That makes no sense at all. And you've just proven to be nothing but weak by even suggesting such a thing, and furthermore, by admiting ther you're subject to such a thing.

Secondly, you were being civil in the beginging, however, you've made it your lot to take offense to my words, rather than, give them thought. And I am NOT referring to my recent words in my last post directed at you. I mean the questions, that every Christian (I assume you're Xian) thus far, has evaded and/or commented on, but have NOT answered.

quote:You're an idiot who says stupid things.

Meritless.

quote:Not all christians know the bible front and back.

So, they don't need to. I don't expect them to either. But thus far, I've not crossed one who knew even the palpable things about it. It is always those who OPPOSE it's ideals that I've known to know the most on the religion WHICH THEY DO NOT EVEN FOLLOW.

Most Xians know what they know do to hearsay, half-truths, and lies (as far as THEIR OWN religion goes).

quote:Not all christians read the bible.

THAT'S MY POINT!!!!!!!! THAT'S WHY I SAID THEY DO NOT CARE!!!!!! MOST XIANS FOLLOW A RELIGION THEY KNOW NOTHING OR LITTLE ABOUT, WHICH IN ITSELF IT INANE!!

Why this small, small detail has failed to reveal itself to you is unknown to me. To blindingly follow into a religion you know little or nothing about is UNINTELLIGENT. No, ' if's, and's, or but's ' about it.

To do such a thing is to proverbially reduce your reasoning to that of a COW. You blindly do whatever the rest of the heard is doing without understanding what you're doing. And the grass you all dine on is your POISON! You need to dig deep and find out what YOUR religion means to YOU!

Not what the hell it meant to your father and his fathers before him. Not your mother and her mothers before her. WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU! NOT WHAT IT MEANS TO THE REST OF THE HEARD! The same filth they've been fed, has manifested in you, a hunger for it.

You don't care to look into this religion, as powerful as it is, you just follow it beacause everyone else in the world does. It is not because YOU, UNDERSTAND IT, not because YOU, KNOW/UNDERSTAND ITS HISTORY, you do it because it's in the norm. And that's unintelligent.

Which, my friend, means you simply DO NOT CARE!

quote:So expecting christians to know where to look in the bible is rediculous

That's why I don't expect them to. I sure as hell don't. And you've proven, once again that you do not pay attention.

I stated, as plainly as day:

"I didn't litterally mean, PAGES. Saying, PAGES, is a lot more efficient than saying, "I will...post the authors and..."

Which translates to:

"I DID NOT litterally means, Pages, Napolean. I simply thought saying, "pages", would allow me to somewhat shorten my post, and make it so that I don't have to type as much."

I would be typing a lot more if I say,

"I will post the names of the authors, the chapter, the verse, and the line in which it is written"

So instead I used the word, p-a-g-e-s, um k?

I don't think we should continue this conversation, you and I. It is not seeming to workout for us. So I will end it with this post. I state things plainly for you and you blatanly, it seems, overlook them and then take it out on me, with all you seemingly sarcastic and acidic replies.

And you have yet to answer any of the questions which kicked off this thread, but you've made time to comment on them. You want, but you don't give, lets end it on this...

Nicely done Metalligod.

quote:Originally posted by chaski86:

Nicely done Metalligod.

Had the Whiners aswered the topic questions the answers would have come a lot sooner and it would have been a whole lot more absorbable.

I had/have a WHOLE LOT more to impart but I think I'm callin it quits.

Examples please

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

quote:*They don't care that in every story of the bible there are MAJOR contradictions.

*They don't care about its glaring inconsistancies.

JESUS ON TRUTH OF HIS TESTIMONY (part 1) - John 5:31

"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid."

JESUS ON TRUTH OF HIS TESTIMONY (part 2) - John 8:14

"Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid."

WHO WAS JESUS' GRANDFATHER? (part 1) - Matthew 1:16

Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

WHO WAS JESUS' GRANDFATHER? (part 2) - Luke 3:23-24

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli ...

For right now, I'm going to use very short answers. If you want more depth, ask. But this has been covered with some depth in the past. It really is disheartening that we have to keep going over the same stuff... but oh, well.

Jesus truth on testimony:

By Mosaic Law, in order to bring or bear testimony (give witness), there had to be atleast 2 men, so in John chapter 5, He is pointing out that He, Himself, as a man, cannot testify...but if you read on, He shows that it is not only Himself, but the Father and the Scriptures... He was talking to the Jews -- using Jewish understanding.. to the Jews, the Scripture would be valid for testimony, and so would the Father. Not to meantion, He showed that He was fulfilling the Jewish Law (man's law) reguarding testimony. The focus in this chapter is man's (understanding of the) law.

In chapter 8, He is saying the same thing, but the order and the focus is changed. If you want to call it a "dig" or a "cut", then i guess that might be allowed for someone that does not believe, and for this illustration, I'll do it for you. Basically, it was a "dig" at the Pharisees. By Him saying, "for I know where I came from and where I am going", they would understand that He was implying (actually, saying) that He is God. If you read on, you might notice that in verse 18 He says, "I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me." What He is saying here is, the Father and He are One. With this verse alone, He has indicated 2/3 of the Trinity.... like i said, short answers for now.

Jesus' "granddad":

How many grandpas do you have? If you say one, then i either feel sorry for you or would ask if you were the Christ. But most people have 2.

I do get the implication that you are making, but the apparent problem in the Gospel is actually a problem with the wording and the writing/speaking style in history, not the content. Anyway, Mathew and Luke are giving paternal and maternal geneologies. But because at that time, women were considered little more than property, Luke pointed to Mary's dad, without giving Mary recognition in the credits.

So anyway, Jesus had only one Granddad, and that was Mary's Pa.

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

You must not have tried very hard, cause I've yet to bare witness to ANYTHING intelligent from you. So far you've shown yourself to be the Primordial Fount of Nothingness...

I didn't want to say anything, until I saw biblical proof from you.

quote:Firstly, I and no other being should be able to hamper the ability of another to impart intelligent information, with their presence alone. That makes no sense at all. And you've just proven to be nothing but weak by even suggesting such a thing, and furthermore, by admiting ther you're subject to such a thing.

Secondly, you were being civil in the beginging, however, you've made it your lot to take offense to my words, rather than, give them thought. And I am NOT referring to my recent words in my last post directed at you. I mean the questions, that every Christian (I assume you're Xian) thus far, has evaded and/or commented on, but have NOT answered.

I'm not a christian, I actually take offense at that. And the reason I have not answered your questions, is because you had nothing to back them up. I am not going to waste my time to answer a question that has no foundation. You don't need to fucking flip-out at people all because they took your first post with a grain of salt. I simply asked for biblical proof, then you responded by flipping out.

quote:So, they don't need to. I don't expect them to either. But thus far, I've not crossed one who knew even the palpable things about it. It is always those who OPPOSE it's ideals that I've known to know the most on the religion WHICH THEY DO NOT EVEN FOLLOW.

Most Xians know what they know do to hearsay, half-truths, and lies (as far as THEIR OWN religion goes).

