whatever he was teaching definitely wasn't pure judaism either. stop trying to sound deep while failing so hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Man
Printable View
whatever he was teaching definitely wasn't pure judaism either. stop trying to sound deep while failing so hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Man
Who cares what the original satan was ...Anything Evil is Satan.
Stop trying cause hatred!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koolish
so you're asking me how a christian can be a "good christian" without following christian doctrines? ya i'm not touching that. but i will point out that the word "salvation" has no meaning outside of christianity. christians tell you there's something wrong with you and the only way to be "saved" is by converting to christianity. it's the basis for all the missionary work that has spread the religion to every region of the globe.
for what he lacked in critical thinking skills, jesus was a marketing genius. still a fuckwad tho.
yes, christianity offers "salvation" and no one else does. apparently being a unique religion is a downfall?Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanface Huggah
so, Jesus lacked critical thinking skills and was nothing more than a fuckwad...
when debating justice, Socrates offered Thrasymacus this proposal:
"Supposing Justice is the benefit of the stronger over the inferior, then they make rules to benefit themselves?"
"correct"
"and are these rulers liable to error?"
"i suppose so"
"so they sometimes, in error, create rules that are not beneficial to themselves?"
after much convincing, thrasymacus agreed.
"so therefore, justice is not the benefit of the stronger over the inferior."
if Jesus were an idiot, and being an idiot he was constantly in error, then this message (love your enemy) would not be beneficial to a Christian. but because it has intellectual merit, a Christian can benefit from it.
huh? no, offering salvation isn't a "downfall" it's a powerful marketing tool. anyone can come up with a set of spiritual beliefs but only an arrogant dickhead would go around telling people that their spiritual beliefs are superior to others. and yes, jesus travelled the near east telling people their spiritual beliefs were wrong and the only way to enter "the kingdom of god" was by following him. if the same guy were doing that today you'd call him a cult leader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koolish
and as far as your other point, i'd be careful quoting from philosphers who lived over 2000 years ago. plenty of progress has been done in that field and i recommend you read up on more modern thinkers, anything post nietsche.
and if you think "love your enemy" is such a great idea, can you honestly say you'd let someone rob you without doing anything about it? how about if someone was about to murder your family? would you still "love your enemy?"
Actually, it's extremely pertinent, because you're placing faith on the existence of an entity whose concept is quite blatantly man-made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Make~Sensi*
In the early books of the Bible, all actions, good AND evil are caused by God. No second entity is prescribed as causing these. Later, the bible describes certain messengers of God assigned to various tasks. The word "satan" means "adversary" or "obstacle" in Hebrew. When used in the old testament, it is not being used as a proper name, but a description of the task a particular messenger of god is doing. When the angel blocks the path of Balaam, and his donkey begins speaking, it is acting as a satan, but is not supposed to be Satan as we know him. This being causes difficulty for humans, but on God's behest. It is Gods' prosecuting attorney, testing humanity.
Later, in the Book of Job, we begin to see a particular accusing angel as beginning to act independent of God. He suggests to God that Job is only pious because God has given him everything. BUT IT IS STILL GOD'S IDEA TO BRING EVIL UPON JOB to test his faith. He gives the accuser permission to do so. The accuser may have come up with the idea to test Job, but in this story, he is still under God's power.
Further on in Jewish history, religious scholars continued to have problems reconciling the problem of evil with the idea of an all-loving God who controlled everything. It became easier to start blaming all evil deeds on God's prosecuting angels and primordial representations of chaos (Leviathan, Tiamat, Azazel, etc.). By the time several of the great catastrophes of Israelite history had occurred (the last being their enslavement and diaspora by the Babylonians), they could no longer properly explain why the God who made a covenant to protect them would allow such things. When the Persians conquered the Babylonians and allowed the exiled Jews to return home, they had began to borrow ideas from the Persian religion Zoroastrianism (aka Zarathustrianism or Mazdaism). Unlike Judaism, Zoroastrianism is not a monotheism, but a dualism, in which the powers of good and evil exist as equals. Thus, the problem of evil is solved, but there the good side is not the all-powerful like the Hebrew Yaweh (although it is predicted Ahura Mazda will triumph of Ahriman in the end). From Zoroastrianism, the Jews got the idea to separate evil completely from God and place all of it upon a single entity. If the role of the "satan" had not already existed, they would have probably invented it as this point.
