http://theforeigner.no/pages/news/oslo- … or-terror/
More proof this religion is dangerous to others as well as the people who follow it.
The article notes he claimed to quote a philosopher on a single tweet; then, a single posting on Facebook, as a Christian Conservative --yet is a Free Mason, e-sport junkie? Those titles are terribly at odds. Also note an Islamic fundie group initially claimed responsibility and that French Ultraconservative group took notice. So what. Lastly, both those Social Network accounts are reported as being activated on July 17th, "Making their veracity" questionable. It is interesting to note the attack was on the Red-Green Coalition Labour Party camp. An odd thing as the party is pro socialist and controls much of the politics of Norway.
A lot of that article is speculation. Get the facts before you make that redundant claim. There is no evidence that he was a Christian, less a single FB line. You are pushing propaganda, as usual, and no one is falling for it anymore.
No wonder why your nonsensical determinism, personal war on Christianity causes so many conflicts.
There is nothing quite like mixing up cause and effect to get people all riled up and arguing over nonsense.
Crazy spans the spectrum. The crazy that did this just happens to have been (allegedly) a Conservative Christian. Tomorrows crazy will be related to some other group.
This so called Christian joined the church and not Jesus Christ. Christianity goes further than "thou shall not kill..." by believing that true believers should love their enemy. This deranged person came straight from hell. He belongs to the devils. All devils can have fun with him for a season.
Sooner or later we are all going to have to accept the fact that it isn't an 'us against them' world. We are all in this together. The blame for violence lies as much at everyone's feet as the persons that commit it.
Why is this a growing problem? What is everyone so scared of that they are drawn to hate groups? Where was the community during the months that led up to this attack?
We are all becoming so sure of our own agendas that we don't take the time to listen and give others the benefit of the doubt that they do have something of value to offer. From everything I have read this guy was radical, but when we allow people to become ostracized we allow violent emotions to fester until they search for an outlet in violent behavior.
Until we stop fighting and start listening, with an empathetic ear, we'll never see positive change. The violence will only grow. If people had simply reached out to many of the people that have committed these atrocities across the world before the act many of them might have been averted.
Right that's the message of every religion in the world, kill kill kill. No one ever kills for science, or country, or profit, or.... Religion is not guilty here, fundamentalism is.
Yeah. No one kills for religion. Never happened. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Religion is guilty here. But - you need to defend it because you are a believer and - well - lets face it and be honest. Your religious beliefs are more important than actual people.
Dude, why do you have to be so obtuse! I am not a believer. I just don't say stupid things like, "black people are killers," because a black person kills someone. People kill for food, does that make food a killer? People kill for all kinds of reasons, that does not make the whole category of reason guilty. Religion is a broad category that covers people and teachings that will kill for it and those diametrically opposed to killing for any reason.
Religion isn't guilty here, Christian fundamentalism and the Atheistic corporations like will teach and manipulate people's beliefs and fears for their own profit are guilty here.
No, a right wing extremist who called himself a Christian is guilty here.
I agree to a point, but a system, for example, a system that teaches people that blacks aren't human, is responsible for the behavior of the people it indoctrinates into this belief system, so if some KKK members shoot a bunch of black, then not only are those members guilty , but so to is the broader belief system. Christian Fundamentalism teaches an ancient and somewhat barbaric belief system- the Old Testament has God telling people to kill each other right and left, it's what Muslim terrorists believe (literally, it's their book too), the conservative media preaches xenophobia, fear and hatred of liberals, and anti-science...all these taken together do influence and promote the kind of actions this man took. He didn't event the ideology that dove him to do this, it was taught to him.
What about Jesus' answer to what is the supreme law of God? The answer was "love God with all of your heart, soul, and body, and love your neighbor as yourself." "On this hangs all other laws."
Relative to the hardness of the people's heart, the Moses Covenant was an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and God rolled many heads due to the hardness of hearts. Now we have a much better covenant with more gracious promises. But, for those who hearts are harden and choose to kill Christians, God has given us a right to defend ourselves, and we roll many heads while God is defending His Covenant and the body of Christ.
Try to kill Christians, and God's wrath shall befall on you. Christians are humble, but not wimps.
I said all of that to say we are taught the love covenant or the Son Of God Covenant, not to seek and kill nonbelievers. We do have the right to defend ourselves.
The bible is written unto a supernatural life and is utmost practical in the natural.
To alleviate your confusion, the new covenant (i.e. Christian bit)does not teach any killing whatsoever, lots of turning other cheeks and doing unto others, but no killing.
The new covenant draws reference to the old covenant, but unless something from the old covenant is reinforced in the new covenant, it has no bearing on a Christian walk, so anybody teaching killing has created a corruption of what scripture states, and just like the instructions on your electrical appliance state, failing to follow the instructions or misusing the appliance may cause injury or death.
Please do not blame Christ, who never preached or allowed for violence or killing.
I think you meant; "He did not invent the ideology that drove him to this it was taught to him" and again, I doubt his parents taught him to kill 92 people as part of their religious instruction, if they gave him any in the first case.
Scandinavians in the most part are not very religious.
The ideology he has acquired is racial hatred and right wing extremism, and from what I have seen he equates what he has done as a good thing, to sacrifice a few to save many, and I can see how he could have confused the sacrificial bit with how Christ died for all, but his error was in not being the sacrifice, but instead sacrificing others, that is very pagan and not to be found in the new covenant.
Unfortunately for the few folk who get psychotic about life, 2+2 can easily add up very differently that we would see it.
The problem with any fundamentalism is it is fundamentally "wrong." The Bible is not literally true. To teach people that it is is to confuse people's ability to discern truth from fiction, lies, myth; when you do that all kinds of negative consequences come about. When a person believe the Bible is God's reveal word and literally true, they've already believed one falsehood, why wouldn't they believe another?
You make a statement that you cannot prove, you are entitled to your opinion, but the statement you make is disqualified by your own standards of evidence.
Actually my statement is entirely provable, it you who do not believe in an objective reality. You've decided to believe the Bible, I guess, because you've decided to believe it. My standards for evidence, are standards of evidence, which puts the Bible into the same class of all other religious works, some history, a lot of myth, and retelling of older stories. We liberals (Muslim, Christian, Atheist, and all others) can get together and objectively look at history and see the limits of our own beliefs and doubt our beliefs. Fundamentalists of differing faiths get together and soon enough their killing each other. They can't doubt. They can't even consider the idea they're wrong, so they can't be objective. Considering the ultimate nature of reality is still unknown, there's little I can say about it for certain, except I can say the world wasn't created in seven days, it was never flooded, the old testament retells older stories, and the so called followers of Jesus have killed millions, repressed science over and over, and have even repressed understanding who Jesus was, if he ever was. Still, Gandhi, Tolstoy, and Jesus (even of only a myth) are my heroes.
He was probably born a catholic
this sort of thing is up their alley
Well, if so; his younger years were peaceful ones apparently. By the facts, he didn't become violent until after he became a fundamentalist.
Oh, and Protestants never persecuted anybody?
Mark...here is a quote I thought you might enjoy.
"Fear is the basis of the whole - fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the
parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand-in-hand."
- Bertrand Russell
You speak as if nonbelievers aren't the main contributor to violence. Christians have the answers to overcome fear. One is a fool if he claims to have no fear.
I didn't speak anything. I simply posted a Quote that I thought Mark would enjoy.
I would say that quote has something to do with why those who claim to be "christian" do such bad things. But of course that is my opinion.
A few Christians do bad things because we are all sinners, and some give in to temptation.
Should I hold a perfect standard to all people? God does. Are we capable of living up to...does trying gave more gains than not trying...
We are saved by the inward filling of God's Spirit...His Spirit is perfect.
Which is why I said "those who CLAIM to be "christian" and do bad things"
A true christian doesn't sin. Might have been born in sin and sinner until reborn as a christian. Anyone who sins is a sinner. Can't be a sinner and a Christian at the same time. It just doesn't work like that.
Christians who has been filled with God's Spirit doesn't give in to temptations of the world. This is ideal and perfect. Are any of us perfect at this time? Appears to me that Christianity is a process, a walk with the Lord, pushing into the perfect law of liberty from God. God rewards for trying and trying diligently.
Ok, If you say so.
Sounds to me like you are living the Christian life to get a reward. That doesn't sound very pious to me. Just my opinion though.
If the devil could take the rewards, than Christianity would be dead to us. Although, for the love of God, we are expected to live as did Job during his plight. I have lived thru much adversity while keeping my faith. The rewards were nonexistence with none in view, but at God's timing I received much rewards.
But the "devil" does get rewards. He is accredited with all the bad. Rewards can be good or bad...the devil just gets all the bad ones...
The devil can take the good rewards from the Christian. It's a bad act that the devil enjoys. Yes, in a sense, it's a reward to the devil.
I must add to my previous comment that God treats all the same including the devil. The devil have all the rights from God as each of us does. God gives rain for the life of the good man and the evil man. During God's final harvest, the weeds shall be harvested with the wheat, and before placing in the barn the weeds shall be separated from the wheat, and burned while the wheat is stored.
If the devil would do a good deed, he would receive the reward for such act...believe it or not. Of course, the devil has never done a good deed. LOLOL!
How do you know if the devil has done a good deed or not? Do you know him personally? The Devil can only do what God allows him to do. so if the devil can only do bad, then that is all god will allow him to do and by result is actually God doing bad things.
Wrong! The devil has freewill just the same as us. Have you heard any report that the devil over the past 3 million years has done a good deed?
The devil does not have freewill. None of the angels do. He can not do anything unless allowed. Read your bible better. Only us humans have freewill. Why do you think he was so upset to begin with?
Re-read your bible. The devil has freewill, and is treated the same as any human by God.
So then you believe in at least 2 Gods...One Good and One Bad
5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.
6 And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to.
God gave the devil this authority, but not freewill and since God gave him this authority, God is responsible for the devil's actions. That is unless God doesn't control all things?
6 One day the angelsa came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satanb also came with them.
7 The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it.”
8 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
9 “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied.
10 “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land.
11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”
12 The Lord said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.” Then Satan went out from the presence of the Lord.
Once again we see God allowing satan/devil to do harm to man (with rules of course). Still can not find this freewill you spoke of that the devil has. Maybe you could enlighten me.
Firstly, Satan was cast to the earth liken to lightening. He was then earth bound as man. God gives rain to water the good man's crop and the evil man crop. God is a respecter of no person. God loves everyone the same even the devil.
The devil tempted Jesus on the mountain with the devil's influence of evil that is in mankind. The devil only have the extra power that we give him, and this is from the evil that lurks in the heart of men. In other words, if the world had a choice to choose the devil ways or Jesus' ways, the world would choose the devil's ways. Is this an indictment of our greed and deceit for gains of material things. You bet it is!!
Furtherly qualifying freewill of the devil, when God kicked the devil out of His Kingdom the devil no longer had supernatural powers. He is very smart and conniving because he has previous knowledge of mankind exceeding that of any man. The devil has freewill, and is the popular one on earth; thereby, using His popularity to influence men to oppose God. We give the devil his power the same way we give power to our politicians.
God knows all, and controls all, but has given satan the devil and mankind freewill to be used for God's purpose or oppose God.
I'm sorry? And just where to you come up with this information?
Many scriptures refer to the supernatural powers of angels in heaven. Being in heaven is supernatural. Scriptures describes their jobs; satan's job was to praise God. We live in a fallen world, and none have supernatural powers. So, it's all the scriptures that describe heaven and all that describe this natural world.
The bible would never be bound if man attempted to write everything little thing; genres are noted more than sufficient for man.
Where does it say any of the points you mention in your replys in the bible? And where does it say that the devil/satan lost any of his powers? Or where does it say he even had any powers? It is assumed he was an angel...a Cheribum...but of course that is only assumed as well.
I used the bible passages mentioned above to back up my statements. Where are yours?
Many scriptures imply that heaven is supernatural; Angels have jobs such as satan who was to praise God; this is in the supernatural. Our fallen world is separated from God; thereby, no supernatural powers exist. Satan was kicked to earth...with us. Satan has never been reported to have done a Godly deed least perform any supernatural act against man with supernatural powers coming from God only. Ain't going to help!!
Evidence please? A 2000 year old book on abject, silly, nonsense, does not count.
Are you just making up some kind of Grimm adventure story?
You should write children's books.
I guess that was not in the script.
Pray that you don't remain ignorant all of your life. Please don't come back with a two cent reply that you don't want for me to pray for you. I am doing it for MY own good!~!!! Damn!!!!!!!!LOLOLOLOL!!Your ignorance hurts even me.
Typical! Angry, Christian, childish foolishness. It appears that you have nothing at all rational to defend your outlandish silly beliefs, so you jump right to abusive ad hominem attacks.
This response is completely irrational, irrelevant and childish, and shows that....
YOU HAVE NO DEBATING SKILLS!
I only see your opinion or thought as to what is said in scripture. I still do not see the actual scriptures that you are obtaining this information. I provided mine to support my comments.
DoubleSciopion, Man, you are doing me a job! For starters, Theology is suppose to be the big pictures of what the scriptures are collectively speaking. Read the bible; theology helps to interpret the scriptures. Although, the scriptures explicitly states that satan was Lucifer whose job was to praise God, but he decided that he should have praises the same as God. Please read or re-read the scriptures. If you don't, than you are going to continually slaughter me.
Nowhere in the bible does it say that Satan is Lucifer. And as I have told you before I have a PHD in Biblical Studies. You might want to reference your bible with the "original" hebrew version. You are talking with your interpretation of what is meant by the bible. There is only 2 places (depending on your verion of bible) that even uses the word Lucifer.
You have still not given an example of satan/devil/lucifer having freewill. (Using actual scripture. Book, Chapter and verse(s))
"How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning..
(I always understood that Lucifer was his Angelic name-until the Fall etc.)
That is one of the places I was talking about. The word used, lucifer is not associated to satan or the devil though in either of these cases.
Look at this link and see the different interpretations of how that word and phrase is used.
Why not? He was the dude kicked out of heaven by God (Lucifer = light). Maybe the devil has stolen those scriptures from your bible?
Jesus says paraphrasing, "I saw devil/satan/lucifer fall from heaven like lightening...". Same dude.
Has satan closed a door on you?
There is such a thing as a bad Christian, look at Henry VIII. But there is also such a thing as person who calls himself a Christian but has never stopped to think what it means. I think what we really have here is an example of the axiom: "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". What I mean is, power in the hands of the stupid is bound to be problematic.
Ridiculous heresay...just to back your agenda. The Columbine shooters targeted several Christians...and I'm pretty sure that Timothy McVeigh and the 911 terrorists were not Christians...nor Conservative.But then...you need to make a broad generalization to make a point from your end. So Childish!
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vi … eId=325765
You're so funny, little man!
Dear me. Defend the faith at all costs no matter how many insane killers it produces? Wow. So what if some rag is prepared to lie about it? This is why your religion disgusts me so. It produces people like you.
I accessed the link; following words are noteworthy:
"Piecing together Breivik's various posts on the Internet, many media reports have characterized the terrorist – who says he was upset over the multiculturalist policies stemming from Norway's Labour Party – as a "right-wing, Christian fundamentalist."
Yet, while McVeigh rejected God altogether, Breivik writes in his manifesto that he is not religious, has doubts about God's existence, does not pray, but does assert the primacy of Europe's "Christian culture" as well as his own pagan Nordic culture.
Breivik instead hails Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary theories stand in contrast to the claims of the Bible, and affirms: "As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science, and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."
seems he is more of a extremist atheist; not a christian.
Isn't it hilarious how that silly little man calls it "propaganda" when something says what he doesn't like!!!!
However, if he does like what something says, it's "truth!"
I wish I could just be all "willy nilly" with the world like that!!!!!!
I don't think religion has got anything to do with this mans actions. Just because he say's he is a Christian does not necessarily mean that he follows and practices Christianity as stated in the Bible (funny coming from a Muslim ).
Muslims have been in the firing line since the end of the cold war especially here in the Western Media, so I know 98% of Muslims, Jews, Hindus or Christians will not actually go and harm others, but unfortunately when the remaining 2% in the fringe who claim to belong in one of these religious groups does something as awful as that in Norway, society points fingers at everyone who follows a particular religion - that is wrong in my view.
You could also say that poeple who drive cars are dangerous because of the staggering loss of life in car accidents. Or maybe you could say that passion should be outlawed because so many poeple are victims of crimes of passion.
It should also be noted that in the last 100 years governments that were hostile to religion killed some 100 million poeple ie. communist china and russia, nazi germany, cambodia, Cuba ect.