Most christians that I have come across do know the bible very well, and they realize that it shouldn't be taken literally. They realize that the bible is outdated and that you have to interpret what you read in the bible to modern times. Did you do that when reading the bible? Did you interpret the scriptures?

quote:THAT'S MY POINT!!!!!!!! THAT'S WHY I SAID THEY DO NOT CARE!!!!!! MOST XIANS FOLLOW A RELIGION THEY KNOW NOTHING OR LITTLE ABOUT, WHICH IN ITSELF IT INANE!!

Why this small, small detail has failed to reveal itself to you is unknown to me. To blindingly follow into a religion you know little or nothing about is UNINTELLIGENT. No, ' if's, and's, or but's ' about it.

To do such a thing is to proverbially reduce your reasoning to that of a COW. You blindly do whatever the rest of the heard is doing without understanding what you're doing. And the grass you all dine on is your POISON! You need to dig deep and find out what YOUR religion means to YOU!

Not what the hell it meant to your father and his fathers before him. Not your mother and her mothers before her. WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU! NOT WHAT IT MEANS TO THE REST OF THE HEARD! The same filth they've been fed, has manifested in you, a hunger for it.

You don't care to look into this religion, as powerful as it is, you just follow it beacause everyone else in the world does. It is not because YOU, UNDERSTAND IT, not because YOU, KNOW/UNDERSTAND ITS HISTORY, you do it because it's in the norm. And that's unintelligent.

Which, my friend, means you simply DO NOT CARE!

Do you have to read the bible to understand God? Is it absolutely, positively necessary that one must read the bible to understand god? Reading the bible does not equate to knowing everything about god and christianity. People don't read the bible themselves because they don't have the time to commit to studying the bible. But every sunday, people hear the word of God at church. The bible is not christianity.

How many christians have you talked to? How many christians have you asked indepth on why they are christian and why they subscribe to christianity? How many christians are you close and personal friends with? Unless you have talked to hundreds of thousands of christians, then you aren't even close to being able to categorize them all all "COWS".

quote:That's why I don't expect them to. I sure as hell don't. And you've proven, once again that you do not pay attention.

I stated, as plainly as day:

"I didn't litterally mean, PAGES. Saying, PAGES, is a lot more efficient than saying, "I will...post the authors and..."

Which translates to:

"I DID NOT litterally means, Pages, Napolean. I simply thought saying, "pages", would allow me to somewhat shorten my post, and make it so that I don't have to type as much."

I would be typing a lot more if I say,

"I will post the names of the authors, the chapter, the verse, and the line in which it is written"

So instead I used the word, p-a-g-e-s, um k?

I don't think we should continue this conversation, you and I. It is not seeming to workout for us. So I will end it with this post. I state things plainly for you and you blatanly, it seems, overlook them and then take it out on me, with all you seemingly sarcastic and acidic replies.

And you have yet to answer any of the questions which kicked off this thread, but you've made time to comment on them. You want, but you don't give, lets end it on this...

I thought you literally meant pages. It was a misunderstanding.

The reason I never answered your statements is because you had zero biblical proof that what you were saying was even remotely true. If you go back and read my posts, I only said that I wanted to see proof before I commented. I never questioned the validity of what you posted. All I said was that I wanted to see evidence.

Nicely done extreme.

I'd like to see a response from Metaligod to the complete and utter shattering of his statements and "proof".

I'm sure Metalligod will respond seeing that this "complete shattering" of his argument is not even close to complete and far from shattering. This is true ultimately because Metalligod is defending that which is accurate and xtreem is defending, well, religion.

This quote comes from xtreem5150ahm:

quote:Jesus truth on testimony:

By Mosaic Law, in order to bring or bear testimony (give witness), there had to be atleast 2 men, so in John chapter 5, He is pointing out that He, Himself, as a man, cannot testify...but if you read on, He shows that it is not only Himself, but the Father and the Scriptures... He was talking to the Jews -- using Jewish understanding.. to the Jews, the Scripture would be valid for testimony, and so would the Father. Not to meantion, He showed that He was fulfilling the Jewish Law (man's law) reguarding testimony. The focus in this chapter is man's (understanding of the) law.

In chapter 8, He is saying the same thing, but the order and the focus is changed. If you want to call it a "dig" or a "cut", then i guess that might be allowed for someone that does not believe, and for this illustration, I'll do it for you. Basically, it was a "dig" at the Pharisees. By Him saying, "for I know where I came from and where I am going", they would understand that He was implying (actually, saying) that He is God. If you read on, you might notice that in verse 18 He says, "I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me." What He is saying here is, the Father and He are One. With this verse alone, He has indicated 2/3 of the Trinity.... like i said, short answers for now.

So, what's your point....??? None of this disproves my assertions wrong. It's still INCONSISTANT. Oh, and it's also FALSE.

Jesus was not/is not God. There is proof of this. Have you not heard of the, Le Dossier Secrets? It's a list revealing the Grandmasters of the Knights Templar. They were many in the begining of the new Millenium (the early 'A.D.', years). A lot of them were slain on Friday 13, October 1307. Do know why?

Huh, I guess I can go over all that all over again.

They were/are a group of indivisuals who were not prisoner of the Xian religion because they weren't dumb. They were in fact scientists, as well as many other things. And this group was started by a DIRECT DESCENDANT OF the CHRIST (Jesus), and Mary Magdelene.

-WHO DID JESUS CRY OUT FOR? - Matthew 27:46-49 (KJV)

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.-

The Knights Templar were slain on the date given because they knew and had proof that the Christ was nothing more than a man who fathered, all too ordinary, children. No one (in those times anyway) ever doubted that Christ existed, the arguement was over, what he really was. The Knights knew, 'he was only a man' and they had proof. So the Catholic Church (Vatican, Popes and all that good stuff) in combination with the current (at the time) King of France, King Philip IV, carried a warrent of death on the Knights Templar and their Grandmaster, Jacques Demolay.

They saw them as a threat not only because they were so many, but, again, they had proof that could disturb the power of the churchs' and the King's greatest weapon, Religion.

Jesus WAS NOT GOD, ergo, making his preachings INCONSISTANT.

Did the thought to question why he needed so many desciples ever come to you? Or why the hell he needed desciples at all? If he was soooooo powerful, what purpose did they serve? Making all the myth seem real, perhaps?

O, BTW, the whole 'Disciples' thing was stolen from a PAGAN religion as well. Have you not heard the story of Loki, the Norse god? You might find it strikingly too consistant with the whole 'Last Supper' idea.

Like I said before, the stories of the bible were placed there by way of vote. And they were HORRIBLY EDITED AND RE-EDITED.

And also, the purpose of Jesus was to live as a man and preach as a man. Correct he was speaking from the POV of a man in the first passage I used. But in the second one, HE WAS STILL A MAN WHETHER OR NOT HE SAW HIMSELF AS A GOD. What he says is paradox- B: a self-contradictory statement that at first SEEMS true.