Thus, Satan (already an absurd concept) is further falsified by the fact that he is not a consistent entity through the entirety of the Bible. He only comes into existence during a period of Jewish history in which it was necessary to create him in order to rationalize belief.
That's how you see it, Good for you lol .
ok here we go. you weren't putting my point together AT ALL. i have never been entirely defending the "love your enemy" concept, fuck, i've been defending that Jesus is an intelligent individual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanface Huggah
if you read my example correctly, you would see Socrates disproving a point Thrasymacus offered because he proved that rulers are liable to error. being liable to error would be a temporary lack of intelligence. you said Jesus is an idiot. a stupid person has a constant lack of intelligence. thus any rule they would make would not be beneficial. however, the rule Jesus offered is beneficial to those who follow it, and therefore Jesus was not in error at that moment, and is not an idiot. if you're going to reply to me, attack the holes of logic my statement contains. i can't point them out because i wrote it. this is all i'm defending, i don't give a flying fuck about what anyone thinks about Christianty because on the internet it's the same shit all over "religion's ruining the world, I hate Jesus" blah blah blah blah.
anything written in the Bible is up to subjective speculation. Jesus wasn't saying "sit back and do nothing", he just said don't sink down to their level. i don't know if it's un-christian to harm an enemy because i'm not Christian.
and just because Socrates lived 2000 years ago doesn't mean he's "old news". philosophy is not an art that can be upgraded, it can only offer subjective points of view and debate. to assume that anything from 2000 years ago does not hold up to today's "intellectual standard" is highly ignorant. and plus, the example i was using was not Socrate's opinion, you shouldn't have even considered that example to be "dangerous" to use due to its date since it showcased nothing less than Socrates' great intelligence. that example showed him debunking this random Greek guy's opinion of what justice is. the example was relevant to my defense of Jesus' intelligence.
It has nothing to do with "how I see it". This is scholarly analysis of biblical text, taking historical factors into account. I didn't make this stuff up; it comes from years of research by historians and religious scholars. You need only read the Old Testament to see that the Christian concepts of Hell, Heaven, and the Devil did not yet exist in that time period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Make~Sensi*
The Old testament was before Jesus came into our world, A long time before. You read the Bible Old and New with an already negative opinion and disbelief of nearly all the things said. Your judgment is clouded and your absorbing the parts of the book that can be transcribed in certain ways to create ways of attempting to prove it false. This can be done to all the religious books in the world if somebody really wants to find the negative side of it. You obviously have no love for the true Christian faith or you have been manipulated into thinking it is something else like most so called Christians have done themselves. Saying God is Satan and using the 'facts' you have stated are completely as liable as the Bible, the Quarran, the Torah and any other religious book that has been transcribed and most probaly edited over thousands of years. To say God is the Devil is plainly dumb but if you truly believe this then i pity you. I have a good idea that you don't believe this and you just wish to discredit the bible.
huh, some good shit to read, props
I don't believe god is the devil. I don't believe in god or the devil period. I'm telling you that in the context of Jewish history and Hebrew mythology that the concept of Satan as a single entity evolved over time. God was not supposed to be the devil in the old testament, the devil simply didn't exist in anyone's mind yet. It was sufficient enough to say that all things came from god, and if bad happened to you, it was because he punished you. That notion came to challenge after numerous empires trampled over their civilization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Make~Sensi*
You might as well know that I used to be a fairly strict Catholic. I tried my hardest to wrestle with all those theological problems that tend to defy simple logic. It was only until I actually began to investigate certain parts of the Bible (i.e. not the ones they read in church ad nauseum) that I gained a better perspective about the origins of my religion and the implications a full understanding of its message entails. For as many messages of peace and goodwill Jesus spouts, he gives equally intolerant messages about the horrors that await non-believers. Christian apologists always try to reconcile the Old Testament by saying Jesus changed all that, yet Jesus several times addresses that the laws of the old testament still hold fast, including one reference he makes toward the law about killing disobedient children. Even if this were not so, the the smoothing over of Old Testament brutality only weakens the argument the the Bible is the word of an infallible god and worth abiding by. Are you suggesting that an all-powerful, all-seeing being would actually let little mortals corrupt his message of salvation to the world? He's either incapable of stopping them, or he is malicious for letting such a travesty that has apparently caused thousands of years of misinterpretation occur.
Monotheism is by its very nature intolerant and logically absurd.
So your broke away from christianity? That's good, I went through somthing similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
But:
Why deny God completley?
Why don't you make your break from christianity complete?
Your still holding on to the christian definition of who and what god is. Your holding on to defined perameters that have no definition.