Is what you're saying that religion does cause a lot of conflicts if millions were killed because of them?
Freedom in itself is dangerous and costly because poeple are also free to do great harm. But I still think freedom is worth it!
So does Norway, and have just said so through a government spokesperson on ABC radio.
People will not likely do great harm when they are free, that makes no sense.
Why doesn't this make sense? How about a teenager who has the freedom to take the family car out riding with his friends, with the possibility of getting them all killed?
Education plus positive self-discipline is essential to save humanity from such occurings.
When children get a drivers licence I contend that most parents worry.
I know I have, and now worry for the oldest grandchild and try to drive her rather than have her picked up by friends.
She will be an licenced driver soon, and typically has bought an old car she can afford, a problem most young people have is not enough money to buy something with eleven airbags like some of the newer cars such as BMW have.
The only thing I can do about the risk is try to help her become a good driver by teaching her about safety issues and being one of her licensed drivers when she is learning to drive.
You have to accept that they can die or be injured falling over on the footpath or walking the dog, and be brave. I have never stopped my kids from going out and being with their friends which is the only way I can see that may lessen risk.
Can't see where Christ featured in 'china and russia, nazi germany, cambodia, Cuba' did I miss the mass changing of faith from secular socialism to faith in Christ?
Or were you simply trying to be contentious for contentions sake?
LOL! Following Christ is only one religion or did you miss that memo?
Yep, that memo never crossed my desk! so let's broaden it, which religions are/were practiced in 'china and russia, nazi germany, cambodia, Cuba'
Guess Christianity was not one of them, and forget trying to say Hitler was a Christian, he was a Neo-Pagan, nope they were all quasi socialist or communist nirvanas.
Apologies, but as we are in a thread called
Religion and PhilosophyChristianity, the Bible and JesusChristian LivingConservative Christian murders 80+ in Norway
We were talking about Christianity.
Sorry, but that is a safely guarded secret kept under lock and key from Christians prying eyes. We wouldn't want to let them know other religions exist in the world in case they get all riled up again.
Who would get riled up! other religions have always existed, shucks I live in Penang, we have the full range on offer here and nobody except the Muslims mind a bit who talks about whatever.
You really should get out more, there's a whole world out here that is laid back and contented, and for the most part, we all get along.
Are you one of the 12% of Americans who own a passport, have you ever been 'out' or is your whole existence governed by what you are fed locally?
Nice cheap shot at me, sure, you get along, alright.
But no answer to the question?
OK I can surmise what the answer would have been.
Why does everyone assume everyone here is American?
You are correct Emile, and as our Troubled Man has yet to produce any actual hubs, we know nothing about him, he may just be a sock puppet, time will tell, he may even put his hand to writing on this writers site.
I presume most are American because the site stats show mostly Americans visiting here, and as he did not answer my question, I presumed my summation was correct.
He could of course answer and refute, but I think he is the king or queen of swift and pointless retort.
Now I will away to my bed, not being in the Northern hemisphere it's gone midnight for me.
Sweet dreams, or whatever they say on that side of the world.
Whoa! More cheap shots? Salvo from the broadside? Nice examples of you "getting along"
Who would get riled up? *blink blink*
Come on now, you probably saw the 'Harley Davidson' shirt I was wearing.
In aqua silver's defense, your post is the first I knew that your had on a harley shirt in your avatar.
I never noticed it either ,til you pointed it out.
The (nic)name is more memorable (I think)
It's the motorcycle that dreams are made of and lots of babies made on, too.
You obviously have a passion for Harleys.
Why dont you write a Hub about them ,search Goggle keywords and choose from what millions are looking for (Information on Harleys etc)...
When I lived in New Zealand (100% made) I remember seeing many Harleys with bare-breasted girls on the back, they raised a lot of money for Cancer etc. ( though of course 200 bikes is nothing to whats in the states- was proud they gave their time for a great charity
The drive on Harleys through the city bought the city to a standstill... and was called 'Boobs on Bikes'.
When I was in Altoona,Pa last year,many ,many Harleys rumbled through ..
Really did look spectacular!!!!
I bought this point up a while back. The world is a big place.
Some Americans have not even heard of most of it apparently.
Hey. We're more global minded than you think. But, sometimes it's hard to be when everyone focuses so hard on us. It's like people think the world revolves around us. It's very off putting.
Some of you are more global thinkers.
We have a strong relationship with the USA, but also with Asia as we are a in that part of the world.
Ignoring England, Europe, Australia, China, New Zealand is just plain ignorant.
In many cases, they don't know anything other than stereotypes of the rest of the world at best.
Well, if it makes you feel any better; I try to remember where everyone I've talked to comes from. It's fascinating to me; how much alike we all are even though we've all grown up in such different circumstances.
It won't be the same for our kids, this will be the norm for them; but most of us are old enough to remember a very different world. Before the internet and the connectivity to the world we all now take for granted.
You have that right!
My youngest gkids at 5 can point to more countries on the atlas than many adult Americans can already.
Apparently they learned where the countries are in pre-school.
Parents these days need to live up to the standards set by excellent kids TV.
OK. Well, if we are going to brag on our kids, I'm in. We had my son on the computer from the time he was about three. I know it was just rote memory and he didn't understand much about what he knew, but we had puzzle games where he had to put the states in their places and one with the countries. He could name most the countries and states just by their shapes.
You couldn't pay me to be a teacher, but it's fun working with your own kids.
It's great with your own kids, and please brag as much as you like!
The capacity young children display in learning is being handled well at school these days too, at least in out school. The girls are both writing and spelling in preps after 5 months of school, and are fond of finding impressive words then wearing them out!
Kids are pure joy!
Ya wanna brag about your kids? You have an audience!
That is so true.
My dad forced us to learn about other countries of course it wasnt force ,but when you are 13 yrs old and the outside world beckons ,doing dishes and being quizzed about general knowledge was soooooooo old fashioned.
Even friends who came to visit (God help them ,lol) were treated the same way...and my father wasnt shy about sex education either ,long before the 'experts'decided to introduce the topic.
Well, I had it lucky. We lived in other countries when I was a kid, but I remember when we first moved to the states (back to the states for him). I was twelve and it was so strange not having access to the ingredients for the foods we were used to eating. You had to go all the way into town and find an international market for even the basics.
My dad wasn't much much of a talker, but he did ensure we got a good work ethic out of our upbringing, which I've definitely learned to appreciate over the years.
One thing I have noticed too is that people who have traveled outside of their own country seemed to be more open minded over a wide range of topics.
Not so insular.
True, but I have to say I am fascinated with those people. Not the ones who are dogmatic and pushy about what they believe, but the ones that are contented and happy in their little world.
I used to do a lot of trail riding and there is an entire cross section of humanity on the trail. Everything from judges to brick masons. I could ride all day and talk to the ones that didn't know anything about anything fifty miles away from their homes. Didn't know. Didn't care. I'd ask them what they thought about what was going on in the world and they would just look at me and say, 'How does that affect me?' Just as serious as they could be. Crocodile Dundee attitudes.
We shake our heads about that, but on many levels, they have a peace that the rest of us so curious about everything will never find.
I am similar to you in that I am fascinated by what people have to say.
I remember when I first traveled to the U.S and being asked for a donation by a monk from Tibet, we got talking about my home country and cricket (of all things), 5mins later and I sat in the sun with a guy from Jamaica who told how his sister came to the U.S to make money weaving hair,he was looking for money too, told him I dont carry cash ,but happy to share my muffin with him ,lol.
He sang to me instead. Pretty good too.
I had a 6hr layover and between the Tibet Monk ,singing Jamaican, 80 yr old Texan and Aussie family returning home ,I filled up the time really fast.
I never even left the building.
I am constantly amazed by people for various reasons, and I also feel enriched for having being part of their lives ,be it briefly.
That's one of the great things about traveling and meeting people from all over. The news gives the perception of discord throughout the world; but I've found that the ones I meet, we have so much in common.
People are truly the same, the world over; if you stop and listen to what they have to say. It's refreshing and heartwarming.
Dont worry the A.N.Z.A.C'S know it doesnt (revolve around the USA)
Maybe because many are ,but yes it is wrong to assume.
Sorry, but you take a cheap shot at me after saying you get along and then actually don't know the answer to that question? LOL!
Can't see where Christ featured in Nazi Germany? Excuse me? What religion do you think Nazi Germany was? Why do you think Hitler could rouse a whole nation to hate Jews? Dude, no Jesus didn't drop out of the sky and tell the Nazi's to attack the world, but all the Nazi's were praying and praising Jesus in church every Sunday. Concentration Camp guards still took in there Sunday services to Jesus.
Tumbletree, I'm afraid that's not true. Nazi Germans were anti-religion. Christian Germans who had been forced to join the Hitler youth had to sneak to church and at their peril. Read up on what Hitler had to say about belief in God.
Of course, wherever a "cult of personality" can be established, the other religions will be a threat. It's not just religions that are the threat, many other facets of a society will threaten that cult so they either need to be controlled or eliminated.
Are you actually saying that Christianity is as much a threat as Nazism?
It very well could be, but that's not what I said.
In order for Nazism to be established with Hitler as the "cult of personality" as it's head, it needed to control or eliminate any threats of establishing it, religion was just one minor threat that had to be dealt with. There were other threats that took precedence and priority over the threat of religion.
Positive Christianity (German: Positives Christentum) was a slogan of Nazi propaganda adopted at the NSDAP congress 1920 to express a worldview which is Christian, confessional, vigorously opposed to the spirit of "Jewish Materialism", and oriented to the principle of voluntary association of those with a common racial-ethnic background.
1 Theological and doctrinal aspects
2 Origins of the idea
3 In Nazi ideology
4 See also
5 Further reading
 Theological and doctrinal aspects
Adherents of Positive Christianity argued that traditional Christianity emphasized the passive rather than the active aspects of Christ's life, stressing his sacrifice on the cross and other-worldly redemption. They wanted to replace this with a "positive" emphasis on Christ as an active preacher, organizer and fighter who opposed the institutionalized Judaism of his day. At various points in the Nazi regime, attempts were made to replace conventional Christianity with its "positive" alternative.
Theological and doctrinal differences included:
Rejection of Jewish-written parts of the Bible (including the entire Old Testament)
Claiming "Aryanhood" and non-Jewishness for Christ
The political objective of national unity, to overcome confessional differences, to exterminate Catholicism, and to unite Protestantism into a single unitary Christian national socialist church
 Origins of the idea
Part of a series on
Flag of Nazi Germany
Category Category · Portal Portal
v · d · e
Positive Christianity grew out of the Higher Criticism of the nineteenth century, with its emphasis on the distinction between the historical Jesus, and the divine Jesus of theology. According to some schools of thought, the saviour-figure of orthodox Christianity was very different from the historical Galilean preacher. While many such scholars sought to place Jesus in the context of ancient Judaism, some writers reconstructed a historical Jesus who corresponded to anti-Semitic ideology. In the writings of such anti-Semites as Emile Burnouf, Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Paul de Lagarde, Jesus was redefined as an "Aryan" hero who struggled against Judaism. Consistent with their origins in Higher Criticism, such writers often either rejected or minimized the miraculous aspects of Gospel narratives, reducing the crucifixion to a tragic coda to Jesus's life rather than its prefigured culmination. Both Burnouf and Chamberlain argued that the population of Galilee was racially distinct from that of Judea. Lagarde insisted that German Christianity must become "national" in character.
 In Nazi ideology
Such ideas were eagerly seized upon by the Nazi movement, which circulated them in its journals such as Der Stürmer and Völkischer Beobachter, both of which stressed the "Nordic" character of Jesus. However, the party was careful to stress that Positive Christianity need not contradict the traditional theologies of established churches. As early as 1920 the Nazis proclaimed in their 25-point program that the Party favored freedom of religion as long as it did not corrupt German morals or threaten the existence of the state, and that,
"[t]he Party as such takes its stand on a positive Christianity but does not tie itself in the matter of confession to any particular denomination. It fights the spirit of Jewish materialism inside and outside ourselves."
Despite this, a number of Nazis openly challenged the established churches. Alfred Rosenberg, editor of Völkischer Beobachter, developed a radical version of Positive Christianity in The Myth of the Twentieth Century, in which he argued that the Catholic and Protestant churches had distorted Christianity in such a way that the "heroic" and "Germanic" aspects of Jesus's life had been ignored. For Rosenberg, Positive Christianity was a transitional ideology that would pave the way to the revival of fully Aryan religions. Its symbol was the orb of the sun in the form of a sun cross.
Hitler distanced himself from Rosenberg's more radical ideas, wishing to retain the support of the conservative Christian electorate and social elite, but he emphasized the desirability of Positive Christianity. As an aspect of Gleichschaltung, the regime planned to nazify the Protestant Church in Germany (Evangelical Church) by unifying the separate 28 state churches under a single national church that was controlled by the German Christian faction. After some initial setbacks, the Nazis' candidate Ludwig Müller was elected the first Reichsbischof of the new Reichskirche (so-called German Evangelical Church) in September 1933. However, the German Christians' theological initiatives met with resistance from some pastors, most notably Martin Niemöller, who organized the Pastors' Emergency League. Following this failure, Hitler backtracked on attempts to directly nazify the churches.
The German Faith Movement founded by Jakob Wilhelm Hauer adopted a more thoroughly Aryanized form of the ideology, claiming to represent the essence of the "Protestant" spirit by mixing aspects of Christianity with ideas derived from "Aryan" religions such as Vedic Hinduism and "Aryo"-Persian religiosity (Manicheanism, etc.). They attempted to separate Nazi officials from church affiliations, banning nativity plays and calling for an end to daily prayers in schools.
With the fall of the Nazi regime in 1945, Positive Christianity as a movement fell into obscurity. It continues to be espoused by some Christian Identity groups.
VoltaireZ, I didn't know those details, that's extremely interesting. There are several things at work here, I think. Firstly, it is proof of a religion not being a genuine faith if it is manufactured to fit around certain prejudices. Removing the divine and miraculous from a religion would render it powerless, how clever of the Nazis to have known this. Shame on those Christians for slicing up the Bible to make it suit their unChristian leanings.
I would say that this was another example of how divisive it is to put a book at the centre of a religion. (Those who have corresponded with me will be bored to tears of this subject, but we have just been discussing this in a thread titled 'why didn't Jesus write a book?' Having a book at your fingertips, rather than the indisputable knowledge of action, enables people to critically analyse and rearrange the the components of belief to such an extent that it all becomes unbelievable. The Nazis hated the Catholics because there was no tool with which to obscure the meaning and therefore no way of redirecting the power, as they were able to do with some protestants.)
The Nazi idea of Positive Christianity would only have appealed to people with Nazi leanings already, which is to say atheistic and human-centred.
All religions are manufactured around certain prejudices, Lizzie. Notice how women are considered not as worthy as men in the old testament. The society at the time of these biblical myths affected the books themselves.
The OT is a history of the Jewish people and of Jewish law. Ask a Jewish person, it's not about faith but about order and obedience. It doesn't pretend to be written by God, or pretend to be something it is not. What it shows as examples of living are highly imperfect, for the large part. Women play a pretty crappy role in it, its true. The role of women in the NT is quite different. The female figures, though few, are highly revered and important.
Christianity did not start with a book. That's a really hard thing for people in Britain and America to get their heads around because of our predominant protestant emphasis on the Bible. Christianity had no reliance on a book for hundreds of years. In other words it is a faith- led religion at heart.
Can you show me evidence of christianity before the first anonymous writer of "Matthew" penned the story?
"Christianity had no reliance on a book for hundreds of years. In other words it is a faith- led religion at heart."
A link to back up this quoted statement would be greatly appreciated.
The evidence of Christianity existing before the Bible is that Christians, ie, followers of Christ, wrote the documents which were compiled and called the New Testament some 80 years after the crucifixion. Up until then Christianity had been practiced without a book. Christianity continued to be practiced without a book for a long time. If was over 300 years AD before Constantine Christianised Rome and took up the mantle.
A don't have a link for you I'm afraid. I live in a world of books. My knowledge comes from a Catholic upbringing (like the Jews, we know our history) and from university study and just general learning.
I already knew you had nothing to back up your statement, Lizzie.
The catholic church, among others, is known for corrupting many of the ancient documents in the attempt to provide proof of the existence of Jesus as there is no documented evidence he ever lived at all.
Even the works of Josephus were edited hundreds of years after he wrote them in one of these outrageous displays of church corruption. Fortunately, there were earlier copies of his highly valuable records of the times written long before the shameful corruption by the church.