His statement CANNOT be false and true at the same time. And there are far more things in the bible that are inconsistant as well. Note the 'qualities' of God. There are flawed, He is FLAWED, contrary to how the Bible tries to convince its readers to think:

GOD'S QUALITIES (part 1) - 1 John 4:8

God is love.

GOD'S QUALITIES (part 2) - 1 Corinthians 13:4

Love is not jealous.

GOD'S QUALITIES (part 3) - Exodus 20:5

"I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God."

It is preached that God loves all of His creation. It is said that He is wise, however, His teachings reveal that that is just NOT so.

The Bible, despite all of its efforts, show God as being inconsistant, unintelligent, unwise, childish, fickle, wicked, incable of understanding man, hostile, sadistic, and thusly, IMPERFECT.He creates things to be a certain way, then punishes His creation for being as it is. That's sadistic.

GOD CREATED EVIL - Isaiah 45:7 (KJV - pick a translation)

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

GOD CREATED DISASTER - Isaiah 45:7 (NIV - pick a translation)

"I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."

GOD CREATED WICKED PEOPLE - Proverbs 16:4 NAB

"The Lord has made everything for his own ends, even the wicked for the evil day."

FOOLS (part 1) - Psalm 14:1

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

FOOLS (part 2) - Proverbs 8:5

You who are simple, gain prudence; you who are foolish, gain understanding.

JESUS ON FOOLS (part 1) - Matthew 5:22

"But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

JESUS ON FOOLS (part 2) - Matthew 23:17,19

"Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?"

GOD AND ABORTION AND KILLING BABIES - Hosea 13:16

... because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.

GOD AND KILLING BABIES - Psalm 137:8-9

O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

God is Love? Where in the hell is their love in throwing babies against walls to kill them, in raping the women who are left without family after a war, in killing livestock because it belonged to someone you've killed?

MOSES AND SPOILS OF WAR - Numbers 31:9-11 (NIV)

The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals.

MOSES AND WAR AND KILLING, VIRGINS AS SPOILS - Numbers 31:15-18 (NIV)

"Have you allowed all the women to live?" [Moses] asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

GOD AND SPOILS OF WAR - Numbers 31:25-35 (NLT)

And the LORD said to Moses, 'You and Eleazar the priest and the family leaders of each tribe are to make a list of all the plunder taken in the battle, including the people and animals. Then divide the plunder into two parts, and give half to the men who fought the battle and half to the rest of the people.

But first give the LORD his share of the captives, cattle, donkeys, sheep, and goats that belong to the army. Set apart one out of every five hundred as the LORD's share. Give this share of their half to Eleazar the priest as an offering to the LORD. Also take one of every fifty of the captives, cattle, donkeys, sheep, and goats in the half that belongs to the people of Israel.

Give this share to the Levites in charge of maintaining the LORD's Tabernacle.' So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses. The plunder remaining from the spoils that the fighting men had taken totaled 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys, and 32,000 young girls.

Where in the hell's the consistancy in preaching how wrong stealing is and coercing someone into doing ?

JESUS ON THEFT (part 1) - Matthew 21:2

"Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me."

JESUS ON THEFT (part 2) - Mark 11:2

"Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here."

-I will respond to the rest l8er. Like you said, shot responses. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

You should not fault the Bible for the lack of sophistication or preciseness of the English language, which requires adjectives and adverbs to fully express a specific thought or idea. In the original Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek that the Bible was written in, there were many words that had similar, though distinct meanings. An example is the word 'love', which we have one word, but in Greek there several distinct words that focus on brotherly love ('philia'), physical attraction ('eros'), or self-sacrificial love ('agape'). So, when we study the Bible, it is sometimes necessary to analyze deeper than the superficial English word's meaning to determine the exact understanding, usually from the context of the passage.

Also, concerning differences in God's methodologies throughout history, we need to study and understand the setting of the specific commands, such as when Israel was commanded to cleanse the Promised Land of the various peoples making up the Canaanites, before moving in and settling down. It is true that God commanded the outright slaughter of many of these peoples, as punishment for their continued rebellion and rejection of His principles, but He did not give the Hebrew people arbitrary authority to kill anyone and anytime, but only those groups at those times that He allowed.

Also, God has worked through different people at different times in different ways. These time periods of varying methodologies are called dispensations. Some examples of dispensations are: Innocence, Conscience, Government, Law, Church Age, Millennial Kingdom.

QUOTE Originally posted by Metalligod:

So, what's your point....??? None of this disproves my assertions wrong. It's still INCONSISTANT. Oh, and it's also FALSE.

First of all, please relax alittle.

Second, it's not inconsistant. Focus was different, but said the same thing.

Third, please show why its false.

Jesus was not/is not God.

Yes, He is.

There is proof of this. Have you not heard of the, Le Dossier Secrets?

No i havent heard of them/it... at least not that i recall. Is this from the fictional novel, Da Vinci Codes?... remember to relax. Just a simple question.

Anyway, what is the authenticity of the "Le Dossier Secrets"? I could google it, but that may take awhile. If you can show me, i would be obliged....never mind, i googled knights templar and got.. http://www.templarhistory.com/who.html which says that: "The Knights Templar were a monastic military order formed at the end of the First Crusade with the mandate of protecting Christian pilgrims on route to the Holy Land. Never before had a group of secular knights banded together and taken the monastic vows. In this sense they were the first of the Warrior Monks. The Templars fought along side King Richard I (Richard The Lion Hearted) and other Crusaders in the battles for the Holy Lands."

Which means that they were probably started after the roman empire had ceased. So i was curious when King Richard I was king... google king richard I and got:

http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon27.html

and it said that he was king between 1189- 1199 AD.

That templar history site says: "The secret meetings and rituals of the knights would eventually cause their downfall. The King of France, Philip the Fair used these rituals and meetings to his advantage to destroy the knights. The real reason for his crushing the Templars was that he felt threatened by their power and immunity. In 1307, Philip, who desperately needed funds, to support his war against England's Edward I made his move against the Knights Templar.

And according to the moderator of this forum: http://www.templarhistory.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=125

Magdalen probably was not of high importance to the templars, although there were a few references to her. As to the expertise of this moderator, i dont know.

It's a list revealing the Grandmasters of the Knights Templar. They were many in the begining of the new Millenium (the early 'A.D.', years). A lot of them were slain on Friday 13, October 1307. Do know why?

anyway, my point above is that, according to my short amount of googling, the templars probably started around the end of the 1st millenium AD, to maybe the begining of the second millenium AD, not the early AD years. This is not to say that they didnt have predecessors that were prior to templar formation. And according to templarhistory.com, there are myths and legends about them. Unless you can show me more important and pertainent facts, i'm going to dismiss them as conspiricy theory for now.

Huh, I guess I can go over all that all over again.

I guess we both know how it feels to have to keep trying to build a foundation, but never able to work beyond one.

They were/are a group of indivisuals who were not prisoner of the Xian religion because they weren't dumb.

Sounds to me like they may have been entrepenuers and exploitive. Not dumb but perhaps misguided.

And this group was started by a DIRECT DESCENDANT OF the CHRIST (Jesus), and Mary Magdelene.