Why would God need to be all "seeing" to see what your doing. If he's God, he knows you did it before you did it.
Therefore- he knew you were going to leave the catholic church before you did.
He knew you were going to run into me, so I could tell you this. Now you do what you want with it.
I'm not defining God by Christian parameters. I'm criticizing the idea of a god based on those parameters because that's the background most people on this forum would have come from. I have equal disdain for the ideas behind the gods of Eastern religions and pagan religions. I don't deny that there could be some kind of "force" if you want to call it that exists beyond our own understanding thus far. It's just simply futile to try to make a guess at it and then abide by a certain conduct because that's what you imagine it would be like. I know there are mysteries to the sheer idea of existence, and about the universe itself. I'm not going to worship "existence" or the spacetime model because they have something to do with why I'm here on earth. You yourself are trying to pin attributes of which you have no proof upon a being that likely doesn't exist. If there is indeed something in the universe that you might wish to call "god", how can you possibly know that this concept cares about anything on earth? Or that it would know everything about everyone? Honestly, if there were something out there beyond anything fathomable by humanity, what would it have to say to humans anymore than humans have to say to ants or amoebas?Quote:
Originally Posted by Slippy Capalini
You make some interesting points....Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
You shouldn't make those kinds of assumption about people over an internet connection. And to answer your questions, we're not ants of amoebas.
I never said we were. I'm saying that an entity that's supposedly as vastly intelligent and advanced that it could be considered "god" probably wouldn't have anything to say to us. I don't even know why it would bother to pay attention to us in the first place. We don't try to communicate to animals who have mere nerve ganglions for brains, so a hypothetical "god-like" being probably wouldn't waste it's time on us. If it's really that advanced, it wouldn't expect us to comprehend what it knows, and furthermore, what it could it hope to gain by having humans believe in it? It's hypothetically all-powerful, or at the very least extremely powerful and transcendent, so why must it bother with humans at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Slippy Capalini
JeShow me where Jesus says Killing disobediant children is ok..Lmao..im sure if u come up with something it will either be very unclear and open to speculation or just a very bad translation all together. You used to be a Christian like i once was!? i don't believe that statment because if you was ever a Catholic yes you can see the flaws but you MUST see the good over bad, You make out as if Christianity is evil. Evil people can claim to be Christian (they are not!) same goes with all religions.Quote:
sus several times addresses that the laws of the old testament still hold fast, including one reference he makes toward the law about killing disobedient children. Even if this were not so, the the smoothing over of Old Testament brutality only weakens the argument the the Bible is the word of an infallible god and worth abiding by. Are you suggesting that an all-powerful, all-seeing being would actually let little mortals corrupt his message of salvation to the world? He's either incapable of stopping them, or he is malicious for letting such a travesty that has apparently caused thousands of years of misinterpretation occur.
God created Man in his form, We are his greatest creation..we are his seeds..his children..In a metaphorical sense. We create things like computer games buildings ect. When God created the universe who was there to see it? who was there to say ''wow! Props God!!'' orr (like you) ''damn, what a bastard! thats shit''. We are God's witness and our nature as human's is to praise or blame a metaphorical force that we don't understand and are not supposed to. God does not care about religion, My personal belief is if you leave the earth in a better state than it was when you entered the earth, you have done your up most best and being in certian religions or not won't matter. Jesus' message has been manipulated for other causes but this is not Jesus' intention the message of Christ was - God is our Father, We are brother's and sister's, Our Mother's are God's mother and To Love one another as He loves us. Treat people how you want to be treated and Do Not Follow Organised Religion!Quote:
If it's really that advanced, it wouldn't expect us to comprehend what it knows, and furthermore, what it could it hope to gain by having humans believe in it? It's hypothetically all-powerful, or at the very least extremely powerful and transcendent, so why must it bother with humans at all?
Holy shit, you've given me a smorgasbord of bullshit. Where to start?
Matthew 15Quote:
Originally Posted by Make~Sensi*
15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death
15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
This is the King James Version, the one that almost all Protestants use. If you find this translation doubtful, just check in any version "authorized" by the Caholic Church. It's still there. Undoubtedly, you'll come back and tell me that I'm interpreting it wrong. To me, this is the exact problem with the Bible and other "holy" texts. Indeed they are open to a variety of interpretations, and EVERYONE thinks theirs is right. You might take this message as Jesus rhetorically calling out the Pharisees for hypocrisy. A tribal society in a developing nation might take this as a literal command to execute children or young adults who rebel against their parents' wishes. There's nothing in the scripture to suggest which of these is the correct interpretation, so you'll still be absolutely sure your non-violent solution is right, while anyone who wishes to take it literally will be just as sure.