You are relying on hearsay oral myths instead of actual documents like all christians unless you have some evidence to the contrary. Book references will be fine to prove your point.
And I already knew that there was nothing I could say to break you from the idea of the Book. Voltaire has just pointed out how it was the very fact of having a book which enabled a religion to be corruptly used. You may argue that the corruption of the few renders the tradition of 2000 years null and void if you like. Anti-Semites have been using that kind of argument against Jews for centuries.
I have no interest in arguing whether what is said in the Book is true or not since I am saying how a real faith cannot be reliant on physical evidence. If it was then you wouldn't call it faith.
You can dispute the history books which tell you about the existence of Christians if you like; Christians who were tortured or put to death for practicing their beliefs. History is also relative and subject to speculation and about what you choose to agree with. The post-reformation protestants, for example, could push the idea that Catholics were ignorant and illiterate because they spend 100years smashing and burning the books and cultural relics of that religion and rewrote history to suit themselves. We continue moronically to use the same such sources today which is why we cannot imagine Christianity existing purely in practice and example, as it was.
If you want to read up on some examples of a living faith, maybe start with Bede's The Ecclesiastical History of the English people, written in the 7th century, or The Canterbury Tales from the 14th century, or perhaps even Dante's Divine Comedy from the 13th century. For modern revisionist history on the subject The Stripping of the Altars, by Eamon Duffy. Or maybe just have a small tour of Churches across Europe and consider what was the thinking behind the ordinary folk who built them. The Victorian, John Ruskin, also had much to say on the subject in The Nature of the Gothic and The Stones of Venice.
We are completely off subject here, I know, but lets be honest, the premise of this thread is completely ridiculous so who cares.
Easily. Mark and the Pauline epistles all pre-date Matthew, in spite of its appearing first in the New Testament.
But all of them are renderings of oral tradition, you are correct. Unfortunately, that makes Lizzie correct, too, to a degree. Though the worship wasn't around a "book", it was centered around the oral tradition of the stories that would eventually make up that book.
By the way Lizzie, women are not that revered in the New Testament, either. There are a few that are seen in a positive light, but doctrine regarding their role that appears in the NT makes them entirely subservient.
I stand corrected, Bruce. I meant to list Mark instead of Matthew in my post to Lizzie.
But the point is still the same. None of the gospels were written contemporarily with the life span of the supposed messiah referred to in the gospels.
Yes, some oral traditional myths were included in the bible, while others were discarded as not being "inspired by god." Depending on the particular mind set of the mortals who claimed to be "inspired", of course.
Thomas Jefferson removed all of the "miracles" from his version of the Bible, but the Bible has always been a product of political consensus and rewritten to serve those in power. Notice Pontius Pilatus and the Romans are blamed for Jesus' crucifixion, convenient considering the Romans were the power in that time and place. It's obvious that the Romans actually killed Jesus as a dangerous rebel, and then blamed the Jews for killing their own savior. They had the power to coerce how early Christianity was taught. I'd be that the Christians that taught the Romans killed their profit, were killed themselves, and those who claimed the Jewish leaders killed Jesus, were left alone.
In a very real sense, this is the theology of the The Fellowship, or The Family, a group of right wing religionists within the Senate and the House. They emphasize the power of Christ and suggest that true faith will allow that power to be theirs. They essentially see Christ as the pathway to being the Superman.
A tree is know by its fruit, and this man was a nut, not a true Christian!
Sometimes True Christians and nuts can be the same.
Yes and the OT god was the tree that the fruit of extreme christianity fell not too far from.
This guy was yet another religious extremist who wanted to "teach" by killing.
Just as the bible says to do to those filthy unbelieving muslims.
I'm looking at this 6 hours later. Read any news you want to report?
No he got it backwards. In his stupidity he thought he would light the fires of hatred for muslims by hurting his own countrymen to set them against them.
We do have a few fruit, flakes and nuts in the club, granted! True Christians are loving and kind, so it is easy to tell the difference.
Read some history books. Please stop lying at me to defend your dangerous and mind damaging religion.
You are not my friend either. My friends do not constantly berate me for not believing nonsense and speak garbage at me to defend their beliefs.
One crazy man out of four and half million peaceful people shows you how religion is dangerous? Clutching at straws again? Shabby debate Evo Guy. Very poor.
Religion can be very dangerous when it is associated with sexual deprivation.
I think so, because we have proof that sexual deprivation induces hysteria that can easilly become massive.
And maybe one of the reasons our monotheist religions are so tight assed on the subject is to preserve their subjects in a excedentary energetical state so their energy can be canalized either to the cult, or to war in the name of that same cult's object.
It is by far much more difficult to convinced a well fed, healthy, sexually satisfied and litterate person to involve theirself in an aggessive action, than a frustrated (sexually, economically), illiterate one.
well, the Romans, the Greeks and the Egyptians were pretty sexually permissive. I wouldn't have called them pacifist. The Aztecs liked t put it about a bit too. I would say they had some issues also.
Ceasar and the pharaon were gods too. Or else, god's representatives at least and had their own largely devoted masses.
Please, be kind enough to note that when I say "sexually satisfied", I'm not talking about permissiveness.
And if all legion soldiers were litterate enough, such a thing as the roman empire would have never existed, I think (or I hope, so my point keeps its consistency).
I agreee that my argument is exposed in a simplistic schematic manner, but the essential is there.
Well it's an interesting angle to use sex as one of the problems associated with religion. The repression of sexual desire cause people to become psychotic? Do you regard chastity as repression?
I'm not sure if there is such a thing as 'sexually satisfied'. I like what John Updike said : " sex and money are alike...only too much is enough".
I would not say "psychotic", perhaps "tense", wich is not exclusive to sexual repression, but common to repression in general.
Of course sexual repression is only possible on subjects who experience sexual desire.
Chastity would not be possible without repression for these latter.
Yes "I can't get no satisfaction".
"Sexually satisfied" is maybe an ephemeral state. That would explain that healthy people periodically concede more or less time to sexual practice.
Sexual satisfaction could be connected with a "balanced" hormonal blood flow.
It has very beneficial effects on the soul, that's for sure.
I think you can be enslaved by sexual desire regardless of how much you are getting. I also think that we make general rules about sex which apply to some people and not others. Some people are just plain rampant. Others, like us in England, take the polite approach and only have sex if absolutely necessary and if there is nothing else to do on a rainy day before afternoon tea.
OK. I am moving to London. I hear it rains alot there...
Generalizations can be very very abusive. I don't know if all British would agree with your statement.
Polite approaches are implicit of course, with some variations though.
It is the first time I see the expression "absolutely necessary" applied to sex outside of procreation.
Blow me down !
Well you can always play scrabble in a rainy day before afternoon tea instead of having sex. There are people to whom sex is just disgusting.
A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Jesus the Christ. To make the claim that you or anyone else is a Christian, you must have a track record of living like a Christian. You reference this quote as your sorce: "A Facebook account with the same display picture as shown on the Twitter account describes Breivik as a “Christian Conservative”. He lists his interests as “Freemasonry, hunting, bodybuilding and e-sport”. However, this account appears only to have been active since 17th July, the same date as the Twitter account, casting some doubt on its veracity."
That is far from proof, and not even credible. But then your faith is based on fake 'evidence" too. Evolution has often been 'shown' to be true, and latter revealed that thier proof was pig bone or something unrelated. Yet blinded from the trueth, and hate filled, you jump at every chance to defame the only other possible answer, the trueth.
Why are your tripping. There are crazy or rather mentally deranged Christians just as there are mentally deranged others.....
Athiest Murders 6 million plus in Russia....
you can make all the unfounded comparisons you want, but just because a crazy person that happened to be "Christian" killed people doesn't mean it was due to his religion... Are all athiests power hungry, murderous dictators? No? Lenon and Stalin were...
To be religious is to follow a belief system. This does not make one a Christian as many believe. True Christianity involves a personal knowledge of God and who He is, in the fullness of His Godhead - Father Son and Spirit. Many people call themselves Christians. but are simply religious, following a form of Godliness without relationship. based on the Bible, A real Christian knows Jesus as a person and has a personal relationship with The Father, the Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Especially Jesus, the saviour who died, not only for those who choose to love Him. but also for those who hate Him. These are not your religious fanatics who kill, but those who would die to bring the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. Most people in the world call us haters, but the word say's "No greater love has he. than he who would lay down his life for a friend" much less a stranger or enemy.... To all those who judge Christianity -
First study what a true Christian is, before judging him.
How is it a sacrifice when neither Jesus nor his dad gave up anything they couldn't get back?. I would give up my own son to save the world if I could simply bring him right back again.
Sacrifice means to give up something. In this case, neither god nor his boy gave up anything.
I havent heard about this yet. But if a "Christian" killed someone then he is not a true Christian. And of course he will go to hell for committing murder.
No offense to you personally, but if he practiced Christianity, then he was a Christian.
I get tired of the "he/she isn't a true Christian" defense. Many terrible acts have been carried out in the name of Christianity and other religions as well.
Like doctors who claim to have a cure for cancer or who perform back street abortions?
Does that mean we get rid of ALL doctors as well
Geez Hitler claimed to be Catholic too and we know how deluded that guy was.
Nah ,people use God/Godname ,because they think the world will pay attention.
In a way they do. But the focus should be on justice.
Is the person a true murderer etc ,not is he Christian or not.
There are many more Christians who do not murder,and kill.
Did I say we need to get rid of Christians?
I am baffled by your reply.
I believe that Christians would display more integrity by acknowledging that extremists exist within their faith and working to change the dynamics that create and support them. By dismissing violence committed in the name of Christianity as being perpetrated by those who are not "true Chrstians," Christians are failing to take responsibility for the flaws that exist in certain factions of their religion.
Often,by their very nature extremists are not operating within a recognised church group ,however if they are ,yes I agree there needs to be less 'exclusiveness'
I absolutely agree that everyone should be accountable for their actions. Christian or not.
All I was highlighting is the fact that justice should be done ,independant of their religion.
I mean anyone can say they are Christian,or whatever denomination they adhere too,but their affiliation as in any other office Should not have any bearing on whether justice is done (or not)
Justice? I'll never understand how people define justice. This man killed 90 people and killing him, won't balance some "just" equation. He'd die believing he was a hero. Justice, pain for pain, thinking it will make the original pain go away? What? There is no justice, it's just a word that allows people to go on and forget about what has happened.
You are so right, all people who are religious are potential mass murderers. We're all just waiting for the right time to strike..... Gimme a break.
LOL! Another baffling response. I did not say all people who are religious are potential mass murderers.
However, just because a Christian commits murder, it does not suddenly mean he is not a Christian.
But Im thinking they never were.......(Christians)
Either way no one should get treated less or better because of
Religion ,Race,or Status.
If they commit acts of atrocities based on those reasons, religion/race or status, then they should be treated differently.
Hence, the reasoning for the justice system.
Well perhaps if they quit doing that ,less people would be claiming "God made me do it" " or "Devil made me do it"
"Rock music made me do it"
"Violent video made my kid do it"
"Battered syndrome,made her murder her husband"
On and on.
Influencial maybe, reason no.
So, do you believe that Muslims who commit acts of terrorism against Christians are not really Muslims?
Are Catholic priests who molest children then cover it up not really Catholics?
I am saying ...What does it matter ,what or who they say they are.
Because discovering motive helps to determine where danger may be encountered, what circumstances or belief systems may lead to violent behavior.
Motive is very critical information.
The motive for murder is hate.
I agree in part that environment/or extreme circumstances could have some bearing ie. repeated sexual abuse, brainwashing, trauma etc.
Frequently hate has nothing to do with murder. That just isn't a factual statement. Motive is far more varied and complex than you want to characterize it as.
Not always. Sometimes the motive is greed, pride, self-protection (as in the case of David and Uriah), anger, and a host of other reasons.
Apparently, it matters to you and others who would say a murderer is not a "true Christian," even when the murderer identifies himself as Christian, attends a Christian church, and even, in the case of one who murders abortion doctors, uses his religion as justification for murder. To then turn around and say the murderer is not a "true Christian" is a cop out.
I dont think you have understood my posts,if you think him being a Christian matters to me or not.
I feel very sad for devastation and shock the families must be going through actually.
Hitler said the same thing ,and his life (in the beginning suggested he was a believer)...
Seriously though words are words and a man (or women) should be judged by their actions,dont you think.
God character doesnt change because an evil is performed.
Satan on the other hand is probably ecstatic.
Umh not treated better because of "status" that's what status means, "they get treated better."
So are you saying that by murdering people he is following the tenants of Christianity? Perhaps he said that he believed in Jesus, but obviously not very much.
Well...as long as they'll concede that Isalmic terrorists aren't true Muslims, and in no way represent the greater Muslim community....
Yeah, that'll happen.
"I get tired of the "he/she isn't a true Christian" defense. Many terrible acts have been carried out in the name of Christianity and other religions as well."
You get tired of the defense because you know its the correct defense.
You want to blame an entire religion on the actions of singular individuals.
Your argument is the same as saying Michael Vick is guilty of animal cruelty so all pro football players are guilty of it too.
Its ridiculous, but you can't help yourself.
I have never said I wanted to blame Christianity for the acts of a murderer. I don't. I merely said it's tiresome to constantly be told that a Christian who commits a murder is not a Christian.
The act of murder is rampant in the Bible. In much of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, there are laws that command that people be killed for absurd reasons such as working on the Sabbath, being gay, cursing your parents, or not being a virgin on your wedding night.
In addition to these crazy and immoral laws, there are plenty of examples of God's irrationality by his direct killing of many people for reasons that defy any rational explanation such as killing children who make fun of bald people, and the killing of a man who tried to keep the ark of God from falling during transport. There are also countless examples of mass murders commanded by God, including the murder of women, infants, and children.
My only comment is that the OT 'God' is nearly human or atleast a finite being and not the all-knowing all-loving endlessly-forgiving 'God' that many who revere the Bible so unwaveringly commonly refer to. And besides, if your a 'true Christian' you must reject not only those of other races, but your parents as well.
Somehow I don't think the families of the murdered 80 will find comfort with this type of reasoning...
I was reading an article about this on Yahoo last night and the comments were predictably full of morons declaring the act "more proof" of the violent, cowardly nature of Muslims.
One hopes that a few of them are eating crow today, but if TattedKaju's reaction is anything to go by, they're probably too busy claiming the guy is not a "true Christian" to admit that they made complete fools of themselves.
Every belief system has its cooks. It's a low blow to blame conservative Christianity for this guy's actions. You know better than that.
liftandsoars comment was a classic example of the anti-Epicurean bigotry that is so rampant among the followers of McDonald.
Hey now, I used to be quite the Epicurean!
Not so much Epicurus, as his Garden Variety Essays bugged me for years. ( jeje, get it, garden bugs..ne`er mind. ).
92 people dead at the hands of a self professed Conservative Christian and you are defending this religion and making jokes.
O, lookie who popped up like a daisy!
Am I making jokes about food, yes. (covers mouth with hand in shock)
See, you still cannot grasp even a minute fraction of how much damage you yourself are doing by propaganda. Half-truth no less. They nor you have proof he was religious. It is speculation. How `bout you say he was a man who was wrong in the head. I can accept that far more than some crikey anti-theist rhetoric. Who says he was a Christian? Hmm. No one, none of the papers. They say he might have been. But also might have been a Free Mason --like you.
Far more seeds of destruction in your words, than the bullets in his gun. The more you talk about 'their' religion, the more power you give and the more you prove how religious you really are. Same goes with anything. Its called free advertising.
But, go on gadding about; let out that rage, Marcus. Lord knows you're full to the gills. Tell them all how evil their religion is. Tell them how evil your determinism isn't. Go `head. I double dare ya. And when you're spent to the last drop, then and only then, will I tell you about the 800 year old man. Fair enough.
Yank - Y + W, oh wait e=mc2, sorry.
http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/ … ertilizer/
See the wurds "fundamentalist Christian" ?
Dear me. Make some more jokes to show us how much you care.
Wun sezs fun-d, da oddu con sir vativ. Needer iz fax-u-ul.
Jus da fax Marcus, jus da fax.
Innnet dat wut yur sienz n instink sez? proobable faks only?!
Speculation & Determinism is what inspires every war.
No wonder why you are so angry and need to fight to defend your beliefs.
Yes. I am angry. And shocked that you are not. 92 people dead so far. The police description says "fundamentalist Christian."
Yet you are making jokes and defending this garbage.