Here is where the problem lies. Did anyone happen to have seen the copulation between Mary and Jesus? Or did anyone find the birth cert. for this alledged descendant? Using the word "Christ", in this statement, lowers the value of the statement. You see, the term Christ, means 'annointed one' from the hebrew, 'Messiah', which in effect, you are both calling Him God, but saying that He didnt die, which in effect, would mean that He is not God.

Again, please stay calm. What i am saying, is that if you story is true (and i'm only saying it this way from patience), you should change your statement to read, "And this group was started by a DIRECT DESCENDANT OF (Jesus), and Mary Magdelene." ...removing "the Christ" from your statement.

-WHO DID JESUS CRY OUT FOR? - Matthew 27:46-49 (KJV)

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.-

Let's come back to this.

I think you will find this very interesting. I know i did, but i am still working on this.

Part of the key to understanding this is Psalms 22:1 (the whole verse, but specifically, the word 'maw' which means what,why,how etc.

There are a few more keys to this, and it wiil be a longer post, as i'll have to walk you through the steps that I took. If i see a short cut, we will take it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

This is some great stuff, I am excited!!

The Knights Templar were slain on the date given because they knew and had proof that the Christ was nothing more than a man who fathered, all too ordinary, children. No one (in those times anyway) ever doubted that Christ existed, the arguement was over, what he really was.

Please back this up.

The Knights knew, 'he was only a man' and they had proof. So the Catholic Church (Vatican, Popes and all that good stuff) in combination with the current (at the time) King of France, King Philip IV, carried a warrent of death on the Knights Templar and their Grandmaster, Jacques Demolay.

this too

Jesus WAS NOT GOD, ergo, making his preachings INCONSISTANT.

Where is the proof that the Knights had? How did you come by it?

Did the thought to question why he needed so many desciples ever come to you?

yes, i figured it represented the tribes of Israel, and that was good enough for me, on this point.

Or why the hell he needed desciples at all? If he was soooooo powerful, what purpose did they serve?

As a matter of fact, this was, at one time in my life, a rather significant question. "God being all powerful would not need anyone to spread the Word" The key to this is Threefold: 1st, the word "need". He doesnt "need" us to do His work, He wills it (meaning He wants/desires us to do His wants; to do His Will)

2nd, He allows us to choose Him. He does not force us to choose Him.

3rd, to teach us to follow and to trust Him.

Basically, in semi-modern terms, He is a gentleman and will not come into our life -- our heart, without our inviting Him.

O, BTW, the whole 'Disciples' thing was stolen from a PAGAN religion as well. Have you not heard the story of Loki, the Norse god? You might find it strikingly too consistant with the whole 'Last Supper' idea.

Loki is often called the Sly One, the Trickster, the Shape Changer, and the Sky Traveler. He is also known as the god of Fire.... Hmmm, this sounds amazingly like someone else in the Bible.

Like I said before, the stories of the bible were placed there by way of vote. And they were HORRIBLY EDITED AND RE-EDITED.

proof again? I've said before (actually asked , maybe even challenged someone else to) find the manuscripts and research them yourself.

And also, the purpose of Jesus was to live as a man and preach as a man.

Then there really would not be any purpose, except Jesus own purpose. But the purpose would not have been anything more important than any other man. If there is no God, then we are nothing but "meat-bags" (to use someone elses eloquency).

Correct he was speaking from the POV of a man in the first passage I used. But in the second one, HE WAS STILL A MAN WHETHER OR NOT HE SAW HIMSELF AS A GOD. What he says is paradox- B: a self-contradictory statement that at first SEEMS true.

No, He was not speaking from the POV of a man, He was speaking to men, from there POV, but He said to them that He was God, which they would have understood right away, and if He were not God, they would have stoned Him immediately. It is not that they thought that He was God that they didnt stone Him. It was the fact that He is God, and it was not His time... it could not be allowed yet, and in that way (stoning).

His statement CANNOT be false and true at the same time.

Your right, and it wasnt. It was True and True at the same time. This is used as emphasis.

And there are far more things in the bible that are inconsistant as well. Note the 'qualities' of God. There are flawed, He is FLAWED, contrary to how the Bible tries to convince its readers to think:

Let's come back to these. Alittle at a time. I do want to get back to Matthew 27:46-49. I'm excited about this.

BTW, i would like to hear more about what you think Matthew 27:46-49 is saying. Or rather, who you mean that Jesus is crying out to/for?

Also, i am curious... did you find all these on your own, by your own reading of the Bible? Or did you find a website or book that had them in? Not that it matters, because someone definitely took some time and effort. I'm just curious.

-I will respond to the rest l8er. Like you said, shot responses. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) /QUOTE

I'm sorry, I dont recall saying anything about shot responses.. can you explain please?

Or did you mean short responses? Anyway, I had said that because it was late, as it is now. Good Night and God Bless You...xtreem

Nice attempt, extreem. Most of the stuff you said sounds plausible. Unfortunately, you don't have proof that what Metalligod is saying is FALSE - at least not difinitively false. Remember that the church has had control over a great deal of history and historical information and artifacts for a long time. Who's to say they have not (and why wouldn't they) change several stories and/ or information dealing directly with the church that could potentially harm the church. It's survival of the fittest - I don't blame them if they did (which is most likely). Anyway, just something to think about.

Metalligod, where did you originally find all this out? You haven't read 'The DaVinci Code' by any chance have you http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif) If you havent you should, it's a good read.

Anyway, to actually contribute to the thread:

I myself am a Christian, but this is mostly due to how I was brought up. I can honestly say I am not the greatest Christian: I don't go to church; I believe more in 'heretical' scientific thoughts than bible stories; and I swear more than all the South Park kids combined.

This said, I believe that the Bible and Christianity is a bit outdated, however I believe now more than ever that Christianity (and most religions) are mostly there for people to have something to believe in that is greater than themselves, and to make them generally nice people.

Christianity now is more in practice just about being kind to everyone, which is what I do to try and better myself as a person, as well as a Christian.



If you find these comments gay and/or queer then you can go eat a dick.

(...sorry, it's not in my nature to have a full serious post, so I had to add the "eat a dick" part)

quote:Jesus' "granddad":

How many grandpas do you have? If you say one, then i either feel sorry for you or would ask if you were the Christ. But most people have 2.

You can't be serious.

Seriously. The quotes I supplied were both speaking of the same person. That is, the father of Joseph. That PATHETIC attemp won't fly. THEY ARE '''BOTH''' TALKING ABOUT THE FATHER OF '''JOSEPH'''!!

O My Screaming Electron, this is paralizingly sad.

quote:I do get the implication that you are making, but the apparent problem in the Gospel is actually a problem with the wording and the writing/speaking style in history, not the content. Anyway, Mathew and Luke are giving paternal and maternal geneologies. But because at that time, women were considered little more than property, Luke pointed to Mary's dad, without giving Mary recognition in the credits.

Proof plz........

quote:So anyway, Jesus had only one Granddad, and that was Mary's Pa

Proof??????????