Now, also you claim that when I was Christian I must not have been a "real" Christian. Despite the religious bigotry in this statement, you may very well be correct, since I was never a hypocrite, swindler, liar, propaganda machine, and blind devotee like most Christian figureheads, from Saint Dominic to William Donahue. I was much closer to a Christian like Pascal or Kierkgaard who struggled endlessly to marry my religious faith with the reason and knowledge of the modern world. The main question that bugged me was how I could be certain that my Christianity was the correct religion when I could easily have been born a Jew, Hindu, Shinto, or any number of the thousands of religions on this earth. Was I to assume just because I was born into this faith it must be correct? If so, it's concievable I would feel that Hinduism was correct faith had I been born into it. The other things I could not stand about Christianity were the constant guilt trips it inflicted upon me as a teenager. The Catholic doctrines on sexuality and repentance for sin kept me in a constant state of self-loathing. When I finally abandoned it, I felt a great weight lift off my chest.
"i don't believe that statment because if you was ever a Catholic yes you can see the flaws but you MUST see the good over bad,"
How dare you tell me I "MUST" see the good over the bad? I won't deny there are many ideas of good intent in Christianity, but the bad far outweighs the good. One need only look back in history to see the horrors Christianity and other religions have unleashed upon the world. No sir, Christianity is flawed to the core because it's basic decree is that you accept God and Jesus as your creators and saviors, and suspend any kind of logic or statistic that could lead you astray from this. Secular thinking is always open to change of ideas, whereas religion is not.
Where does it say that Jesus allows the killing of disobediant children!?
How you managed to believe Jesus is saying he condones the killing of children proves how much you Want it to say this.
It sounds to me as if he was saying how wrong these so called commandments are. To your direct points about the old testament being so evil, Maybe you have a common knowledge with Jesus as he was killed for speaking against such things.
I can totally agrea with this statement, apart from your idea as to what a true Christian is...What you describes was the total opposite...but i understand what you mean.Quote:
Now, also you claim that when I was Christian I must not have been a "real" Christian. Despite the religious bigotry in this statement, you may very well be correct, since I was never a hypocrite, swindler, liar, propaganda machine, and blind devotee like most Christian figureheads, from Saint Dominic to William Donahue. I was much closer to a Christian like Pascal or Kierkgaard who struggled endlessly to marry my religious faith with the reason and knowledge of the modern world. The main question that bugged me was how I could be certain that my Christianity was the correct religion when I could easily have been born a Jew, Hindu, Shinto, or any number of the thousands of religions on this earth. Was I to assume just because I was born into this faith it must be correct? If so, it's concievable I would feel that Hinduism was correct faith had I been born into it. The other things I could not stand about Christianity were the constant guilt trips it inflicted upon me as a teenager. The Catholic doctrines on sexuality and repentance for sin kept me in a constant state of self-loathing. When I finally abandoned it, I felt a great weight lift off my chest.
Again you make some good points but just because people use God's name for evil deeds doesn't mean the religion is bad, I am not a Christian because i too see the illogical side into blind faith of any sort, yet i am proud to be baptised a Christian and to have certain morals based upon this religion's teachings. I do believe in God, Logically i believe not to believe all things where man has had the chance to manipulate them for his own profit. The Bible is just less than 2000 years old and in my view has expired where speculation like the quote you have used is apparent. The overall message to love one another as Jesus loved us and to repent for all wrong doings, The message of accepting Christ or perish in hell is void because Christ is not here to tell us personally and other people such as the romans have used this fear for their own profit. However True Christianity will obviously (in my view) be the correct way.Quote:
How dare you tell me I "MUST" see the good over the bad? I won't deny there are many ideas of good intent in Christianity, but the bad far outweighs the good. One need only look back in history to see the horrors Christianity and other religions have unleashed upon the world. No sir, Christianity is flawed to the core because it's basic decree is that you accept God and Jesus as your creators and saviors, and suspend any kind of logic or statistic that could lead you astray from this. Secular thinking is always open to change of ideas, whereas religion is not.
Everyone has their own beliefs and im pretty sure there is nobody who have the same beliefs as each other (deep down).
To say ''Fuck Jesus'' is pathetic when he is not to blame for the wrongs of so called Christianity.