I read three papers, BBC and CNN websites. None conclude he was a fundie Christian. The police said he might be because of the Facebook Social Network Page, stated him as a Conservative Christian / Free Mason / eSporter (whatever the heck that is). Doesn't mean he was. Like you with the abundant sock-pupppets, who is to say he even posted that page?
Wer r da faxs, Marcus?
So, please, stop lying to defend your nonsensical belief system and fuel your religious hate speech, Marcus.
Crikey Moses! Now you are lying about me in order to defend your irrational beliefs? Well - that makes you a real Christian I guess. The police described him as a fundamentalist Christian. Just like you. I suppose that could be a lie - as the police are as prone to that as you people. Not sure why you leap to his defense though. There is a clear correlation from believing garbage to behaving this way.
And rather than address the issue you are defending a religious belief? I have no beliefs. Sorry.
92 people murdered by what the police describe as a fundamentalist Christian and your first reaction is to defend Christianity?
I am not defending anything, Marcus, I am disdaining YOU! period.
so angry you are. go get `em all, all dem fundies, Marcus! Do it, do it.
Just because you practice Christianity doesnt make you a Christian. You must abide by the rules set forth in your religion to be a truly devout follower. If I practice a jump shot does that make me a basketball player? No, it just makes me better at jump shots.
Hmmm, I wonder how many practicing Christians don't fully abide by the rules set forth in their religion? If that is the standard for being a "true Christian" then I suspect very few actually exist.
The problem with that statement is that there are varying sects within Christianity, and each sect has differing practices and beliefs. There’s no real standard to determine who is a true Christian or not.
The fruit of 'the spirit' is:
New International Version (NIV)
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
God said , We would know who belonged to Him ,if they produced those 'fruits'
I quote the Fruits often on these pages and elsewhere. So few of the Christians that post here exhibit any of these traits, or very few. Mason is a great example. Whenever I bring the Fruits up to him, he disappears.
You do appear to try to hold to them, and maintain a kind approach to people, although I don't follow your beliefs as you see them.
Here's a problem, though. Paul asserts that people that are truly enfused with the Holy Spirit will exhibit these traits, yet Christ says He is not here for the righteous, but rather to pay the price for sinners, and that we are helpless to avoid sin. These seem at odds with each other.
A true person of any faith leads by example, adheres to the rules.
I would have to agree. Its relatively impossible to be a perfect Christian. But it is also asked by God in the Bible that we strive to be perfect and holy as He is. Being a Christian is a constant battle with sin. Its harder for a Christian because Satan tempts them more. Satan doesnt want someone who sins constantly, hes already got them.
How does one motivate himself to strive for something that he has already concluded to be impossible to achieve?
Satan tempts Christians more than Who? And what about ATHEISTS who don't sin? Could you tell me why they are not tempted?
How could Atheist be tempted by Satan if they dont believe in Christianity? Im sure there isnt a Satan for Atheists, right? If there were then there would be a god for Atheist.
YOU tell me what you believe. I asked you first. It is your beliefs that I'm questioning, not mine. Or are you saying that you agree that your belief is imaginary nonsense.
So are you admitting that Satan is just made-up nonsense, JUST for delusional believers?
Well..If youre not a Christian ,you are probably not worried about Sin
What is deemed impossible humanly speaking is not deemed impossible to God.
And God promises to tranform us daily, toward perfection.
Note I said ~~>toward perfection.
Its not a daily dose of self help ,with certificates and applauds at the end of a course, its a daily reconnecting of our thoughts ,attitudes and behavious to copy Christs behaviour...til finally we emerge from a human slug to a perfect butterfly...
You get the picture.
According to scripture, Christ did not come for those that were without sin, the righteous, but rather as the cure for the sick, the sinners.
Though Christians are called to attempt to live righteous lives, it is a given that they will fail and need redemption, thus the need for Christ.
Saying sinners are not Christians is silly.
Before you pat me on the back too hard, the only reason I brought this up was to answer the idea that had been forwarded that a "real" Christian would not have done this crime. I think it is very possible that his extreme Christianity led to this crime.
With all these different believers killing in the name of their gods, wouldn't it be much simpler to leave the fight to the gods themselves? Allah, Jehovah, Zeus, Wotan, Jesus, Isis, Osiris, and all the other many thousands of gods man has worshipped, could fight it out amongst themselves far removed from our little planet. Why do they expect their followers to fight their battles for them?
Believers in Self.
But if we 'deal' to all these nasty believers who commit these crimes- Yes I agree some do (In the name of god(?) )
Does that mean all the murderers and liars that are left are Non-believers?
What do you do with them, and how will you know they speak the truth?...
Why they may be the ones making the laws.
Bottom line for me is I don't trust man/woman.
They can say whatever they like under pressure ,why some would even sell their grandmothers...
Judge ALL people according to their crime!!! Independant of their
Yet you have no problem TRUSTING that a 2000 year old book, written by MEN, was dictated to them by the CREATOR of existence!
How do you know that some of these men didn't sell their grandmothers? Yet you have no problem believing their BS.
It is the individual that is on trial, however it is his psychological profile that sometimes establishes motive...which could include his religious indoctrination. That's just reality.
Written by men -inspired by God
Dont need to be a rocket scientist to see what inspires mankind to kill
Often it is the many variety of Holy books they worship and follow.
YOU DON"T KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE! YOU ARE OUTRIGHT TRUSTING MAN!!!!
Yet you adamantly asserted that you don't trust man/woman.
There appears to be a BRAZEN contradiction here. Are you aware of this?
Irrelevant, and evading the issue.
No wonder there are so many angry, murdering Christians out there doing God's work...trying to change reality to suit their delusion.
Are they Christians because they say they are?
Perhaps they really are deluded and believe they are doing the will of God.
If you know the difference and I know the difference,what is the problem?
Judge him like any other criminal,and may justice be done.
According to biblical law, there is nothing actually wrong with selling one's relations. In fact in the Old Testament the loving father God recommended that a father should sell his daughters into slavery if he needed money.
And so, we could send only the generals to the battle front and keep our people at home and live our own business in peace.
Anyways, religion is just the invoked motive, because masses thelselves don't have a high enough level of good sense or consciouseness to refuse it.
Wars are motivated by economic / financial interests and fomented by people who don't directly take part in slaughters, but pull the strings from their comfortable fauteuils.
But everybody knows that.
I dont know about that tatted, It seems that most christians would bet a pot of boiled mud bugs that I'm going to spend a lot of time hangin with satan for not believin in god.
If you dont believe in got then how are you going to hang with Satan? If there is no God, then there is no Satan...
Tatted, I dont think very many christians believe atheists need a god for satan to exist. I would be a pot of boiled mudbugs that most christians feel I will be spending a lot of time hangin with satan for not believin in god
Help me out here....would being an extreme Christian allow, or even justify breaking Gods law and committing a sin?
Extreme as in they take the Bible out of context, pick certain scriptures to adhere by, and twist it to suit their needs.
Ok I understood ,so blantantly lyng.
Shouldnt matter anyway, commit the crime-do the time!
Exactly what is taking the Bible out-of-context? Different Christians interpret the Bible differently, which as the Bible contradicts itself isn't surprising. On the one hand God commands 'Thou shalt not kill,' on the other he orders the mass slaughter of many different peoples in the Old Testament, not even sparing the women and children.
I'm glad I didn't live in the land where God said this:
Blessed is the one who grabs your little children and smashes them against a rock. Psalms 137:9
But I tend to have plenty more morals than your depraved God.
If a man were to suggest that children be smashed against the rocks, Christians would agree he was evil. If God said it, then it is fine, because God invented morality. I still cannot get my head around such arguments.
The laws of the land where you live today does not advocate Murder,do they!
No ,why not?
God said to Obey the laws of the land.
I am getting a little weary of you getitrite,please stop taking my words out of context.
What you do to scripture(add,change) is not new, so do try at least to be original.
Even the most adamant Christian sins on an hourly basis. Sin is not avoidable, if you believe in the doctrine of sin. It is the very nature of man, thus requiring a savior to deliver us from it, as we can not do it on our own.
Christ knew he was on solid ground when He said "He who is without sin, cast the first stone". Surely there would be no takers.
Tatted, all you have to do is go to the armyofgod.com website and you will get your answer
Ok, Stump. I just checked it out. Those type of people are better suited being called extremist, or even radicalist. I understand where you are coming from, but their actions, and the actions of others killing in the name of Christianity is a contradiction itself. We all know "Thou shalt not murder" because it goes against the Law of God. How can you go against something, such as the Law, and still be for it, it being God? You cant break Gods commands and say you did it for Him. Does that make any sense?
The bible justifies killing. All one has to do is declare war. I committed no crimes while in the Marines, because God sanctioned my killing the enemy right?
Though shalt not kill is contradicted in the bible.
If killing is wrong according to your God, then WHO is sanctioned to stone adulterers, and homosexuals, and fornicators to death? Since that would be killing as well, wouldn't it?
The old law advocated the death penalty.
The new law doesnt remove the consequences ,it delays the judgement.
Delay doesnt mean redundant.
Bridge to reconcile.
King of Kings.
Son of God and Son of Man.
Old Laws were black and white ,Mosaic laws. No chance of repentance,reconciliation,or restoration lands/people ruled by Kings. Men.
Jesus came to to fulfil prophesy and to restore all that had broken down, individuals ,communities,governments,nations.
He also came to destroy the religious spirit and provide the only way to reconsciliation with God. He said.
I am the way ,the truth and the Life
No man.comes to the Father,except through me (accepting /believing Jesus)
So your God, claiming to be UNCHANGABLE is just an outright lie?
I don't think you meant to use the term 'redundant'
Funny, when it's a Muslim who does this the entire religion of Islam is condemned by many Christians. When it's a Christian they get offended if anyone blames the religion.
I personally don't condemn either for the crimes of one man.
Cop out? Murder goes against everything about being a Christian.
Despite this, Christianity is one of history’s bloodiest religions.
Actually, that is false. The largest and bloodiest theology has been science. Sensationalism is powerless without weapons and tools, politics and determinism to spawn its effect. Besides the obvious, The Ottoman, Mongol and Roman Empires were not Christian at all. The Crusades didn't last even a decade.
History doesn't lie. Educate yourself, seriously.
PS, it is because of such typical neolithic thinking, that inspired Japan to invade Russia -which was the start of WW2. And the US to form the space and arms race, while the parties plotted genocide, chemical warfare and more. Christianity, Islam & Judaism combined cannot compare to the devastation and atrocities caused by scientifically led politics/society.
You’re calling science a theology then telling me to educate myself? None of those empires were Christian, but that has nothing to do with how bloody Christianity has been over the centuries. Your straw man argument doesn’t disprove anything I’ve just said.
Look how terrible the Spanish Enquisition was...along with the Crusades..how about the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland..
I see, tossing word salad like the others.
do you know what Straw Man theory is? Probably not.
But, I'll play along, show me facts, not speculation but facts, that Christianity is/was the 'bloodiest' of all over centuries. I'll wait.
Lastly, apparently you are ignorant to what the meaning of science is and where it was birthed, err, berthed. But, I'm not surprised, most do not know. They do not understand their own duality, nor how science designed and founded every single construct of Theos throughout history, the pragmatics of humanism, and precisely why it is the 'creator' of these sensationalistic expressions (often titled religion).
Dear me, no wonder why your belief system causes so many conflicts.
Islam and Christianity alone have had a hand in history’s biggest racially motivated holocaust and slave trade. Then there’s the centuries old conflict that’s still going on in the Holy Land and it’s probably no surprise that Hitler’s hatred of Jews was inspired by the anti-Jewish teachings of Christianity in Germany. Yet you have the nerve to say that Japan invading Russia can even compare to the crimes committed by the Abrahamic faiths. You’re out of your mind
Should we also discuss everything the Church has done to undermine scientific discovers too?
My belief system? Please tell about what I believe since you seem to know so much about me.
Wait, you went from "the bloodiest of all" to just "having a hand in"
Untrue. The largest Slave Trade in history is Asia. It superseded African, Native Island and Pacifica enslavement by multi-millions.
History doesn't lie, nor care about your belief system, sorry to be the one to tell you that.
I never said "the bloodiest of all" There you go with the straw man again.
My words were " Christianity is one of history’s bloodiest religions." See what happens when you read
So Asia had an slave trade that last more than 1000 years and caused the deaths of an estimated 100 million people?
History doesn't lie, but clearly you do.
Asian slave trade is still the largest and worse of all slave trades. for over 3,000 years they have been doing it and no one cares. They put the Egyptians to shame. Perhaps you have never heard of the Babylonians. Clearly, you are so well educated yet only wanting to spew hate speech against religions you helped create --and now you want to destroy-- to hide the evidence of your humanism. I see very clearly.
ps, I said multi millions not 100 million.
But still, lets mark the cards: how many people has science killed in the name of their gods, put in their temples called museums, laboratories, etc.
I helped create religion? Now I know for sure you don't argue facts. And what do the Egyptians have to do with anything?
The Egyptians bought countless slaves from the Babylonians, who had been using the Asian and Caucus people as slaves for centuries. The holocausts, as you put it, of Christianity and Islam, are drops in a bucket, compared to the Egyptian, Babylonian, Roman, Meso, Mongol, Ottoman and other Empires. Even Alexanders Meso-Indo Empire was civil in comparison. All of the aforementioned had no connection to Judaism, Islam or Christianity. What might surprise you is now deeply they were connected to modern day Hindi and pagan practices, Ba`alism to be more precise.
The Roman Empire was the most ruthless. Certainly, under Constantine, a great number of murders and atrocities occurred. I for one will not deny it. But Constantine was not what many would call a Christian, no more than I would call Mikhail Yaroslavich a fundamentalist.
Christianity was not one of the bloodiest, The Roman Empire post Constantine was for a very short time. And it led to Romes utter collapse and the rise of England, as the last Great Empire. Since then, only one other act was guised under Christianity, the Crusades, which was off again-on again for eight years against the Moors who invaded Spain and Normandy (France), which threatened England. In the last 500-700 years no wars have been caused by Christianity, save the US War on Terror. But, beyond that, and to the root of it, all conflicts -all- were inspired, promoted and supplied by one thing and one thing only -science! Without science, people would fight wars with what a few rocks and maybe spears. Unlike the H and A bombs, agent orange, Gulf Syndrome gas, etc and nuclear leaks that have killed millions instantly and many slowly.
So, where exactly is your straw man theory?
Where is your empirical evidence to the contrary.
If you please.
Else, my conclusion is either you are another hater, finger pointer --because your former belief system didn't do it for ya (aka you creating religion), or just uneducated. The latter I can accept. The former, not even a little bit. Because the former is what most atheists/ determinist are, defenders of humanism.
Luckily, your humanism is dieing out, both equation (science) and sensationalism (religion). And good riddance to it.
My argument is that Christianity is one of history’s bloodiest religions. The straw man here is that you have yet to present a religion that challenges my statement. You’re all over the place with your argument. You’ve mentioned Asia, the Romans, and the Egyptians. None of which are even religions. I already won this when I called you out for trying to quote me on something that I never even said.
Which it was not. Show the proof, then.
That is odd, I thought I had, SCIENCE.
Just walking you through history.
I didn't know you were that angry nor that there was a competition. I apologize for you, as I retracted and corrected my misread. But, fact is fact, Christianity is the LEAST bloody of all religions in history, Second to them is Judaism, bringing up the rear is Buddhism. Of Islam, it is too muddled and requires more study on my part to come to a clear historical determination.
Christianity is the least bloody religion in history? Maybe if you ignore the crusades, slavery, apprenticeship, the Salem witch trials, abortion clinic bombings, the Marian persecutions, the Thirty Years’ War, and the many Christian terrorist groups ranging from the KKK to the National Liberation Front of Tripura. Funny how you neglected to mention all of those crimes.
When I was in college, a nun who taught my American History class was very honest in how we as a country enslaved Africans, annihlated the Iroquois, Cherokee and so on, sucked up to the Nazis and created the National Security apparatus to instill fear in the population. But when confronted with the crimes of the Church, she said the worst thing the Vatican ever did was excommunicate Gallileo. When asked about the Inquisition, Crusades and such, she actualy tried to say, 'that didn't really happen." And this was a history teacher!
Thirty Years War, from your blessed wikipedia:
The Crusades. I did not ignore it. In fact I mentioned the Crusades lasted 8 years (off again-on again). But it was also a political move under the guise of Christianity, because England feared being overrun by the Moors and they also wanted control over the Roman Empire. The best way to do that was take Jerusalem, the Roman stronghold at the time.