I could write a lot more but I'm gonna quit now. People have whinned and moaned about the things I've written yet not a one has yet to answer ANYTHING.

-Black album: #10-

quote:Metalligod, where did you originally find all this out? You haven't read 'The DaVinci Code' by any chance have you If you havent you should, it's a good read.

I found it out from a Rabbi. Rabbi Truman, was what I called him. I learned a little through my own explorations both through books and info gathered online.

Yes I have read the Da Vinci Code. As a matter of fact, I read it this past December. I read it cause someone suggested it to me. When I was little (9yrs old), I instintively thought the one to the right of Jesus was a woman (In the, 'The Last Supper', protrait). Well, I was attending church at the time, and asked a woman in church of the woman in the portrait was, and BOY was I chewed out.

Everyone went stark raving mad.

Well as I got older and learned more, I became more and more sure that it was a woman. Then I met Rabbi Truman, and he thought the same thing and didn't think it that big of a deal. But he also told me to hush up about it and don't go around saying that 'it's a woman, it's a woman', cause nobody cares.

Well, anyways, I was told that I should read the Da Vinci Code by my brother, he said that I think like the author of that book. I said ok, ok I'll read it. And when I did was astonished........

Well the last supper painting can't be taken seriously anyway.

Notice how all the people are portrayed as Europeans?

That should have tipped you off to begin with.

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:

Well the last supper painting can't be taken seriously anyway.

Notice how all the people are portrayed as Europeans?

That should have tipped you off to begin with.

What's your friggin point?

Matter of fact, don't bother, I don't care.

Absolutely useless. JJIFOMB

Ok scottie take it DOWN a notch, stressing out instead of making a rebuttle makes less sense than your interputation of his previous statement.

QUOTE Originally posted by Metalligod:

You can't be serious.

Seriously. The quotes I supplied were both speaking of the same person. That is, the father of Joseph. That PATHETIC attemp won't fly. THEY ARE '''BOTH''' TALKING ABOUT THE FATHER OF '''JOSEPH'''!! /QUOTE

This is taken from the "People's New Testament 1891":

LU 3:23 23-38. The Genealogy. For a comparison of the genealogies given by Matthew and Luke, see notes on Matt. 1:1-17. In those notes I have followed Godet, Van Oosterzee, and others in the view that Luke gives the line of Mary, and therefore the line of Christ. Jesus was only supposed to be the son of Joseph, but was the son (that is, descendant, grandson) of Heli, the father of Mary.

MT 1:16 16. Jacob begat Joseph. The descendant of a long line of kings was a poor carpenter of Nazareth. As the husband of Mary he was the legal father of Jesus, and Matthew gives his line of descent. A comparison of the table given by Luke will show that it differs in part from that of Matthew. Between David and Joseph the lists are widely different. Several views, all possible, have been presented, but the most probable explanation is that Matthew gives the line of Joseph, the legal line, and that Luke gives the line of Mary, the mother of our Lord. As the Jews regarded only male descent, unless Joseph, the supposed father, was a descendant of David they would not have recognized the genealogy as a fulfillment of the prophecies that Christ should be the Son of David; while Luke, himself a Gentile and writing for Gentiles, was more particular to give the line that shows that Jesus is really the Son of David. If Mary was the daughter of Heli, especially if an heiress, Joseph, by marriage, would become the "son of Heli." That there is no contradiction between the two tables is shown by the fact that the Jews who best understood their genealogies never charged it. These tables were preserved with great care, for various reasons, until Christ was born, but it is asserted that Herod destroyed them. If this is incorrect, they did not survive the destruction of Jerusalem.

O My Screaming Electron, this is paralizingly sad.

Again, calm down. I am not attacking you.

I disagree with what Sean said, "Nicely done extreme.

I'd like to see a response from Metaligod to the complete and utter shattering of his statements and "proof"."

the first reason why i disagree is we have only covered (and not completely) a few "inconsistancies". And even if you had agreed that i was right on those, they still would not be shattering your statements, until all statements have been address, AND that you (or anyone else that holds to these) feel they have been answered sufficiently.

The second reason that i disagree, is that ONLY you (or anyone else that holds to these) could declare whether thye have been shattered.

And if this does happen (that you see them as shattered), i think that you would hot feel that you have been proved wrong, but that you are happy that someone helped you understand.

And if this happens, please, keep it between God and yourself... at least as far as i am concerned... i'm not doing this for myself, nor recognition from anyone..except, maybe, God.

Anyway, relax. I'm am not here to 'fight' not argue.

God Bless

quote:I do get the implication that you are making, but the apparent problem in the Gospel is actually a problem with the wording and the writing/speaking style in history, not the content. Anyway, Mathew and Luke are giving paternal and maternal geneologies. But because at that time, women were considered little more than property, Luke pointed to Mary's dad, without giving Mary recognition in the credits.

Proof plz........

quote:So anyway, Jesus had only one Granddad, and that was Mary's Pa

Proof??????????

I hope the above was good enough. Atleast for now, so that we can move on. I would like to get to the part that i found exciting, but i have alittle more research to do. And before i share it with you, i would like to run it past my pastor first, as i have not seen a commentary on this yet... doesnt mean it isnt there, but i havent seen it. Remind me, if i havent brought this up soon. (It was in Matthew 27:46-49)

Am I the only one still waiting for proof that Jesus was not the son of God?

quote:Originally posted by LeperMessiah:

Ok scottie take it DOWN a notch, stressing out instead of making a rebuttle makes less sense than your interputation of his previous statement.

who?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Am I the only one still waiting for proof that Jesus was not the son of God?

O god, not u, how old are u, y aren't you dead yet?

Shit, why the hell are you waiting 4 proof that Jesus wasn't the son of God? Just leave that crack alone, plz. Or whatever ur on.

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

O god, not u, how old are u, y aren't you dead yet?

Shit, why the hell are you waiting 4 proof that Jesus wasn't the son of God? Just leave that crack alone, plz. Or whatever ur on.



I could be wrong, but i think Rust was basically jerking your chain.

I could be wrong but, i think by stating he was waiting for proof (evidence), there would be a counter proof. He wasnt saying THE proof. He was saying, A proof.

Or something like that.... could be wrong though.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I could be wrong, but i think Rust was basically jerking your chain.

I could be wrong but, i think by stating he was waiting for proof (evidence), there would be a counter proof. He wasnt saying THE proof. He was saying, A proof.

Or something like that.... could be wrong though.

Ummm, I certain, you're wrong.

Rust and I have History, I hate him very, very much.

Ah... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

O god, not u, how old are u, y aren't you dead yet?

Shit, why the hell are you waiting 4 proof that Jesus wasn't the son of God? Just leave that crack alone, plz. Or whatever ur on.

Why wouldn't I be waiting for it?

You made the claim, now back it up! Oh, you expect us to believe that bullshit about the "Grandmasters of the Knights Templar"? That isn't proof. That's a story; a story that for the sake of this debate has absolutely no evidence backing it up, since you've provided none. Thus this would explain why I'm still waiting for proof.

