Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

whats the difference between christians and catholics? they look pretty similar to me. but i hav a very low knowledge about this so yeh

droolio

All Catholics are Christians. Not all Christians are Catholics.

Well, Catholics have a valid claim to the origin of their religion, while most Christian sects do not. Oh, and they are both Christian, just some people that believe they "know" what was meant by scripture believe Catholics are not Christians.

by Catholics, you mean Orthodox Christians?

Dont Catholixs Beleive in mary as a god?

No. and its spelled "Catholics".

Ik and some like Hard Core Catholics do, Some lean to christianity

and Catholics beleive you can get into heaven by a slip of paper

Originally posted by Alliance
by Catholics, you mean Orthodox Christians? I refer to those that recognize the authority of the Pope, the Holy Father, currently Benedictus XVI.

I realize that those are Catholics...

Orthodox Christians have a valid claim on the origin of thier religion, not Catholics or protestants.
Originally posted by Darkchoco
and Catholics beleive you can get into heaven by a slip of paper

You have quite a bundle of misconceptions there.

Originally posted by JaxN
whats the difference between christians and catholics? they look pretty similar to me. but i hav a very low knowledge about this so yeh

Originaly the catholic church was the only christian church in the world. When the reformation began people began to break from the catholic church and form protestant christian churchs. As a result some catholics identify as catholic rather then christan.

There are few similaritys between catholics and other christians and just as few between protestant sects.

OTHODOX CHRISTIANS ARE CALLED SO FOR A REASON.

So no, "Originaly the catholic church was the only christian church in the world" is a incorrect.

Roman Catholics are the SECOND of THREE branches of Christianity.

Noting of course that the Roman Catholic Church and the Catholic Church are different entities, despite the fact that most people term Roman Catholics "Catholics."

Catholics formed the first church. Roman Catholics formed the second. Protestants the third.

Alliance is right. Orthodox Christians, are technically, the oldest branch of Christianity. They don't accept the pope for obvious reasosn (Great Schism...etc)

Originally posted by Darkchoco
and Catholics beleive you can get into heaven by a slip of paper No.

that would be christians. As they sin, they beg for forgivness while us catholics belive the same but we must be punished.

Originally posted by Alliance
OTHODOX CHRISTIANS ARE CALLED SO FOR A REASON.

So no, "Originaly the catholic church was the only christian church in the world" is a incorrect.

Roman Catholics are the SECOND of THREE branches of Christianity.

Noting of course that the Roman Catholic Church and the Catholic Church are different entities, despite the fact that most people term Roman Catholics "Catholics."

Catholics formed the first church. Roman Catholics formed the second. Protestants the third.

No need to become angry Alliance. I'll admit my mistake RC is the second branch.

How do Catholics and Roman Catholics differ, however? (besides the pope)

Originally posted by JaxN
whats the difference between christians and catholics? they look pretty similar to me. but i hav a very low knowledge about this so yeh
The difference between a catholic and a christian, is that the catholics worship saints and christians worship Jesus Christ. The bible says that thou shall not worship any other God besides the lord Jesus Christ. Catholics tend to pray to the virgin mary and the saints for just about any reason.

Originally posted by erg
The difference between a catholic and a christian, is that the catholics worship saints and christians worship Jesus Christ. The bible says that thou shall not worship any other God besides the lord Jesus Christ. Catholics tend to pray to the virgin mary and the saints for just about any reason.

I'm not an expert on this but I think they use the saints as a conduit to god not as gods in and of themselves

Originally posted by erg
The difference between a catholic and a christian, is that the catholics worship saints and christians worship Jesus Christ. The bible says that thou shall not worship any other God besides the lord Jesus Christ. Catholics tend to pray to the virgin mary and the saints for just about any reason.

to pray to the virgin mary or a saint for help and guidance is not to worship them.

head out of ass please

Well Catholics are the first branch off paganism and protestants are the shoot off of that one, then the denominations are the little buds of that tree, quite simple actually.........Quite a nice tree of beliefs with only the change in names..

Originally posted by erg
The difference between a catholic and a christian, is that the catholics worship saints and christians worship Jesus Christ. The bible says that thou shall not worship any other God besides the lord Jesus Christ. Catholics tend to pray to the virgin mary and the saints for just about any reason.