The Largest and bloodiest Slavery was Asia, again.
Salem lasted 6 months, 22 days exactly and was not solely Christian based. It was puritan based, yes, but you should study Nordic puritanism before opening your gullet in accusation of another group, you apparently know nothing about.
Abortion clinic bombings? Really? Okay. Lets compare those bombing to Hiroshima. Even still, a total of 15 million fetus have been destroyed by abortion. In ten years, seven lives have been taken as the result of Abortion clinic bombing. Seven. There have been a total of 40 bombings, 140 cases of fire by intent, and 730 acts of inappropriate vandalism against property but no person. Seven in total.
the Marian persecutions were carried out AGAINST RELIGION, most precisely Protestants, by HRH Mary I, aka Bloody Mary, and not by religion or Christianity.
Christian terrorist groups like the White House or the Church in the Wildwoods?
The KKK is barely alive anymore and their 'bloody massacres' were nearly none. and as for terrorizing, that is different than "bloody". The cross was a symbol used to signal where to meet. It in turn was used to terrorize Jews, Caucasians, Blacks and Asians alike. In sort, they just hate everyone. Plus, some parody: American Good Ole Boys are very bright when it comes to booze and costume parties, noting how many of their own fell into fires and were burned alive -actual more than any human was killed by their group. The Aryan Nation has admitted multiple times they are not Christian based and lean heavily toward Free Masonry --as many of their rituals suggest. True their beginnings carried a bible, because nothing else was available. As Joseph Smith, he'll explain that to you.
The National Liberation Front of Tripura is not Christian based, they are Indie/Hindi based.
Now lets combine all you mentioned. Nope, they do not constitute the 'bloodiest' of all in history, actually quite contrary. They are peanuts compared to others groups, other religions and especially the religion of science.
Your argument is bogus and only one thing stands out from everything you mentioned, apart from your Wiki Doctorate, err, Doctrine, you are full of anger and trying to blame Christianity for whatever it didn't give you when you sought after it. PS, did you know the entire fountain of Evolution was coined and completed by a Catholic priest. poor determinist, not even the religion of science, and its many temples offer haven for you.
Most of what you said is either false or has nothing to do with the arguement. And quit trying to project your own anger and insecurties on me.
I answered everything according to your statements. If they are false, then it is because of your statements, which I replied to. So, perhaps it is not I who is angry or projecting. Everything I have replied is based on history, not supposition and Wikidepia bites. Granted I added a bit of sarcasm, degradation and maybe a little ruse and rant. Nonetheless, it does not negate what I presented. In kind you present NO FACT AT ALL, less a single Wiki. Seems all you have are those elements. I expect better from you as I do everyone else. If my reply is incorrect, due diligence is in order, so kindly provide a counter measure to the argument, versus a horses whinny. You have in no way proven Christianity is the bloodiest, you have only spewed rhetoric that it might be.
Even still wongomowale, it is not your fault, and it is certainly inevitable. You, I, Mark Knowles, Ray, Eagle Kiwi, Earnest, Janco, --everyone-- here and the remaining 6.1 Billion will be transformed into the image of Creator. You can rebel all you prefer, by scolding this guy or that, murdering this person or that, fighting this religion or that. You can argue for or against your belief systems all day long. Defend and protect your documents and rights. You can prove or disprove them, build bombs, weapons, ships to space and video realities. In the end, they are irrelevant. The constructs of humanism will end. That was the promise spoken to the Hebrews, not Jews, Hebrews. That is what Christians and Atheists alike haven't yet figured out. What billions have forgotten, because of indulgence of their own thoughts. By enabling them you falsely empower yourself and ultimately deceive yourself into believing something that has no value even to the humanism you seek to defend or protect.
Just to show you how wrong your so-called facts are, you said, "The National Liberation Front of Tripura is not Christian based, they are Indie/Hindi based."
The National Liberation Front of Tripura is a Christian group that converts people to Christianity by using violence. Take your own advice from earlier and educate yourself.
Ah, James, you're like a breath of fresh air which is sadly wasted on some of the primitive plant life here. Do drop by for a nice cup of tea next time you're passing through Northumberland.
Actually, my apologies, I stand corrected regarding Constantine I and his war in the name of Christianity, it lasted only 30 years, not 100. The last small war over Christianity was found as a civil war in France.
By the way, in answer to your question about Asia, yes. Their slave trade continues to this day. Nearly 1.7 Billion present citizens of China are slaves to a non-theistic ruler. And lets not forget Laos, Sri Lanka, Tibet, Korea, etc. Had it not been for the US and europe, Russia would never have gone Commune. They did very well under orthodox ideologies. Very well, for a very long time.
Yes, all you’ve done is rant and use logic fallacies as a substitute for a real argument. Tell me how does slavery in Asia under a non theistic ruler disprove the statement that Christianity is one of history’s bloodiest religions?
Either you are just thick or suffer a mild case of incohesion.
What I provided were examples of historical slavery which you mentioned. Which actually had nothing to do with the argument itself, you injected it, sidebar.
Thats funny! There is no such think as a logical fallacy. Tell the truth, did you make that up?
No wonder why your religion causes so many conflicts.
The slavery that I mentioned was a holocaust that Christians were involved in for centuries. It was actually relevant to the argument.
Yup logic fallacies don’t exist, which is why there’s a Wikipedia page for them…
I've tried to interject logical fallacies into arguments with that one before. Apparantly it is off subject to tell that one that the arguments are inherently flawed. Give it up, it takes take advanced reasoning abilities, which are lacking in this case.
Also I hope you are aware during WW II the Japanese believed their emperor was a divine being. Quit trying to twist history to defend the crimes of religion.
Facts? Show me the facts only. I care less about your fundie beliefs pro or con. Historical facts only. ( ps, the Imperial Emperor of Japan did not consider himself a divine being for nearly 4 dynasties after the Mongol desolation. Read up. When WW2 opened, none considered him divine. He was noted as a militaristic dictator --a communist dictator by definition. In actuality, he was a determinist.
Roman Empires were Christian so first educate yourself and don't try to defend murderer or criminal for the sake of your belief, you should be against.
Roman Empire was Christian, really? For about 100 years, tops. The Roman Empire has existed looooooooooooooooong before Christianity. It was around long before the Greco-Meso Empire.
Do you know when the Roman Empire began and what it came from? And especially Who?
I agree. I think mainly because one group of people tried to force it onto another group, or control them with it. Thats mans own doing. Twisting scriptures to make them work for oneself.
If he is murderer, then he is murderer and nobody can say he is not Christian or he is not religious. The reality is that he is Christian and he is alone his crime and nobody can label that to the Christian. If he was a Muslim no doubt that most of the people who commenting here would label that to 1.5 billion people with no exception, that is not fair.
Once again these tire old claims about those evil little Christians-Lame.
I have a question:
What are the non-believes that are making these claims doing about the problems in the world?? For years, and years now I've not seen any banner proclaiming we Non-Believers ended poverty, ended rape, stopped the killing here , there and everywhere.
There is enough help needed that plenty of Non-Believers should be known around the world as having done a better job with solving the world's problems than those murdering Christians.
Crime In other parts of the world
Murders per 1000 people, from highest to lowest:
South Africa: 0.0562789
http://nitawriter.wordpress.com/2007/08 … -of-world/
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Num … FORM=VDRE#
Matthew 7:3-5 (in Context) Matthew 7 (Whole Chapter)
Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch … rsion=NKJV
All that in support of the most psychotic far-outeum myth imaginable!
Religion is a joke best played on the gullible..... a word soup that the world's mentally handicapped can mould to fit their need to control others when the problem is they can't control themselves.
Santa with attitude.
The man must have had serious mental issues, no matter what his religious status, to randomly kill 80 people. I don't think his Conservative Christianity, if he indeed was a Conservative Christian, was the impetus behind the mental illness that led him to take others' lives. I don't think so. There is no evidence for that being the case, and it seems unlikely, since Christ's example is of non-violence.
So if that's what you're implying, and I think you are, back it up with something other than your bare and biased assertion, please!
I really am beginning to fear what is happening to the world. For some years now, we have had to come-to-terms with the terrorist threat posed by Muslim fundamentalists, now it seems that a Christian fundamentalist is also willing to kill many in the name of his god. I used to be religious, yet have found myself growing ever more fearful of the increasing role of religious extremism in the world and I am finding the increasing voice of angry religious people to be ever more distasteful. It seems extremism breeds extremism, and I am not prepared to keep quiet when I hear religious bigots spread their message of hate. In my private life, I have kept quiet, when listening to bigoted religious views, but am coming to believe that this is part of the problem. If I am too afraid to offend people, because society seems to accept that being religious affords certain privileges, then I cannot complain when I see my country and other parts of the world fall under the influence of mediaeval belief systems.
There was a time when Western Europe was seen as being at the forefront of liberal thinking. The battles over the past century have seen rights for women, rights for gay people, rights for the freedom to practice relious faith, the development of a welfare state to take care for those in need and the elderly. It seemed things were moving forward and I was proud to live in such a tolerant society, where freedoms were taken for granted.
Now though, within only a few years, the rise of religion is putting such freedoms and equalities under threat. The demands of the religious are becoming too loud to ignore, and I am beginning to wish that I had remained in the closet as an atheist. And when I read that the Equalities Commission is to back the rights of the religious, who do not want to work with gay people, even though their job requires that they treat everyone equally. When an organisation set up with the idea of promoting equality decides to come down firmly on the side of the religious, this seems to me to be setting an agenda, which it has no business to set. The Commission has even criticised atheists for not respecting religion. Well, how is it possible to respect the religious, when so much hatred and bigotry is spread in the name of their gods?
Science and rationalism seem to be losing ground in the face of religious demands. In Britain, with the Muslim population increasing by 500,000 in four years, and the rise of intolerant Christian creationist evangelicals, and where in the land of Darwin's birth 50% of the population believes in creationism, it seems to me that the age of the Enlightenment is coming to its close. Even the belief in fairies has increased dramatically, and I sometimes wonder if I have fallen asleep at the beginning of the 21st century and woken in the 14th. I see changes, which are not for the better, and Europe is changing into something I do not recognise. I only hope that the killing in Norway is not the start of something new, we shall be expected to get used to. I have previously been critical of the call of Richard Dawkins for militant atheism, now I am beginning to think he may have a point.
Actually, the KKK is alive and well and very much a threat. The main threat is, if you acually bother to read their mission statements, that they have adopted a platform that the Republican party attempts very consistently to emulate. Funny how the TPers ramble on about how we havent run the country by the constitution for the last 150 yrs. Well what did we take out of the constitution 150 yrs ago? Slavery? What a shocking coincidence!
I don't see that as any threat, at all.
As said, the constructs of humanism are on their last leg.
Religion, Science/Technology, Politics, Sexuality, everything has reached its apex. Humanism is about to end, finally, to the betterment of humanity. Is humanity ready? We can only hope.
Humanism is about to end? Really? And you believe this will create a better society, if it is replaced by religion. Well, humanity has had thousands of years of one religion or another. And what has been the result? Wars, terrorism, bigotry, hatred, burning of heretics etc. Religion has had plenty of time to create paradise on Earth, but has been found wanting. The modern distrust of science and of man's achievements and a longing for a new order based on religion, where ignorance replaces reasoning is illogical, and for me, quite terrifying. The desire for a return to the Dark Ages is horrifying to someone who believes in rationality, equality, science and peace.
Yes, Really. Not to sound cliche, but the signs are everywhere.
That is a conjectural question? I have no religion nor see that any religion -by equation (science) nor sensation (titled religion) of any genuine value to mankind. Theos (the constructs of science and sense) is near its end. Humanism -even this new found Quality- has climaxed.
Why was or is it the responsibility of sensation only to 'create a paradise'? That kind of thinking exemplifies --and amplifies-- perfectly, typical humanistic reason. According to sciences reason, man has had 250,000 years. So, in actuality, if there was to be responsibility, certainly science would be. But it cannot be either, as it is a construct of humanism.
Modern? That gave me a chuckle. Apparently history only counts post industrial revolution? Post Darwin? Dear me. And precisely what has man achieved??? He managed to melt the already here metals of earth to make weapons and what-not. Build machines with those metals to pretend he made something? Or by observing a thing decided what it was and from where it came? Ooooo, I am so NOT impressed. Compared to, say, one of those 'muon' science has observed, everything man has made or dismantled collectively is piss and wind. Science has no fact, no real empirical evidence. It has what sensation has -what it accuses sensation of only having: imperialism, megalomania, ego, pride, prejudice, psychopathy and clearly an appetite for [self] destruction. The god of science is the same as the god of sensation -the self. Now, you have swung to Strawman Theory? No such animal as a New World Order. It is a scare tactic of humanism, a goading from a shwashbuckler, at the end of a pitiful play/existence. Logic has nothing to do with reason. And if you understood that, you would understand also why the limitations of science and religion continue to keep you ignorant and terrified. Ignorance IS reason, as reason is biased to the self and its goals, desires, determinations -caring nothing for the other or another, without self gain, feeling of accomplishment, general satisfaction, sustenance, authority, power, prestige or contentment/complacency of responsibility. In short, it pretends genuine affection, imposes affliction but demands in return, respect and adoration.
All those things you mention are the elements of the MANY dark ages of human history, yes as well as the enlightened ages of humanism. The 14th century has ended, if I recall correctly. Science slithered from its dank dungeon as religion began collapsing in on itself. Science once more ignited the fire under sensationalism to sustain the concept of Theos it created. Yes, my friend, science fashioned religion many, many moons ago. [I won't elaborate, but if you want to see it, study history closely and with open eyes].
Now, look at the result of humanism. Look long and hard. Be real -and certainly, if you claim rational- look at it rationally, from all vantage points. Humanism has failed since its inception. And it now fights, with gasping breaths, for life. An old, decrepit couple. The roof they tried so desperately to hold the house of duality together -this thing called quality of life and personal determination- failed. There is nothing for humanism to fall back on.
But yes, there is something altogether ancient coming -returning actually. Something that existed long before humanism's inception: Altruism. If the term evolution can be applied, then this is the next phase of human evolution. It is beyond necessity, beyond gods and gauges, beyond quantum and want `em. Where man doesn't need weapons of steel and glass nor hell, fire and brimstone to protect or deflect that emptiness, longing. Where mechanics and woo-la-la cannot take nor reveal; where his thinking returns to what is was: a processor of genetically programed information, allowing him to one more understand. And with that understanding be transformed into what he once was. A creation of such uniqueness and perfection, one that understood who, what, why and how. A creation consumed and living in Free Will. Void of the choice necessity. Void of need and not needing hope. Call it Grace, Free Will, whatever you like.
It is inevitable.
As a christian, I call BS.
If the gunman believed in Christ, he was a christian. Christians have murdered, robbed, and even raped in the name of Christ. They may be crazy, but they are our crazies. Own it, accept it and cope. Yes, our holy-men have started wars and they were damn sure Christians when they did it. The morons that demonstrate funerals... yep they are ours too. The KKK is damn sure alive, completely impotent and laughable, but alive... and guess what, THEY are ours too. This is the face of christianity, even if it isn't the meaning of it. You don't like it, then stop recruiting for God's referral program and deal with your own. I try everyday and am told I'm not a christian if I don't think like every other christian. So I either have to accept the dumbest of us as like me or give up my beliefs because the people that are supposed to share my beliefs are raping the Bible to excuse their own personal bigotry.
Zealots, ANY zealots that believe in ANY god are dangerous. Is it the fault of Christ that some of his followers are idiots? Nope. Is it my fault that some of my fellow Christians are close minded egotistical holier than thou idiots that randomly spout off illogical nonsense in defense of their warped definition of Christianity? Maybe a little, but I cant control all of them. I can tell them they are being unchristlike, but I cant tell them they aren't Christians. Just as the fundies can't tell me I'm not a christian because I am pro choice, anti-death penalty and for gay rights.
Thank Earnest. I just had to finally say it, it is inevitable. Everyone will be transformed. Psychopathy-Shmopothy, religion- pigeon, science-shmience -its all irrelevant.
You all mean the NAZI who shot the kids and blew up the offices... all NAZIs call themselves Christians... doesn't make it so.
Frank Mersland, a journalist with FVN TV, says Breivik has been linked to the anti-immigration "Progress party".-- Oh those crazy Progressives.--
He wrote to The Guardian via email:
"The suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, has been tagged as a former member of the right winged political party Frp (Progress party). It's the second largest political party in Norway and their main issues are lower taxes and a much stricter policy on immigration. The Frp-leader, Siv Jensen, verified his membership on Norwegian TV2 a little while ago.