P.S. I'm glad I cause you so much discomfort. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-19-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Why wouldn't I be waiting for it?

You made the claim, now back it up! Oh, you expect us to believe that bullshit about the "Grandmasters of the Knights Templar"? That isn't proof. That's a story; a story that for the sake of this debate has absolutely no evidence backing it up, since you've provided none. Thus this would explain why I'm still waiting for proof.

P.S. I'm glad I cause you so much discomfort. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)





Girl, when did I make the claim that Jesus was not the son of God?

Where's your proof? You have none, you're a belligerent, assinine cunt who makes things up and knows nothing about the shit she says. Go away you fat, menopausale whore.

Discomfort ya pussy.

-Die in Flames

^you were signing that post, right? because 'die in flames' is much more descriptive of your idiocy than 'metalligod.'

i think you should make it your official screen name, cuz you're such a douche.

douchebag. fag. queer. homosapien. loser... queer.

you don't have a scintilla of heterosexuality about you. see, i said scintilla. and i only repeated two words... that makes me smart like you.

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

Girl, when did I make the claim that Jesus was not the son of God?

My mistake. You claimed he wasn't god. The point still stands. You haven't provided any proof, thus, I'm still waiting.

P.S. Whether it was a pathetic attempt at an insult, or whether it was an honest mistake I don't know, but I'm not female.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

QUOTE Originally posted by Metalligod:

-WHO DID JESUS CRY OUT FOR? - Matthew 27:46-49 (KJV)

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.-

Let's come back to this.

I think you will find this very interesting. I know i did, but i am still working on this.

Part of the key to understanding this is Psalms 22:1 (the whole verse, but specifically, the word 'maw' which means what,why,how etc.

There are a few more keys to this, and it wiil be a longer post, as i'll have to walk you through the steps that I took. If i see a short cut, we will take it.

This is some great stuff, I am excited!!



Ok, before we go any farther, i think we should work on this one. I have good news and bad news. The good new is, i think i found a short cut. The bad (not really) news is that, what i was so excited about was wrong. Let me explain:

I have two Cd-roms with various books on them. To include several different Bible Translations (KJV, Literal, NIV, Douay Rheims, etc.), commentaries, cross references and concordances, reference and historical works, and word studies (Strong's dictionaries).

Both CD-roms have Strongs. The format is slightly different, so i tend toward one, because that was the one i got first, so i am more familiar with it. In the Verses that I got excited about, i went through the Literal Translation, word by word, looking at the Strong's Definitions. The word 'lama' in the Aramaic part of the verse-- "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani", gave the Strong's Number of 2952, which is 'kunarion'. And the definition says-- neuter of a presumed derivitive of Greek Strong number 2965; a young puppy.

I'm not going to take you through my whole mistake process but much of it, anyway, this seemed to not fit. I checked further.. where the text says that "Jesus cried out with a loud voice", i got the impression of howling out in great pain. But still, young puppy howling in pain did not quite fit. So why, did strong's say lama = kunarion? But the text right after, says in Greek that lama = why.... onto the next word, "sabachthani". It means: of Aramaic or [HSN7662 with pronominal suffix]; thou hast left me; sabachthani (i.e. shebakthani), a cry of distress:

Time to look up Hebrew Strong # 7662: shbaq...Text: (Aramaic) corresponding to the root of 7733; to quit, i.e. allow to remain: --leave, let alone.

Now, a word picture was starting to form. My family has 4 dogs, and when we leave, they sometimes suffer from seperation anxiety. So now, "young puppy" did fit... or so i thought.

I found it very strange that i had never heard anyone or any commentaries point this out. I mean, that would stick out like a sore thumb. This is why i wanted to run it by my pastor, before i posted this. I dont want to give wrong information, especially knowingly.

Pastor was not at the church when i got home from work, so i decided to go through all the steps, all over... using the other CD-rom.

That produced 2 things:

A. the strong's number was 2982, not 2952 (like the first strong's had).

B. lama is the Aramaic transliteration of the Hebrew, "mah", which means "why".

I did talk to a pastor, after i found these two definitions, to find out which was correct. He said that both 'mah' and 'lama' mean "why".

Sorry for my excitement. The lesson i learned was: double check and triple check my work, especially if it is different to what is taught. I am glad i caught this before posting.

Would anyone in TOTSE have caught this mistake? I hope so... keep me honest folks.

^^^ Since i started on this one, maybe i should continue to try to answer your question.

I would like to ask you something though. Who do you think Jesus was crying out to, that you think this is a contadiction?

I mean, the text is pretty clear, as long as i stay away from the "young puppy" idea (from the last post, incase you or someother TOTSEan didnt read it).

Anyway, i will try to get to this one tomorrow night. Gonna curl up with my wife and watch TV or a movie, then maybe some personal reading/study, and off to bed early, for a change.

ok, since no objections, let's move on. Short one tonight (at least i think so)

metalligod wrote:



quote:*They don't care that the things in the bible are inane and at many, many times, make absolutely no sense.

JESUS ON UNDERSTANDING HEAVEN - Matthew 13:11

And the disciples came, and said unto him, "Why speaketh thou to them in parables?" He answered and said unto them, "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given."

Maybe i should ask you a couple of questions first:

(1) Specifically, what about this verse does not make sense to you? (i'm not making fun of you, i guess i just dont see the problem... maybe it has something to do with my next question)

(2)Did you read the rest of the chapter?



Actually, what you quoted as verse 11, is part of verse 10 and then verse 11. If you read on, Jesus explains why He speaks in parables (the heart being callous from sin is the reason "seeing they don`t see, and hearing, they don`t hear, neither do they understand.") but (He is speaking to His disciples) "it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" because He knew that He would be sending them out to teach the message. And He is speaking to us, because of faith, from hearing that message.

Please read the whole chapter (Matthew 13) and see if it makes more sense to you. If it doesnt then maybe you can help me answer your questions by asking me more specific questions.

I think it would be because he didn't find those verses himself, he probably just found some website and stole them from it.

He let their explanations plant in his head, instead of investigating for himself.

Good work Extreme.

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

Girl, when did I make the claim that Jesus was not the son of God?

Where's your proof?



quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:



Jesus was not/is not God. There is proof of this.

The Knights Templar were slain on the date given because they knew and had proof that the Christ was nothing more than a man who fathered, all too ordinary, children.

Jesus WAS NOT GOD, ergo, making his preachings INCONSISTANT.



There you go.

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:

I think it would be because he didn't find those verses himself, he probably just found some website and stole them from it.

He let their explanations plant in his head, instead of investigating for himself.

Good work Extreme.

humbly, thank you sean. but im not done because i promised someone awhile back that i would try to cover these and other (supposed contradictions). and i'm going to try as much as possible without using the volumes that have already directly covered these (although if i cheat, i'll let ya'll know).

I have another purpose for doing these. At this point, most people might think of this as just "academic" arguements, for the sole purpose of fueling the ongoing debates, but hopefully some people might start looking at the Bible as non-contradictory, and understand that it is inerrant. If they understand this, they can allow God to 'soften' their heart.