I think you under estimate the intellignece of the animal kingdom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
Why would God pay attention to us? Maybe you should ask yourself why God isn't paying attention to you.
Furthmore- we can't comprehend what God knows, so how can we conclude what God wants either way in regards to what God wants us to believe in? Why even bother with those questions? That's why we're speculating now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Make~Sensi*
he actively sought followers. he told them they would not enter "the kingdom of god" unless they lived their lives in accordance with his teachings. he urged them to spread this message.
fuck jesus. he was a radical jewish charlatan responsible for billions of people mindlessly following his apocalypse-driven ideologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koolish
first point: "love you enemy" is not at all beneficial to those who have savage enemies. in fact, it would likely lead to the group's extinction, which is why (as i said before) christians never actually followed this "rule" (and thus became the most successful religious group of all time).
so my point is only a stupid person would advocate loving an enemy who intends to harm you or the people you love. but don't you find it ironic that the religion known for "love your brother" being at the supposed center of the faith's ideology has been one of the most pervasively violent faiths that has ever existed?
second point: when considered in historical context, socrates's intellectual achievements were tremendous. however, ideas that were novel 2000+ years ago have undergone significant modification over the years. just as newton's theory of gravity was modified and made obsolete by einstein's theory of general relativity, many of socrates' ideas have also undergone modification by more recent disciples who could analyze his work with a broader view of history. all i'm saying here is study the post-enlightenment philosophers and then tell me how applicable socrates' worldview is today.
well actually socrates plato and aristotle all based there philosophy on Egyptian knowledge and thought. but due to there limited intellect and world/universe view, they only got it half right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanface Huggah
the post enlightenment philos such as kant locke and aquinas revised many ideas that actually can be traced back to egypt.
ideas such as "same as above is below" "for everything there is a season" and the role/responsibility of Gov.
my point being that caucasian thought is fundamentaly disconected from humanism, altruism and ideals of a true community. so it takes a while for them to get with the program (4000 years?)
this is a result of living in a harsh mountain environment. white skin, hairy body, but also self serving and violent personalities, which are advantageous traits when resources are scarce. nature did not provide a bounty for them, nature threatens them, even the sun is harmful. so it is natural for them to use things like religion to slaughter and destroy.
when the muslims invaded and ruled europe they actually saved the people from disease hunger and social collapse. in most places they were welcomed with open arms.
for 1000 years the african educated and civilized the caucasian. then when they were ousted, they europeans burned the books and the bldgs then claimed the knowledge as their own......the rebirth aka renaissance
ima ignore the mountains of silliness in this post in the interest of sticking to the topic. but i will point out that aquinas was most definitely not a post enlightenment philosopher.Quote:
Originally Posted by STYLEMASTERR
in a documentary i viewed the early roman christians ended up being constantly persecuted and crucified. want to know what happened to St. Peter, the father of the church? motherfucker got crucified UPSIDE DOWN. the only reason the great persecution ended (which was not met with rebellion, mind you) was because the Roman emperor Constantine dreamt of the Cross and decided to conquer in this image. his successor later instigated Christianity as the state religion, and persecution ended. after that is when Christians got all power crazy. in a strictly spiritual sense, a true Christian is doing God's work when he loves and accepts his enemy. doing God's work is beneficial to a Christian. if you're talking of a way for a certain tribe to survive in the face of adversaries hell yeah not doing shit to your enemy will fuck you over. but this is RELIGION, not politics. it is a philosophical way of fashioning your ethical world view. if you do not agree with this view, which you obviously do not, it does not mean that objectively the intellect behind the opinion is flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanface Huggah
one of the things Jesus said was the greatest blessing was to be persecuted in his name. if you die because you believe in Jesus you already have enough of a love for him to do so anyways, and you end up being greatly rewarded in heaven. Christians are heavily afterlife oriented. so if loving your savage enemy because it was Jesus' message got you killed, God isn't going to hold that against you.
and yes, it is true that socrates' ideas have been modified, you are correct. but what i quoted did not deal with socrates' opinion. it dealt with him criticizing another's opinion. we don't need to modify socrates' criticism to illustrate my point.
ok this thread could easily turn into yet another heathens vs. the god-fearing fecesfest so i wanna focus on why i think it's fair to say jesus is a fuckwad.