Apart from his anti-immigration policies, the Daily Mail and Fox News report that Breivik also argued that socialism was breaking down traditions, culture, national identity and other societal structures and that this in turn made society weak and confused."
(Yes... so it is time to move to a harsher marxism... a lil NAZI-ism, or Communism, anyone? I have explained to you all over and over how the strong eat the weak on the Left, Socialists devour minimal Collectivists, NAZis devour Socialist, Communists devour NAZIs... Facists slaughter all the above... and poof! Welcome to Marx' Eutopia.
And, an “extreme right wing” individual in Europe is not always an “extreme right wing” individual in America. That’s important to note, as the designation will make the rounds.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … slims.html
And lets keep in mind that when Europe speaks of "Right wing conservatives" they are speaking of noe- NAZis, not American conservatives.
But hey... why bother with the lil things.
http://expo.se/2011/terror-suspect-was- … _4193.html
FACTS: NORDIC, (NAZIs)
•Nordisk (Nordic) was launched in 2007 and was a rapid hit with nationalists in Sweden. The forum has nearly 22,000 members, one of them the mass killer Anders Breivik. Members span from high-ranking members of the Sweden Democrats, a nationalist party with seats in the Swedish parliament to leading members of the nazi movement and to unhinged psychopaths. What unites the whole lot is a hatred of immigration and immigrants.
•Subjects are generally discussed in a racist manner and have included discussions about the book The Turner Diaries, a novel that has served as a terrorist manual, was labelled the "terrorist bible" by the FBI and served as a direct inspiration for the Oklahoma bombing of 1995 in which 168 people were slaughtered.
•Nordisk is described as a portal "themed with Nordic identity, culture and tradition". The forum was established by the Nordiska Förbundet (Nordic League) organisation, founded in 2004 by members of the right-wing extremist National Democrats and the hardcore nazi Swedish Resistance Movement.
Ahh you all are so funy with your he is a "Right Winger" BS.
Not in America he is not!
"Conservative Christian" seems to be missing from your nonsensical diatribe. Oh well - why bother with the lil things? And - Conservative Christian means the same in Europe as it does in the USA.
FACTS: NORDIC, (NAZIs)
•Nordisk (Nordic) was launched in 2007 and was a rapid hit with nationalists in Sweden. The forum has nearly 22,000 members, one of them the mass killer Anders Breivik. Members span from high-ranking members of the Sweden Democrats, a nationalist party with seats in the Swedish parliament to leading members of the nazi movement and to unhinged psychopaths. What unites the whole lot is a hatred of immigration and immigrants.
•Subjects are generally discussed in a racist manner and have included discussions about the book The Turner Diaries, a novel that has served as a terrorist manual, was labelled the "terrorist bible" by the FBI and served as a direct inspiration for the Oklahoma bombing of 1995 in which 168 people were slaughtered.
•Nordisk is described as a portal "themed with Nordic identity, culture and tradition". The forum was established by the Nordiska Förbundet (Nordic League) organisation, founded in 2004 by members of the right-wing extremist National Democrats and the hardcore nazi Swedish Resistance Movement.
Ahh you all are so funy with your he is a "Conservative Christian Right Winger", BS.
Not in America he is not!
Mr. Mason, this is not an attempt to point fingers, but this is cut and pasted directly from an article on MSN.
Deputy police chief Roger Andresen declined to comment on the possible motive for the killings, but said: "We have no more information than ... what has been found on (his) own websites, which is that is goes toward the right (wing) and that it is, so to speak, Christian fundamentalist."
Whatever his true motivations, you can't deny the facts of his stated religion.
Yes... the link is above in the other comment.. and it is not MSNBC... it is... expo.
http://expo.se/2011/terror-suspect-was- … _4193.html
I thought I had grabbed it all from the 2nd comment back... but appearently not.
But what does that matter, Emile?
The point was the man is not a clear cut "Right Wing Christian Conservative", as Americans know them to be.
And that is all... clearification.
All NAZIs call themselves "Christians"... that does not mean he is one, or that I call him one. My point as I said was that he is not a right winger as Americans think of them. But that is what the American left wants everyone to think of when they say right wing Christian = "NAZI"... and that is BS.
I will agree that attempting to lay the blame on a group, and not the individual is bs. This guy was apparently troubled.
My primary fear at this point is that now the bar has been raised, yet again. There will be crazies out there plotting a way to 'one up' this violent episode.
ALL "Christians" are the same. When one acts out, all the others "claim" them to not be "Christian", even if they themselves claim it, as their reasons for their actions.
This is why "Christians" actually should never be trusted. They all lie, claiming what they speak as "truth", when they fail to understand what "truth" is to begin with.
All Christians are the same
That cant be right, because I thought I was most definately better than everyone else
You can roll your eyes all you want. It doesn't negate the fact that ALL Christians come out with the same statement.
Cags- As you dont know ALL Christians ,I think that is a very ignorant statement to make.
And if they did ,you label them liars? who says your analyses is correct?
So far, analysis from ALL Christians on here....verifies it. So, it's not an ignorant statement, but is a statement in truth, you apparently refuse to accept. Nothing new.
They are lying to themselves.
Proof is in the pudding of the actions of them here. Therefore, it's correct.
Too bad you don't like, but it is what it is.
Jesus's statement of "I knew you not..." was made to the so called Christians, not to All, letting us know that all that claims to be Christians are not Christians in the spirit of truth. The majority of Christians that this statement was directed was those who proclaimed their good works (humanism) as proof of their salvation.
The Word of God says that One is saved by the grace of God thru His Son, Jesus, and not by One's self works.
The so called Christian Conservative murdered on his own; it was his agenda and not God's agenda.
Therefore, all Christians truthfully says every time that the murderer is not of Christianity, or else he wouldn't have murdered.
Much as many Muslims try to do but are told it is their religion's fault.
Still doesn't negate the person who put the claim of being Christian on his actions. So, your words are meaningless, but next time, try addressing the topic, instead of me.
We've had our discussion and your weakened position is meaningless.
In your case, sounds like selective hearing on your behalf and over reacting to a special case that us Christians has previously explained to you. By living long enough to write you should have experienced the truth of all above...those that claim are not always just. Even you can join church and proclaim to be a Christian, but is it true and just.
If one is saved by the grace of God, and not by one's "self works" as you put it, why would one's actions determine whether one was a Christian or not?
"Without works faith is dead...although saved by grace". Ask me of my faith, and I shall show you by my works.
Your "works" seem to consist solely of attacking anyone who does not believe garbage.
Where is the attack? Please do tell me! Are you considering my stand being that much of a threat to you until you think that you are being attacked?
Aww. Lying as well. Verbal attacks coming thick and fast. You lack balls - that is the problem. Are you this brave off line?
Little man, again - do you even read what you write?? The irony here is almost overwhelming to me. You're whole purpose here on this website is to attack people of faith. It's all you do - I've checked.
But you are a man of faith! Faith in a poisonous religion that de values the lives of others - not all atheist are hateful at all, but you are a hate filled little man.
Perhaps I'll give you a prayer.
Awww. Little? How brave of you. Seriously - one of your compatriots just killed 95 people. I find this shocking and upsetting. It bothers me and upsets me.
But you feel the need to defend your religion?
It bothers you ,so what are you actively doing about it?
.....Thats what I thought.
Trying to stop religion. Too diffikult to grasp innit? What have you done except estrange your sons?
Trying to stop religion? Then what? Do you think that man is born naturally good, and all shall work better without religion?
Well, why religion developed in the first place? Was man on a good trip, and was disrupted by this evil of religion? Please read some history and get real! LOLOLOL!
Mark, you may as well go p*ss against the wind, your passion is futile.
This is love? LOL No wonder your children never visit.
How long has it been?
What the heck are you on about ,talking about my children ?
Copied from HP Forum Rules:
Stick to the Topic: Please stay on the thread’s topic when replying to an existing thread. If you don’t see an open thread about something you’d like to discuss, please open a new thread.
"We are saved by grace and not by works."
Ask me of my faith and I shall show you my works.
It is impossible to please God without faith. Beginning of works and expectations from works is all in the faith. Faith always.
LOL So - you dint do any works then? I hope you guessed right when the time comes. No balls - that is your problem. Cowards always hide behind this.
I would ask you what are the works of the "balls", but sure that you couldn't answer congruently relative to God.
You don't strike me as being Mr. Mighty Mite in any arena.
My apologies, I assumed you meant that we do works for the good of those who really need it.
That is a terrible thing that happened. It makes you wonder what goes on inside the human mind. One thing I can guaratee is that he is not a true desciple of Jesus, Because if he were following the Lords teachings of love he would not have done such a thing. John 15:17 "This is my command: Love each other. We all should pray for all the families affected by this tragedy.
God bless you all
You are right. Evil stands alone. But, Cagsil is right too. Every time there is some violence perpetrated in the name of religion, the religious are quick to point out that person couldn't be one of them. A true Christian, or a true Muslim, or a true anything is exactly that, if that is what they claim to be.
I can see saying something like, 'the guy was whacked', 'the guy definitely doesn't follow the same philosophy I do', or anything. But, for anyone to say he wasn't a Christian doesn't negate the fact that he laid that claim and was allowed to do so by that religion.
The accusation that he wasn't a Christian only serves to show someone attempting to distance themselves in a manner that can't be argued effectively.
This is the most retarded post I've ever seen anyone make on this website.
If all the religions in the world vanished in an instant, we'd have the same number of violent persons finding the same reasons for whatever it is that they do. Equating religions with violence is immature at best - people commit acts of violence, religions have no part in it - and especially the Christian or Jewish religions.
Somewhere an old man sits in a bar in Scotland, and he's saying "Aye, but no TRUE Atheist would have done that" - speaking of Stalin.
LOL Not a real Kristian then? LOLOL Keep defending the faith. No matter how many die or are raped - them int reel Kristians iz they?
That's an interesting take on it. I would have to ask if those particular violent persons were violent due to a religious reason only, what other reason could they use to be violent?
4. Sexual competitiveness (see 3)
7. Schizophrenia (possibly aggravated by 6)
9. Enjoyment of violence for its own sake (see 8).
I'm sure there are more, but those are a few that I could think of right off the top of my head.
FWIW, I'm not religious.
I love a good political debate, I love to watch football, I get jealous under certain circumsances. I like to drink, I've had periods of my life where I did serious hard drugs. I've had psycotic episodes and when I think of the enjoyment of violence for its own sake there is always the PS3. Still havent commited a violent act since I was 15. And that was when I broke my stepdad's skull with a table leg because he had my mother prone on the floor and was kicking her in the head. So, as far as I am concerned, all of your 'reasons' are nothing but excuses for inexcusable behavoir. And religion, as far as I can see, is also merely an excuse.
Absolutely - you'll get no argument from me there! It kind of makes me frustrated when people can't think beyond "religion is the cause of all the violence in the world", particularly when discussing a horrific event like this one.
As little time as I have for organised religion, I have to point out that religion isn't the root of all violence - like you say, it's just one of several different excuses that people use to justify violence.
What you're saying is that those very same people who use religion as an excuse to be violent also use those other reasons to be violent?
With all the wars that have been fought simply because too gropus had different religions, it fail to see how removing religion wouldn't decrease violence. Religion has had a lot to do with violence.
Jesus was accused of lots of things, all lies. He suffered and died over the ignorance of men who thought they knew so much and yet they were threaten not by his strength but by his compassion and love.
"If women become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that is why they are there."
Martin Luther (1483-1546)
Leader of the German Reformation--a religious movement that led to the ultimate birth of Protestantism
And a few more:
The second century St. Clement of Alexandria wrote:
"Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman."
The sixth century Christian philosopher, Boethius, wrote in The Consolation of Philosophy,
"Woman is a temple built upon a sewer."
Bishops at the sixth century Council of Macon voted as to whether women had souls. In the tenth century Odo of Cluny declared,
"To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure..."
The thirteenth century St. Thomas Aquinas suggested that God had made a mistake in creating woman:
"nothing [deficient] or defective should have been produced in the first establishment of things; so woman ought not to have been produced then."
Lutherans at Wittenberg debated whether women were really human beings at all. Orthodox Christians held women responsible for all sin. As the Bible's Apocrypha states,
"Of woman came the beginning of sin/ And thanks to her, we all must die."
As I Corinthians 7:1 states,
"It is a good thing for a man to have nothing to do with a woman."
"What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother,
it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman...
I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function
of bearing children."
- Saint Augustine (the prominent pioneer of Western theology)
It should be no surprise to women today that men wrote the bible and the other hate filled tome. Both are sexist in the extreme.
And it is amazing how many women will defend their biblical beliefs to the extreme still in this day and age.
Indoctrination causes blindness apparently.
Jesus liberated women-havent you heard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus%27_i … with_women
Some of you guys really need to get into the New Testamant a lot more
You know, speaking of Jesus, I am researching some interesting text now. And I am finding that the stories of Jesus are becoming more and more just that...Stories...there is very little evidence that Jesus even might have existed. There is a person that might have been used as the model for the stories that hold Jesus as the main character. The first written documents that held anything concerning Jesus, that we still can see today are the Pauline letters. The Gospels were written many years after the Pauline letters and were not written by the disciples, and cannot be determined if they were even written by anyone who actually knew the man Jesus was model after (or Jesus himself for that matter).
And if in fact Jesus did Liberate women, it took well into the 21 century for it to happen in the States.
All of those quotes you just heard are post-New Testament. They are from some of the most revered names in the history of Christian theology. This is not Old Testament rhetoric.
You'll have to try again to discredit this valid collection of theological attacks on women.
Most Christians would never in a million years even contemplate something like this so it's really not fair to use one mentally challenged person to classify an entire group of people. That is an irrational and illogical conclusion by anyone's standards.
In my own opinion Christians have the same problems as all other groups around the world. Every group has people who violate the basic tenets, there is no excuse, there is no defense, but if all people would look at it for what it is one person doing a terrible terrible wrong, then we could all respect one another and rationally deal with the pain and support the survivors and families who have lost so much in this attrocious attack.
In my own opinion Christians have the same problems as all other groups around the world. Every group has people who violate the basic tenets, there is no excuse, there is no defense, but if all people would look at it for what it is one person doing a terrible terrible wrong, then we could all respect one another and rationally deal with the pain and support the survivors and families who have lost so much in this attrocious attack.
I agree with you; the cause is not the religion of a person; it is the person or a group losing norms and getting to extremes.
The media may refer to him as a 'conservative christian' but Christians don't kill people.
Peter was a Christian. And he killed two people for lying about the price of the land they sold. Read the Book of Acts.
Actually it was the Holy Spirit that took their lives, Peter just asked the questions!
Ok. So God killed them for lying...Gotcha...
Yea the world would have given him a promotion for lying.
This particular piece of the Bible has always been of interest to me. Not only were they killed for lying, but look at what the lie was. The new christians were selling all they owned and was giving it to the church for "ALL" to share equally. They kept a part back. If they would have not lied about the amount, nothing would have happened (or so it would seem), but instead they were killed because of deceit. They is no other part of the NT where it is mentioned of this money being passed out to all.
I havent read that particular passage for awhile now ,but I thought the sin in question was lying to the Holy Spirit? ..they were given a chance to come clean, but insisted on denying the prompting of the Holy Spirit (conscience)
P.s Like I said ,havent read for awhile,will take another look.
They knew the law,so they took the risk, didnt pay off , lying seldom does.
Yep, God has a thing about liars, if your memory stretches you may have seen it in the Revelations of Christ, that bit about ....and all liars?
...my thoughts...first and foremost - he's a nutter, crazy, crazy dude...clung on to some belief because he had nothing going for him...and twisted his delusional mind around it and created his own version and called it 'faith in god'....f**ked up lonely person who hates, hates, hates
http://treesforlunch.blogspot.com/2011/ … stian.html
Atheism, de valuing human life for centuries.
Darwin - the guy who inbred with another family thinking to create a super race. . . .but only created retards. Brilliant chap, ol' Charles must have been.
Crikey. 80 kids have been shot and you are posting this garbage in defense of your religion?
Liars for Jesus (TM)
Here is some up-to-date information with words from the man himself.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/norwa … vik-52749/
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/anders-br … d=14152129
Clearly the fault lies with the makers of the online video game 'World of Warcraft', which the psycho in question played relentlessly for an entire year
DO NOT ADJUST YOUR MONITORS - THIS IS A REALITY CHECK
Some nutter/fanatic in Norway has murdered over eighty people.