All i ask of people that disagree, is that they dont overwhelm me with questions-- be patient-- this is huge as it is, without getting too sidetracked. Oh ya, and that they keep me honest, unlike God's word, i can make mistakes.

oh ya.. i almost forgot.. flaming me is ok, but i hope we (in this topic, anyway) keep the flaming of other members, down to a minimum.

quote:I would like to ask you something though. Who do you think Jesus was crying out to, that you think this is a contadiction?

I think Jesus was calling out to the 'real God'. I believe that at some point he realized the shit-hole he dug himself into (Moment of Clarity) and at a moment of severe pain; physically, mentally and emotionally. He hit the proverbial 'Rockbottom', and he felt alone.

There are two things that I believe are possibilities as to the condition and reasoning of Jesus.

He was either, A) a megalomaniac, who beleaved himself to be something that he was obviously not (a god, or God). At the professed 'moment of clarity' I spoke of earlier, he realized this and knew it was too late to renig on his claims.

Or, B) He was a genius, and he knew how to push the buttons of all the right people to move his plan(s) into action. And he used it to change the world by preaching, and performing things that were seemingly magical to onlookers. These 'performances' were pulled off, with the help of some of his 'Disciples'. With his plan, he 'singal' handedly converted great multitudes of people to excepting the Jewish faith, only with a different name. (Christianity)

He created a great way to get people to convert to some of the Jewish ultra conservative beleifs. But in doing so, above all, he created a powerful Weapon.

QUOTE Originally posted by Metalligod:

I think Jesus was calling out to the 'real God'.

Well, to this point, we agree.

There are two things that I believe are possibilities as to the condition and reasoning of Jesus.

Could there be more possibilities? Or only those two?

He was either, A) a megalomaniac, who beleaved himself to be something that he was obviously not (a god, or God). At the professed 'moment of clarity' I spoke of earlier, he realized this and knew it was too late to renig on his claims.

Or, B) He was a genius, and he knew how to push the buttons of all the right people to move his plan(s) into action.

Third possibility: He was/is who He claimed to be, doing exactly what He said He was doing.

And he used it to change the world by ... performing things that were seemingly magical to onlookers. These 'performances' were pulled off, with the help of some of his 'Disciples'.

I saw a show one time by Andre Kole. He was David Copperfield's mentor (with many patents on "magic tricks"). He said that He and David had discussed Jesus' miracles (David is Jewish, if i recall) from the perspective of two very accomplished illusionists. They both agree that, had the miracles been simply tricks, they would have needed literally tons of equipment and probably 100's of helpers. They both came to the conclusion that the miracles were not illusions (tricks).

With his plan, he 'singal' handedly converted great multitudes of people to excepting the Jewish faith, only with a different name. (Christianity)

The difference between the Jewish faith and Christianity is mostly Jews believe justification by following the Law, where Christians are redeemed by grace. This is a huge difference, not just a different name.

He created a great way to get people to convert to some of the Jewish ultra conservative beleifs. But in doing so, above all, he created a powerful Weapon./QUOTE

I actually think that the things He taught were very radical compared to Judaism, especially of that day. It was one of the things that pissed them off.

Another thing that upset them, was His claim as God (Son of Man, according to (our OT) scripture, would have been very straight forward to them.. they would have stoned Him for blasphamy the first time He said it, maybe He would have gotten away with it once, had it been only implied.).

Yes, i will agree that religion has been used as a weapon all too often. That fact does not mean that religion itself is wrong, just exploited.

quote:Maybe i should ask you a couple of questions first:

(1) Specifically, what about this verse does not make sense to you? (i'm not making fun of you, i guess i just dont see the problem... maybe it has something to do with my next question)

Specifically, the very purpose of Jesus (biblically) was to teach man the mysteries of heaven. That is, on understanding how to get there and whatnot.

If he has come to 'save' people then why the hell is 'it' (the secret of heaven) not to be disclosed to everyone else?

Maybe I interpreted it wrong, but to me it's simply assinine.

quote:2)Did you read the rest of the chapter?

Yes, several times.

quote:Actually, what you quoted as verse 11, is part of verse 10 and then verse 11.

I know that, I quoted only what was needed to make my point. And as I had confessed earlier on, I WILL NOT type any bible quotes. I will search the net to find what I need. My reason being, again, that the last time I posted quotes from the bible (which took several hours), it was all DELETED in 'the purge' when Totse got bombarded with newbs in the summer and the servers got overtaxed).

Vintage Metalligod: Now I will give refferences to which pages to read, but I WON'T TYPE all that shyt again. (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/003457.html)

Case Closed. -NO LONGER OPEN FOR DISCUSSION

quote:If you read on, Jesus explains why He speaks in parables (the heart being callous from sin is the reason "seeing they don`t see, and hearing, they don`t hear, neither do they understand.") but (He is speaking to His disciples)...

I already posted his reasoning for speaking in parables. And to whom he spoke.

quote:"...because He knew that He would be sending them out to teach the message. And He is speaking

So. That's poor reasoning, or rather, excuse making. That's an inane, illogical, and INCONSISTANT excuse as to why he speaks in parables.

Why? Here Ye. First YOU post the excuse he/the bible gave: "(the heart being callous from sin is the reason "seeing they don`t see, and hearing, they don`t hear, neither do they understand.")"

His excuse is basically that they are 'sinners', they're too dumb to understand, they'll ignore or listen just to shut him up.

The excuse you gave for him was that he knew his 'disciples' would blah blah, of 4get it. The excuse you gave for him makes him appear to be stupid and contradictive. Not only to his purpose but his wisdom.

Both excuses make him out to be a dumbass. HE TOO PREACHED HIS WAY AND SECRETS. Why wouldn't he just speak to them like a normal person? He spoke in parables to be smug. He basically looked upon indivisuals and decided, ' Humph, they aren't worthy of recieving'the word' '. It seems very prejudice.

Now, according to the slight description given of those to whom he forsook 'the word', they weren't religious folk or maybe they were criminals, maybe even intelligent or just teenagers. And he knew that they'ed probably gather after one of his sermons and talk about how 'full of shit' he was.

quote:Had he let those to whom he spoke 'understand the mysteries

Didn't he speak to anyone who would listen?

*Metalligods' eyes begin to tear, he gets that prickly feeling in his nose. Uh oh, he's GONNA BLOW!!-Metalligod sneezes so hard he blows blood out of his nose. A passerby asks, 'what's the matter'. He then replies, 'I am HIGHLY allergic to contradictive BS'. She then replies, 'Yeah, I had that problem too, but then I started getting drunk and now I don't give a shyt'.*

:Note: If you detect the sarcasm and snideness in this post, plz rest assured that it is not directed at you. It's a ploy to quiet your cheerleading idiots, to whom I won't speak directly. I won't dare to dignify their childish, gay posts with a direct response.

quote:Could there be more possibilities? Or only those two?

Stupid question. I clearly stated that the possibilities were what I BELIEVE. Never did I state that they were the ONLY possibilities.