Quote:
one of the things Jesus said was the greatest blessing was to be persecuted in his name. if you die because you believe in Jesus you already have enough of a love for him to do so anyways, and you end up being greatly rewarded in heaven.
what kind of monumental asshole goes around telling people they should devote their lives to his cause? think about that. why couldn't jesus just live a humble life -- stay in nazareth, raise a family, teach the community. what virtuous reason did he have to travel to jerusalem to proclaim his radical jewish-based beliefs, and how exactly has the consequences of his actions been beneficial for the world?
Some people really need to take a few classes or read some books on the history of early Christianity, and hell, the Jewish relgion as well. I'm not talking about reading the goddamn Bible (which isn't even intended as a history book). Please read some historical analyses of the origins of monotheistic thought in the middle east. Or at least read some things about the origins of the gospels.
because Jesus, according to Christianity, is God himself. in Christianity, heaven exists. in Christianity, the world will end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanface Huggah
he traveled around because if he really was God, and if people actually did need to know this to enter into heaven which really existed, the only way to let them know was to go around and spread the news. if you sit in one spot and teach a few people your words will be lost in time. Jesus didn't write so his words wouldn't survive, after mucking around a lot people remembered his words and they eventually decided to write 'em down. the concept of the Messiah is rooted in Judaism and Jesus was fulfilling what was said to be the Messiah's duties. certain Jewish sects who do not believe Jesus as the messiah believe others to be the Messiah.
and in Judeo-Christian teachings there is only ONE God. therefore, there is only one right answer. Jesus was trying to give everyone the answer. in Christianity the hypothesis that other religions will lead to heaven is an unacceptable one, that is why Jesus was telling people that there is only one way to get to God. and you know what, you seem to be heavily focusing on what is written in the Gospel of John. 3/4 Gospels do not cite Jesus claiming everything he did in the Gospel of John.
the consequences of strictly Jesus' message have been beneficial to those who adhere to them correctly (think of Mother Theresa). the world, however, has felt the blow of power hungry men who have learned to control the undereducated.
;oisahg'fga'og'oaiugc
you seem to be confused about who i'm saying "fuck you" to. i'm not saying it to the fictional character that supposedly slid out of a virgin pussy, walked on water, and rose from the dead zombie-style. that would just be silly. i'm talking about the real person who inspired his followers to create the world's most popular religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koolish
the person you described sounds like a delusional megalomaniac. i mean, what would you say if today you saw a man on the street talking about how he was god incarnate and that the apocalypse is near but if you do what he, the savior of humankind, says then you'll be rewarded when you die. according to historical accounts, not just bible stories, that's exactly what jesus did 2000 years ago!
and i'm glad you brought up mother theresa because there is no better way to exemplify how good intentions can result in terrible policies. yeah she did a lot of charitable work, but she also was a strong advocate of abstinence as the best way to prevent the spread of AIDS in africa. yes that's right, if it was up to her, condoms would be banned. i think i posted more examples earlier in this thread.
I haven't read any of the posts here, and im not gonna type no 1000 word essay to make a point, im just gonna keep this simple.
If you don't believe in Christ, fine, I will respect your opinion, it's so easy to say what you want on the net cos half of you pussies wouldn't be saying shit about Jesus face to face.......bottom line, if someone said fuck Jesus while im present, he's getting knocked the fuck out like Prodigy.
yeah, beat people up for jesus...good call
Your an ass.....you need to learn to respect other peoples beliefs, regardless of what you may think, it's called being tollerent. If you said fuck Jesus to my face, what you are really saying is fuck me, my mum, my grandparents, their way of life and understanding. Christianity was and still is a big part of my fams way of living, and having some dickhead say fuck Jesus with true spite behind his words to my face is gonna end up crippled.Quote:
Originally Posted by froth
Just want to say that this is not about me trying to act hard cos I don't have to proove anything to anyone here, but what I type I swear on my life I would carry out if anyone called me out on it.
no if i said fuck jesus to your face it means fuck jesus, doesnt have shit to do with your grandma
You need to rethink your post because I don't think you understood mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by froth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palehorse
Im ignorant? :lmao:
jesus is almagation of previous religions wrought together by jewish sheepherders and eventually romans themselves as a tool of manipulation. if you want to base your life on that well, at least its more credible than the nge
well at least christianity has at its heart notion of unity regardless of color or race; of selflessness. it is true you have to get through a lot of child sacrifice and bs to get to it. i feel the nge is more reactionary. of course there are those that argue the nge isnt really a religion at all, even though it certainly qualifies as one. i guess its more like freemasonry, without the history/renown/. but certainly the donations