When somebody does something horrific as this, it's kind of... irrelevant, not to say childish and insensitive, to use it as an excuse to drag out the same tired "Christian versus atheist" arguments that crop up on these forums time after sodding time.
Get over yourselves, forf*ckssake.
Hey did you know that Charles Darwin created the Theory of Evolution to get back at God? Not to prove he doesnt exist.
Just to let you know
The true conflict is not between Christian vs Muslim, right vs left, believer for non-believer
It is totalitarianism vs freedom
Unsurprisingly, like the Christianists we have here, Breivik was not a Christian fundamentalist, but someone who thought "Christian" means a certain cultural identity.
"As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus," he writes. "Being a Christian can mean many things; That you believe in and want to protect Europe's Christian cultural heritage. The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity – Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reason is the primary source and legitimacy for authority). It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a 'Christian fundamentalist theocracy' (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want). So no, you don't need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)). The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation [sic] but rather a Christian 'culturalist' military order."
His own words put the American left's stories and accusations to the lie.
This man was not a Christian in any religious sense of the word.
Just another psycho-NAZI Democrat Leftist.
What is nice, is that America now seems to understand perfectly well that there is a great difference between an American and European "Right Winger", and America seems to know very well that a European "Right-Winger", is nothing more than an American Leant Leftist NAZI-Socialist Democrat.
It is a beautiful day in America.
Altruism is an interesting development in thinking.
It need to be seen as what it is, the application of a thought process which is both logical and sensibly selfish.
The aim of self actualisation and the safety of the human race must be altruistic in the future because of sheer numbers.
A friend in Brighton England has enough scientific reading on his site about human evolution to fill a library. I have been reading all the support material as well as the theories for 5 years now, and still have not read it all.
If anyone wants to look at some well substantiated yet controversial and well thought out ideas for our future, you may like to take a look.
Thanks Earnest. Have bookmarked that link!
I see Altruism quite the opposite -a selfless humanity, beyond the processes of their own thoughts. I have crowed a bit on the subject, but stand firm, the indulgence of human reason is humanities only problem. I have coined it the Adamic Inception.
sidebar. I recently caught the flick Inception, and was floored at how well the film followed the concept. The idea only need to be planted, for the human being to build entire worlds, within their minds, and maintain them -awake (conscious) or asleep (subconscious).
This may surprise you, but I agree it has the qualities of selflessness, as it does the most good to that which is not directly self.
But..... the icing on top is that it is wonderfully useful to self, and in that sense is the same as much good moral behaviour. Rewarding to self in many ways.
Collectively. (better treatment of each other brings many benefits)
Individually. Some call it a good vibe, or see it as building karma, but either way it feels good.
All good selfish stuff.
Good luck buddy! You are going to need it. Your worm shall not die.
Never could understand why everyone has to have
a muffler except Harley riders, or cycles of that ilk.
i could most definitely not understand this topic. people were random between!
I'll be one of the first to agree that religion probably does more harm than good. That is why Jesus is not about religion; He is about a relationship. Man is about religion.
So what you are saying is - it doesn't matter when Christians do bad things because they are religionists and real Christians have an imaginary friend in their head so they are in touch with reality. Therefore no real Christian will do a bad thing , therefore Christianity is not a religion, therefore it is OK that they do bad things and really they are better than me?
The main thing I am getting is that the 17 billion people who say they are Christians and go to church are not real Christians.
But - you are.
Therefore it doesn't matter how many psychopaths this religion produces because they are not real Christians, therefore your religion is a bad thing but you are not part of it so it is OK and all good really.
Did I get that right?
But they say the killings have been done by a person who is not a believer; he is an atheist; an extremist one.
You are obviously baiting with that comment. Atheism has nothing to do with the violence within religion. Religion seeks conflict and violence, as evidenced by your attempt to create conflict where none exists.
Yes - religious people are lying and saying this to defend their irrational beliefs.
This is why your religion causes so many conflicts. You are not taught to tell the truth.
Think about this 1st....r u sure it's ONLY his religion that has so many conflicts?
I see that you don't have much experience with the masses. The masses is a bundle of energy that must be continually vented, directed, and tempered (thermometer and thermostat if I may). The only natural peace and love states comes from God; men have no natural peace. Does this imply the need for government? You bet!! Will religion help? You bet!!!! Without supervision and quidance the masses shall self destruct.
Definitely not getting the vibe that you are anything close to showing peace and love and I wouldn't trust you to guide me across the street.
Have you ever read any books? At all? I know you have not read the bible by your complete and utter lack of knowledge about what it says. I assume the same goes for all other books?
At least you are finally getting that your religion is actually a political party and has nothing to do with Invisible Super Beings.
Man, do you have narrow views. So, narrow until you actually don't address what you have read.
Nope - still not feeling love from you. Nothing but animosity. Guess that makes you a liar destined to burn in hell.
Your choice sweetie. Oh well.
Evolution Guy, I must love you because as long as I correspond with you; you are killing me! If it was not for my knowledge of the Word of God, I would never recover again.
Wilmiers, trust me, you will get nowhere with debating religion with these people. I believe they have a reprobate mind and couldn't believe if they wanted to. They don't argue facts with facts but attack the person and their beliefs. As someone once said, Harsh words are a strong evidence of a weak argument. That why I wrote my hub, "Him Who Has Ears to Hear, Let Him Hear!"
You want to discuss facts in a religious forum?
Yeah good luck with finding a religionist who offers up any facts or evidence. I have been here almost 3 years and all I have seen is the "proof" religion offers to itself from it's own book.
Everything else is ignored.
God is true because the bible says so!
. Agreed...All of the other texts that are studied, that are used to better understand some of the meanings behind the bible, are deemed to be unfit to read. If it isn't the bible, then it can't be true...LOL
Try reading and understanding the scriptures. I see that you are totally blind to the spirit of the bible.
You see nothing.
Your brain is locked in a book of threats and lies to scare the terminally gullible.
I would suggest you wouldn't notice if a county lavatory fell on you one brick at a time.
ibneahmad is correct, the topic is:
"Conservative Christian murders 80+ in Norway"
Maybe you should change that line to:
"I would suggest you wouldn't notice if a Norwegian forest fell on you one tree at a time."
I leave laboratories very swiftly...after life is where it's at.
No, the problem for you and the other god botherers is that I know the bible better than most of you, and you know that by now.
Big difference between KNOW and UNDERSTAND though Earnest, big difference indeed, and though you know the bible well, you clearly do not understand it fully.
Satan knows his bible pretty well also, but that does not mean he can understand it, if he could he would be better able to work against it, but would equally realize it was futile to try and do so...
And NO I AM NOT comparing you to Satan!
The big difference is understanding what is written and seeing clearly that it is psychotic. That is called Understanding the bible, instead of just downing the cool aid.
Think I covered this one the other day!
In order for you to call God psychotic, you would be recognizing his personality and existence, and assuming that you had superior ability to judge Him.
Can't see that this fits in with your non belief system.
Now you can call all believers psychotic, that is your right, for you have stated that you do not believe that there is a God to believe in, therefore anyone who did believe in a God would be (in your opinion) psychotic, in the actual meaning of the word (which is different from what all you secularists seem to think it is!)
But you cannot possibly declare God to be psychotic, as you have already declared that He does not exist.
Of course what you secularists describe as 'Psychosis' could equally be seen by believers as having entered into a oneness with the Kingdom of God, whereupon we finally see the world for the charade it is, and come to a full realization of how the Kingdom of God operates over and beyond the limited kingdom of the world.
For secular folk, we would be psychotic, for Spirit Filled believers we would be enlightened, having sought first the kingdom, and had all these things added to us!.
All how we perceive things from our different worlds.
Psychosis (from the Greek ψυχή "psyche", for mind/soul, and -ωσις "-osis", for abnormal condition) means abnormal condition of the mind, and is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality".
People suffering from psychosis are described as psychotic.
Psychosis is given to the more severe forms of psychiatric disorder, during which hallucinations and delusions and impaired insight may occur.
Some professionals say that the term psychosis is not sufficient as some illnesses grouped under the term "psychosis" have nothing in common (Gelder, Mayou & Geddes 2005).
People experiencing psychosis may report hallucinations or delusional beliefs, and may exhibit personality changes and thought disorder.
Depending on its severity, this may be accompanied by unusual or bizarre behavior, as well as difficulty with social interaction and impairment in carrying out the daily life activities.
A wide variety of central nervous system diseases, from both external poisons and internal physiologic illness, can produce symptoms of psychosis.
Semantics disguised as argument.
The position can be restated as saying that in order to worship God as written in Old Testament scripture, one would have to accept worshipping a psychotic God.
Not necessarily my position, but it is the one being espoused, and to try to turn that into "If you think God is psychotic, you believe in God" is a from of desperation.
Actually I simply stated that as Earnest does not believe in God, he could hardly attribute what he views as an invisible non existent fairy with personality.
I care not one jot whether Earnest believes, believed and lost his faith or never really believed in the first place, and have no 'desperation' that would mean I am trying to prove a point or hang the existence of God on the statement made.
I know God exists, what other folk want to believe is up to them.
I can read "The Great Gatsby" and attribute personality traits to the title character when conversing about the book, while still accepting that the character is fictitious.
Your point is silly.
People say that about visiting aliens and bigfoot, which only serves to show them as being completely out of touch with reality. To say you believe in God because of faith would show you have at least one toe on the ground.
Your reality, which is not to say it's the true reality, just consider that you may just be in a charade and the real truth may be spiritual, this world of yours may just be an illusion, a fabrication to see how you manage, and whether you can find your way back to your true spiritual entity.
Just a thought.
BTW who wants even one toe on the floor when you can fly?
I'm not quite sure what to make of you?
First, you start engaging me on a thread and when you found yourself dangling over the abyss of reality with tens of thousands of miles of space between, you decide to launch into a tirade of changing the rules here so I would be silenced.
Then, you went on to tell me I should realize no one wants to discuss anything with me.
Here you are now responding again dangling over the same abyss you now say is probably just an illusion. You add something about a spiritual entity but like the others have no idea what you're talking about. It's just one fantasy piled on top of another.
That would make the opposite just as possible, wouldn't it? That you are living in a fantasy and your vision of the supernatural is all a mirage? Either case can be made.
As for admitting that belief in God is based simply on faith, scripture tells us exactly that.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Here it is openly admitted that these things spoken of in scripture are things not seen, things hoped for. Faith is where it becomes real, according to scripture.
Admitting that does seem like a good toe-hold on reality, and a much more compelling case to make to an unbeliever.
You will probably think that I am a nut, but you should take aliens out of your comment; aliens are flying the UFOs and bodies have been recovered. I am afraid that you are going to find out in the future that they are real, and you could be wrong about Big Foot. As an after thought, you very well could be wrong about God not existing.
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for..."
Substance is something...faith is self confirming.
There is no substance to faith. Because, there is no substance to hope. Just wishful thinking.
As usual, twisting in the wind, because you actually have no real answer. Good for you. You must be really proud of yourself.
cAGSIL, during our debates in other hubs I have spoke of the answer over a dozen time. You don't see it. You don't hear it. You don't have feelings for it. Well, as long as you are sealed in your lead suit...you wouldn't know.
You bring to mind doubting Thomas...he must see, feel, taste...spirit doesn't exist.
Our emotions, what we feel, is not a block of wood, but rather potentialities...relates more to intangibles...relates to spirit.
No, you spoke of the irrational thought process you used to justify being dishonest with yourself. Nothing more.
Actually, I see through your words, and read your actions. Too bad you've not learned that yet.
No sound in the forums, otherwise, your voice would give you away.
You wouldn't know anything about my feelings.
And, everytime you bring your irrationality to the forums, I'll have fun showing it for what it is.
See, there you go again....using irrationality. Spirit? All in your mind.
Untrue. Pure conjecture.
I think that I will end my participation in this hub by saying that the murderer was a christian by policy of the church administration. Murderer was never a Christian in Spirit, and that is the Spirit of God who is in Jesus. No Christian is taught to kill. Christians are taught to love.
The devil does attend church.
He was Christian, because HE SAID he was. No different than any other Christian.
The devil does attend church; even beats me there.
See, your irrationality showing itself again.
The greatest deception of the devil is that "he doesn't exist."
How do you explain those people that have reached out for God, that truly wanted to find him and have him enter his or her life, and found nothing. No voice coming back, no revelation, no door opening? Why would God reject these sincere seekers? This is the experience of many, many people. They couldn't convince themselves, and no Holy Spirit entered them to help them to conviction.
Why are they rejected?
This is simply a self vs. dying of self and receiving Christ Jesus' Spirit problem. "All that seek shall find..." A person can seek God for One's personal agenda or seek to do the Will of God...requiring a dying of self and Jesus taking control of your life.
Self blocks or resist any other will.
The problem with that theory is that a lot of dying people find Jesus. The fact that they go in search, just before their death, would be a clear indication that the search was for personal gain. If healthy people express a sincere desire and find nothing why do unhealthy people seem to have a clear advantage?
"Dying of the self." I don't mean sick and physically dying. I mean the replacing of self with the mind set of Jesus who is God in the flesh. Spiritual transformation.
Yes. I did understand what you said. My question had nothing to do with the concept 'dying of self'. The words in my question were meant to be taken literally.
I know many people who have 'found Jesus' shortly before their death. They have a selfish and vested interest in the search. Much more of a selfish interest than a young and healthy person would have if they were truly searching. Yet the sick and dying have an almost 100% success rate in being 'saved'.
Your response to TheBruceBeat, for one.
Your response doesn't make sense. The dying clearly have a personal agenda. You couldn't necessarily say that of the healthy that are searching. So, while it could be true that some of those at death's door are seeking to be saved in order to do the will of God, it would be difficult to imagine it was all of them.
If the dying have a 100% success rate of 'being saved' and the healthy don't, it kind of begs the question of whether this is a valid option or if people are simply deluding themselves.
Where did you get the idea that the dying have 100% success??
"Seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you." This is solid, and the faithful know it. If you do not have the faith, it is nonsensical to you.
I believe that your problem is that you are leaning on your own understanding of who is deemed deserving. God makes the perfect decision whether your sweet granny's heart was sincere or not. We can not; althought, we all have those sweet grannies that we believe is perfectly good. Believe me, it's self vs. Jesus!!! Just as I responded to ....
I'm sorry, this is callous and cruel. Those with a perceived need of a relationship with this idea you defend would be as faithful as any other believer if given a sign. It is obviously not nonsensical to them, they are seeking. The idea of a god is no where near as nonsensical as the comments made to support one.
That's very convenient, but did you ever stop to think how your defense sounds to those with a perceived need? You are saying that they are undeserving. They can't find this god because they aren't good enough. Their hearts aren't good enough. Again, your words are callous and cruel. You have a zeal, but if you believe, you do no service to the one you claim exists by showing the world that those who follow him care nothing for their fellow man.
I believe your argument is, in all truthfulness, saying it is self against your ideas of what would be deemed worthy and what would not. I believe your argument is that those who agree with you have a right to judge others and, since it isn't going to happen in reality; it will happen in an afterlife and they will be avenged for all of the perceived injustices they think they have suffered in this life.
I believe that Christianity could never be simpatico with any deity; and one worthy of being called God would never call Christians his followers, if this is the extent of the argument they have in defense of their beliefs.
The Christians cannot defend Trinity and Jesus dieing on the Cross for sins of others; these are un-natural concepts; human phsyche rejects them.
Sound like you think that God should compare with your parents or the government's concern for person(s) welfare. I am sorry, but you must live up to God's Standard who is in Jesus, the Son of God, not your own sensibilities, intellect, and beliefs.
Next, you don't believe the Word of God, and I believe. My quoting the Word of God has meant nothing to you. Truth is truth regardless what book it comes from...God truths require faith without doubt. The goal is not only strong faith, but faith without doubt.
Believe it or not!! God is not impressed with my precieved notions or any other person's...
God wants our time and thoughts as one moves closer to God. Returning to the communing with God after Adam's orginal sin is One's purpose in this life.
Emile R, I believe strongly that if you would drop all of your preceptions of what is right and listen to every word that proceeds from the mouth and obey, than you will feel God's love and His power.
As for your perceived notions, God and I feel the exact same way, apparently.
I should set reason and compassion aside. Then listen to and obey all of your words? Are you freaking serious? Wouldn't that simply mean I gave you power? Are you doling out God today? Thanks for the offer, but I think I'll just say no.