I'm done if you ppl won't read what I say, and if you won't stop making idiot replies to what you wish I had said.

quote:Third possibility: BLOBBITY BLAH BLAH

OWENED!!! WHERE'S MY DINNER BITCH!!! :MAD:

quote:The difference between the Jewish faith and Christianity is mostly Jews believe justification by following the Law, where Christians are redeemed by grace. This is a huge difference, not just a different name.

WOW!

Really I didn't know that. Why did I point that out in an intelligent way with maximum brevity??? O, WAIT! I DID.

More Vintage Metalligod: quote:He created a great way to get people to convert to SOME of the Jewish ultra conservative beleifs.

Movin on

quote:I saw a show one time by Andre Kole. He was David Copperfield's mentor (with many patents on "magic tricks"). He said that He and David had discussed Jesus' miracles (David is Jewish, if i recall) from the perspective of two very accomplished illusionists. They both agree that, had the miracles been simply tricks, they would have needed literally tons of equipment and probably 100's of helpers. They both came to the conclusion that the miracles were not illusions (tricks).

Wow, I along with everyone else in the world should believe that Jesus' 'miracles' weren't tricks because a half-ass, uber-lame, has-been magician and a religious fanatic said so. Eureka! Eu-fuckin-reka.

quote:Yes, i will agree that religion has been used as a weapon all too often. That fact does not mean that religion itself is wrong, just exploited.

Agreed. But for the record, I never made such a claim, that is, about religion itself being wrong.

:Note: Yeah, this post is loaded with cynacism. Though, only because I feel that you all don't READ my posts, you glance and then you let your mind assume the rest. I make sure I understand the things you say in your posts (plural) and I just think I should be granted the same courtesy. Yes, I am an ass, but at least I read........

Perhaps you didn't see this:

quote:

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

Originally posted by Metalligod:

Girl, when did I make the claim that Jesus was not the son of God?

Where's your proof?



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



quote:

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

Originally posted by Metalligod:

Jesus was not/is not God. There is proof of this.

The Knights Templar were slain on the date given because they knew and had proof that the Christ was nothing more than a man who fathered, all too ordinary, children.

Jesus WAS NOT GOD, ergo, making his preachings INCONSISTANT.

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

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:

Perhaps you didn't see this:quote:

Perhaps you should eat shit and shut the fuck up.

It fuckin says, 'NOT GOD'.

Not, 'Not the SON OF GOD'. You fuckin dimwit. Die, just curl up and fuckin die.

Are you retarded?

If you really knew as much as you claim to know about christianity; you'd know that people calling Jesus the Son of God iherently implies that he IS GOD according to the triune diety.

Therefore, by claiming he isn't God, you are claiming he isn't the Son of God.

R u intarded????

Hav u knot hearid de ol saiyan, 'We are all God's children'?

Demwhit! Like I said, there was nothing specialy about him, as far as supernatural capabilities go.

I'm still waiting for the proof...

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

R u intarded????

Hav u knot hearid de ol saiyan, 'We are all God's children'?

Demwhit! Like I said, there was nothing specialy about him, as far as supernatural capabilities go.



Don't be asinine, you knew what the fuck was meant by "Son of God".

Or do I have to spell it out for YOU.

Just reading something that napoleon_complex said

'I'd like to see biblical proof backing up these statements.'

Just pointing out that its a pretty funny notion to use evidence from something (the bible) as fact that the something(the bible) is a load of shit.

It's like somebody saying they don't exist as proof that they don't exist.

And the proof you have that the bible is bullshit....

He's saying that you're asking for the bible to prove itself to be bullshit, (that's what he finds funny), not that the bible is bullshit.

The things you say should apply to Christianity should instead be directed at your post...anyway if that is what you think of Christianity after doing "research" (if any at all) you are indeed a small-mided individual

ok ok...this is a pointless argument on both sides..

Its a snake eating its own tail.

I have struggled for YEARS with my salvation.

I was raised Christian but after many years of searching and talking to God(prayer) I have come to a point where I am happy with my salvation.

Jesus was the Son Of God. I am the son of God. Mettaligod is the son of God.

We are all Sons and daughters of God.

I agree with Christianity on most points, EXCEPT, the fact that it is intolerant of other religions.

I believe, that all the "gods" over the years from Jesus to Buddha, from Krishna to Allah are all the same God.

If one were to send Jesus to feudal Japan how do you think they would react. Not good.

So I believe God sent someone they could relate too..perhaps someone that was asian.

The same goes for all other religions. God sends one that they can relate to.

God is not vengeful and jealous as that bible states.

God is love. He loves everyone. And a healthy skepticism of the Bible and its teachings does not entitle you to hell.

Hell is not a place. It is a feeling. The suffering in hell is the suffering from not being with God.

In the End...We will all be with God.

God is not mean and spiteful and will not SEND someone to hell for not beleiving a certain way. That would be arrogance and God is not arrogant..

God = Love

I have no written proof of anything I say.

The proof I have is my life..and that is all I need.

quote:Originally posted by Rip:

Jesus was the Son Of God. I am the son of God. Mettaligod is the son of God.

We are all Sons and daughters of God.

Thank you, that's the same thing I've been trying to stress to others. There was nothing 'special' about the Christ. We are all God's children.

quote:I agree with Christianity on most points, EXCEPT, the fact that it is intolerant of other religions.

That's not entirely true, that is, what you say about the 'intolerance of other religions'.

quote:I believe, that all the "gods" over the years from Jesus to Buddha, from Krishna to Allah are all the same God.

Wow, that's EXACTLY what I've been trying to stress to people for several years now. I tried to explain to Rust, I've done everything short of saying, 'they are all talking about the same god', to him. But boy was I dumb for that. Can't teach someone who lacks a brain.....



quote:If one were to send Jesus to feudal Japan how do you think they would react. Not good.

So I believe God sent someone they could relate too..perhaps someone that was asian.

The same goes for all other religions. God sends one that they can relate to.

You're alone on that one.......

quote:God is not vengeful and jealous as that bible states.

God is love. He loves everyone. And a healthy skepticism of the Bible and its teachings does not entitle you to hell.

Again, alone............

quote:Hell is not a place. It is a feeling. The suffering in hell is the suffering from not being with God.

Major contradiction. However, I think I get the gist of what you're saying. And I agree, I've been trying to stress that idea to other Totseans for years. Namely: Rust, Ashes(I sorta miss the guy), Hex, and even Tyrant.

But since you've said what you said, wouldn't you agree that Earth itself is a form a hell?

quote:In the End...We will all be with God.

God is not mean and spiteful and will not SEND someone to hell for not beleiving a certain way. That would be arrogance and God is not arrogant..

God = Love

I don't entirely agree, however, I hope their is an intelligent, loving, benevolent god, or that the end of life is not truly, 'The' End............

Wow, I've been trying to find your like on this sight for a long time. Where've ya been?

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

The things you say should apply to Christianity should instead be directed at your post...anyway if that is what you think of Christianity after doing "research" (if any at all) you are indeed a small-mided individual

Who/what the hell are you talking to/about???