I've chosen not to obey you. Yes. Don't take this the wrong way, but you might be well advised to seek help for that god complex you've got going.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. You said your English is not good. If that is what has made you post some of the heinous comments you have, you have no reason to be embarrassed. Since you didn't understand them you couldn't have meant them.
Get yourself a good phrase translator and make apologies all around after you get a handle on some of the over the top comments you've been making.
Is that a symptom of megalomania?
Do you believe that the world should follow you in your one religious beliefs out of thousands of others because you are in touch with god, and despite claiming the same thing as you do, you alone can work it out better than any of the others?
Believe it or not! I don't in the least. I want each person to have a personal relationship with God thru Jesus, the Son of God. Christianity is tailor made for a personal relationship with God. This is our purpose.
I do take bold stands in the name of Jesus and is rewarded later by God for suffering from such stand. Jesus said, paraphrasing, if you are luke warm for me I shall spit you from my mouth.
I think that your brucebeat was spit from the Lord's mouth in his spirit for being luke warm, and he resigned from the ministry. His mechanics was better than your. You are being blown by the winds of the world.
Stand for nothing; fall for anything. Hope this is not too cryptic.
No, it is simply illogical nonsense written with no understanding of my background with christianity which was probably more intense than your own.
I stand for a lot of things!
I think the fear of having to act as you do is enough to frighten many away from your god. Not to mention, spending eternity anywhere with those who think like you would be hell for some of us.
Not too cryptic, just lousy english.
Your ability to use language announces your ability to understand higher concepts.
You have deliberately avoided my question, as all Christians have who have confronted it with me.
Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. The Fruits of the Spirit, the evidence that a person is penetrated by the Holy Spirit. How many of these do you think your posts violate? Why would you give them no serious attention? Why have you been passed over for the true infusion of the Holy Spirit? Why have you been forsaken?
I'll pray for you. Right now even! : God Bless!
Well, I see that you did memorize some parts of the scripture while you were a minister. Who are the people that reap from the fruits of the spirit? The Ones who allow the Lord Jesus to come into their hearts and control their lives.
God made His Son in the image of a male. God commanded man to use force to maintain His laws.
Brucebeat, it appears that if you are caught in a masculine situation, you run home and hug the kids. Even in life, you left your ministry and became agnostic which is another more faminine than masculine choice out of the three choices.
Stop being punked! Next time, be HOT in the Word. Not luke warm.
Still refuse to answer, huh?
You are clearly a coward, and I hope you don't represent the Christian community.
Isn't that avatar a picture of you hugging a kid? Or is that not you? What were you thinking?
You have done the faith a great disservice by your presence on these forums, and have made many turn away from the pursuit of God, as they now fear making that connection and becoming anything like you.
You are the perfect victim to fall prey to the myths, as your education level is obviously low and you lack the skills in logic to avoid being indoctrinated by what you perceive will solve your problems and finally give you ultimate power in a world that has left you emasculated, powerless.
Sorry you never answered my question. I would have been interested to see what you said, how you excused yourself for your obvious failure to live up to your principles, for excuse yourself you surely would. But we will never know. That would take a man of integrity, of honesty, an ethical man. Some other man.
Hold on there, por favor amigo. With all due respect, what you want and what you do with your albondigas is your business just like what I want and what I do is my business.
This is not up to committee or debate.
Thank you, come again.
OK, after reviewing your comment I think that you have a problem with "If healthy people express a sincere desire and find nothing...". God knows your heart completely. Seek and you shall find. With these explicits all deserving shall find. There is a mandate from God that one deny self and let Jesus take control of your life.
No human knows the heart of another human as God does. This is why the Word of God says Judge not least you be judged.
Does all at the verge of dead repent and accept Jesus for the spiritual transformation?
I have been in ministry. I have counseled people as they tried to reach for a connection. According to the believer, that connection is the result of the Holy Spirit answering a call. These people desperately wanted God in their life, and their hopes went unanswered.
Why would the Holy Spirit be selective in who he answered? Your answer is self serving, not their attempts to find God.
I can see why you have abandoned you ministry. I quoted the scripture and you doubted it.
One can not reduce God to a system that works one to one. The providence of God prevails in all instants.
Why am I judging the heart of others? Once again, I quoted the scripture...believed absolutely. You told me that subjects did not connect to the Holy Spirit. I simply put 2 and 2 together. Former brother of Christ, go back to zero power and listen to the next thing that God tells you. Your new anointed power shall come...when it comes to believing God remain at zero please until the moment...God's Spirit moves...
Get out of the way of the Lord; let him have His way.
It was the realization that the scriptures were not inspired texts from God that relieved me from the willing subjugation of my mind, one of the parts of our being that we are told in scripture to love our God with all of. I was no longer willing to put that part aside in favor of loving God with only all my heart, soul and strength. We are not told to put our reason aside in order to be believers. It must encompass that as well. That is why I am an agnostic. I do not reject the possibility of God. I reject the possibility of knowing the reality of that force.
You have embraced your vision of God by choosing to "let go and let God", so to speak. That is not what we are told to do. All your mind must also be engaged, and when it is, things get a bit more complicated.
Yup!! I see that I was correct in the first place. Not only was your subjects who couldn't connect with God had a self problem, but their minister also had a self problem.
One who conforms to the world doesn't have the love of the Father in them.
We live not by bread along, but by every word from the mouth of God.
Listen to every word that proceeds from the mouth of God and obey.
Seek the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness, and All shall be added unto you.
I would like for TheBruceBeat to qualify ALL as it relates in above sentence?
I'm unfortunately grappling with trying to understand your english.
But one thing I did decipher from that post was that you unquestioningly accept everything that is written in the Bible as the inspired word of God, and I don't, so your exhortations for me to do likewise will fall on deaf ears.
The rest I couldn't understand.
Not understanding my english could be part of your problem in general. I keep seeing yourSELF blocking any move of God's Spirit. You believe the scriptures only if they complied to your beliefs. You appear to live in a very small world of SELF.
You are Anti-Job; God must show you only love...mother's boy. Are you a homosexual?
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times, reading bad grammar leads to homosexuality.
Thebrucebeat, your writings are very feminine. Your writings have no balls. I paraphrased some scripture, and you came back with "can't understand". You couldn't have been a ministry who counselled anyone. You write as if you have never believed one scripture to any extent.
Get some balls and make a stand! LOLOLOLOL!
Mat 3:1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
Mat 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mat 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
How can we make the paths straight when we go out of our way to insult people?
Although we do not agree on religion Dent, I'm glad to see you are displeased with this guy's message.
I am displeased with a lot of messages. I usually just keep my thoughts to myself. This guy was way over the top and he was making it personal.
Dent, the real question is, how can you make the paths straight when you are on the WRONG path!
The Son of Man said, only worship the Father in spirit and truth. The later can only come from the Spirit. The former comes by action of righteousness ( aka faith ), and the result is the anointing (christ, christos) of the Spirit.
"And it was considered righteousness for Abrams sake, that he believed the promise and "walked with the Father".
"And Elijah sat upon the mount and saw, with his own eyes, the armies of angels... Then Elisha pressed the mantle on the water and cried aloud. And as Elijah was taken, the Spirit came upon Elisha also."
...if a man ask you to walk a single mile, walk TWO MILES with him; if he asks for your robe, give him both your tunic and coat!
Peace, love, joy,patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
The Fruits of the Spirit, the sign of a truly Spirit filled Christian.
How many do you think this last post of yours violates?
Why don't Christians ever answer this question when I ask it?
He obviously has no idea how the Bible was compiled, Bruce. Not many "true believers" do. This is why they believe as they do. Mere ignorance of reality usually causes these type of delusions in the "real Christians."
How was the Bible compiled?
And how do you know it was compiled in the way you think it was?
See! You must be a Christian if you've never researched the early attempts to create the "inspired word of God" by multitudes of chosen(depending on who chose them) believers.
Wilmiers apparently doesn't know King James was a homosexual or he would not be so hasty to post his hilarious opinions.
I think the German phrase is appropiate here, "Mach Nik!"
Spelled wrong, as usual. Why does your god choose such uneducated people to represent him?
And if it makes no difference if the KJV of the bible was instigated by a homosexual, then why are so many of your cult so against them?
Ask the people that gave you the impression. All the people that I know get alone perfectly homosexuals. We are mature; now, that might be...
I have asked them, dude. Their answers are just as confused as yours.
I'm sorry Randy did you answer my question?
How do you know about the early attempts?
Did you possibly read about it?
Did you take those words you read and apply faith that they were true?
Inquiring minds and all that.
Yes, I have researched the origin of the Bible, Jim. Since many biblical scholars agree on the evidence supporting my views, along with actual historical documents describing such attempts to decide which of the many books should be included in the tome, I can truly assert the book didn't suddenly appear from a deity's hands.
But perhaps you have evidence to the contrary. I would love to see it if you do.
Why is it, both believing and non, lean on "the bible" for comfort and contrast alike? I find that HYSTERICAL above all. Calling the text bogus, megalomania, empirical --even esoteric-- and absolute. etc is equally distorted/destructive and fruitless. In a word boring!
I don't have evidence to the contrary.
My point is you have your Bible and Christians have theirs.
You believe "biblical scholars" and they believe the Bible.
Whose right whose wrong who knows.
I suppose it depends on whether one wishes to believe facts or superstition. I lean towards the former.
Then help me out with the facts.
You haven't exactly come up with anything more than Biblical Scholars agree with you.
I know Constitutional scholars who are dead wrong with what they believe.
I do not wish to do your research for you, Jim. If you disagree with me, then feel free to tell me what you have found to dispute my opinion. I will be glad to have a look.
I have already told you I have no evidence to dispute you.
And you provide no evidence to back you.
Stalemate I guess.
Did you ever read any Bart Ehrman like I suggested a couple of weeks ago to you on another thread?
At least then you would know where people like myself are coming from. What could it hurt?
Both sides depend on scholars. Ask someone who has read Revelation and had no input from outside sources what they think it is about, whether they are a believer or not.
Hollywood read it and made tons of money.
Its all about perspective.
"Hollywood read it and made tons of money."
Yeah, by scaring the $@#t out of people.
My reaction was confirmed.
And yet it is a message of hope. Even if read as it was intended, apocalyptic literature.
I think it reads like Drama, then Mystery ,then Booyayyy
Revelations is attributed to John, but which John is not known. Most biblical scholars do not think it was the same anonymous person who penned the "Gospel According To John." The writing styles are so different and the author never identifies himself clearly.
The New Testament was the Grecian paperback fiction novels of the day, written long after the purported incidents were said to have occurred.
I was responding to a situation, YOU. Did you run when you read that Jesus ran the merchants out of the temple with a whip?
Once again, are you a homosexual?
Gotta ask, what the hell does this have to do with anything he posted.
"Once again, are you a homosexual?"
I say this not to defend Bruce but rather to understand your mindset.
You have a mindset, right?
Pin head, glad that you at least know who "YOU" refers. I don't expect anything else above.
I have to say, posters such as yourself are an enigma. Are you actually an atheist, pretending to be a christian in order to show the faith in the worst light possible? If not, you're doing a grand job making the whole idea of christianity look petty and trite either way.
Oh, I think that moment is upon us. The spotlight is on you and it ain't nice. But, what does your book say? You reap what you sow.
The last thing that I am concerned about is you and your group shining bad light on me. The devils continually shine bad light on me. I am conditioned with the Word of God. Jesus is the man of all times.
Take my word for it. If the comments and statements you have made are a clear indication of how you think. You don't know anything about this Jesus. You have no grasp of his message.
I am not sure whether I thanked you for your comments. The compliment is huge, I am a Jesus "freak" as the world have label me. Thanks again, you don't know how much your comments mean to me.
You wouldn't know. It appears that your experience doesn't much exceed the elementary school yard.
How do you have the "balls" to show up in this thread when you have universally embarrassed yourself to believers and non-believers alike?
How can you come here and still not answer to why you spit in the face of the Lord your God by turning your back on the Fruits of the Spirit? You stated that believers "reap from the Fruits of the Spirit", which is not what scripture states at all. You don't reap from the Fruits, you exhibit the Fruits as evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
You should hide for awhile, or change your name. Your reputation was self-sacrificed on these pages, and I doubt you will be able to reclaim a shred of respect.
Study Galatians. Study the Fruits. See if you can find your way back.
Have you ever seen a fruit tree in its natural habitat? The fruit must be harvested or just plain picked. Picked for what? To eat!!! Display? And you accuse me of not being aware of higher concepts.
Reap the fruit! Consume the fruit for nurishment! Live by the fruits of the Holy Spirit!
God gives seeds for planting; The seed die, giving more fruits; we harvest the fields of plants and trees. We eat thereof...
Let not the Lord spit you from His mouth for conforming to the world and becoming luke ward in His name.
Be not a sissy! Stand boldly in the Word of God.
Now, let's go back to our beginning of this engagement; you asked me what about the persons that sincerely attempted to connect with God's Spirit and could not? I said, without reservations, it's a self vs. not letting Jesus take control of their lives. Than, I discovered quickly that you have a self problem. Furtherly, I discovered that you didn't even believe the scriptures as a minister! "Seek and you shall find, knock and the door shall be opened..." Than you came back with some wimpy, sissy, and punky statement that in a nut shell said why didn't God fill them with the Holy Spirit and they deserved it. Then, to top it off, you begin to tell me of your self righteous! WHAT DID THE WORD OF GOD SAY? What caused you not to continue believing? Yourself is in the way. Your self righteous and our self righteousness stinks in the nosils of God. One who has faith continues even 1000 time or until told by God to try something else. You need to zero yourself and seek God again.
Do you understand omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscience?
Next, do you understand God is love?
Next, Do you understand the greatest of all commandments? "Love God with all of your heart, soul, body, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself." On this commandment all the laws hang..
Do not stop from meditating with God until you have a satisfying understand of the above with God even if it takes years. Also, I discovered that Your God was too small. But, our God is infinite...
And yet you still won't answer the question.
Why don't you display the Fruits in your own life?
Why has God forsaken you?
I'll read with fascination when I wake up tomorrow.
Still sounding like that wimpy, sissy, and punky humanist.
And still too much of a coward to answer. Pray that your God is real. The rest of us don't forgive you. Or respect you.
And you still sound like a hypocrite.
God loves you.
"Aw, blow it out your ass, Howard"!- Blazing Saddles
"Next, Do you understand the greatest of all commandments? "Love God with all of your heart, soul, body, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself." On this commandment all the laws hang.."
You should read less and practice more.
Well, violence will beget violence.
Did you know mothers milk can lead to crack cocaine, tomfoolery and extreme tiddlywinks, which is already banned on three continents? True.
After that response, you probably don't want to know what I think.
But as a forethought, you are right.
Aquasilver, I like you. You present fairly good debates, in my opinion, when I talk with you. But I have to disagree with you on this one. It is possible to Know and Understand the bible without being a "believer". Now with that being said, understanding it, or using it as a basis for a belief system is different. As each person (or denomination) has its own meanings behind the bible. There are schools that their sole purpose is teaching the apologetics behind the bible. The true meaning of the bible is still (and probably always will be) debated by those of theological scholorship and doctorate. Personal understanding of the bible varies from person to person. No-one really agrees on it completely, even those of the same faith.
I can see where you are coming from, but (ain't there always a 'but' in there!) where we may differ is in what we perceive to mean 'understanding'.
My book spoke to me (or rather the Holy Spirit did) from when I first picked it up, as soon as I had stopped my rebellion and surrendered to God through Christ, I started getting 'downloads' as I sat there asking God," What do you mean by this" - "How does that work" and in the next few years many passages were revealed to me, with a depth sometimes that surprised me.
I had an advantage, God was my teacher and although I had mentors, they never knew me nor questioned my thinking. Derek Prince was one of my tutors, John McCarthy another, J Vernon McGee took me through the bible, and many other added bits of concepts for me to evaluate.
I actually believed what the bible said and put it to work testing it out.
When God said 'eat the words of this scroll' I took it as a command and consumed it daily like the starving man I was.
When I read that we would do these things and greater, I tried that out..... up to raising the dead, and I confess I have not had the opportunity to hear God say 'raise that corpse, it's not his time' but if I did, I would do so.
I have seen demons cast out and people healed by God using me, and I have seen the wicked flee at His name.
So maybe when I say 'understand' I mean 'understand that God is faithful and to be trusted'
I see it that our task is to make our world conform to the bible, not to try and make the bible conform to our world.
Nowhere in scripture does it say you will succeed in conforming the world to your view. If it were possible, the solution of a second coming would be unnecessary.
You are not sent to conform the world, but to conform your own heart. The world is His obligation.