Yup. And don't forget the whole purgatory thing, confessing sins to priests, and the general diefication of their priests.

do balls of shit come falling out of your mouths as you make this nonesense up?

I honestly do not know which is worse... Listening to zealots like JIA copy-paste-preach or ill informed people posting blantant nonsense about religions.

Originally posted by PVS
to pray to the virgin mary or a saint for help and guidance is not to worship them.

head out of ass please

How can a dead person guide or pray for a living one? If you could, please provide something of a scriptural nature to support this notion. I've never seen anything in the bible supporting it.

Originally posted by Robtard
I honestly do not know which is worse... Listening to zealots like JIA copy-paste-preach or ill informed people posting blantant nonsense about religions.

Are not those two the same?

Originally posted by Thundar
How can a dead person guide or pray for a living one? If you could, please provide something of a scriptural nature to support this notion. I've never seen anything in the bible supporting it.

your argument is based on the supposition that a "dead person" is just that and nothing more. how can you have a debate on faith if you dont acknowledge the spirit? shall i just say "you win" and give you a gold star sticker, and we'll call it a day or shall we have an endless debate based on your shifting convoluded logic?

Originally posted by Thundar
How can a dead person guide or pray for a living one? If you could, please provide something of a scriptural nature to support this notion. I've never seen anything in the bible supporting it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint

I know it's wiki, but it's a start... also look up and research "Sainthood", then come back and debate.

Your answer:

Originally posted by PVS
your argument is based on the supposition that a "dead person" is just that and nothing more.


God's answer:

Ecclesiastes 9:5
For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward;

Ecclesiastes 9:6
Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

The dead have no knowledge of anything "under the sun." One does not take part in anything involving life, once they are dead. Thus praying to a dead saint, will not bring an individual to salvation. So who can bring an individual to salvation?

God's Answer:

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Only through Christ can an individual be saved. Not through a dead saint, the virgin mary, or a Catholic priest.

Originally posted by Robtard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint

I know it's wiki, but it's a start... also look up and research "Sainthood", then come back and debate.

^^^^

yes, please do

Originally posted by Thundar
Your answer:



God's answer:

Ecclesiastes 9:5
For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward;

Ecclesiastes 9:6
Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

The dead have no knowledge of anything "under the sun." One does not take part in anything involving life, once they are dead. Thus praying to a dead saint, will not bring an individual to salvation. So who can bring an individual to salvation?

God's Answer:

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Only through Christ can an individual be saved. Not through a dead saint, the virgin mary, or a Catholic priest.

You are confused, that is the bible's answer, at God's. Oh that's right, the bible is your god.

its sad really.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not an expert on this but I think they use the saints as a conduit to god not as gods in and of themselves
If you want to tell God something you don't need anyone carrying any messages or prayers to him. He can hear you.

Originally posted by PVS
to pray to the virgin mary or a saint for help and guidance is not to worship them.

head out of ass please
What good is it to pray to something that can't hear you, it's just a waste of breath.

And exactly you should keep your head out of your ass

what cracks me up is one group of people who believe in the invisible man in the sky bashing and trying to discredit other people who believe in the invisible man in the sky...and those statements also being misinformed and baseless at the same time. thats just sad yet funny...makes me want to dress you up as clowns and shoot you.

Originally posted by PVS
what cracks me up is one group of people who believe in the invisible man in the sky bashing and trying to discredit other people who believe in the invisible man in the sky...and those statements also being misinformed and baseless at the same time. thats just sad yet funny...makes me want to dress you up as clowns and shoot you.
You probably don't have to dress up as one.

Originally posted by erg
You probably don't have to dress up as one.

That was funny

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are confused, that is the bible's answer, at God's. Oh that's right, the bible is your god.

Umm..someone obviously doesn't know that "the inspired word of God" is the bible.

Originally posted by Thundar
Umm..someone obviously doesn't know that "the inspired word of God" is the bible.

The bible is your god.

Originally posted by erg
If you want to tell God something you don't need anyone carrying any messages or prayers to him. He can hear you.

What if God is busy? Even heaven needs beuracracy.

"god wrote the bible in english for a reason: so that it can be taught in public schools"

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The bible is your god.

Yes, but it only represents part of him...or specifically his word...mr. Shaky...

Originally posted by Thundar
Yes, but it only represents part of him...or specifically his word...mr. Shaky...

So, your god is a book, and that is male?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, your god is a book, and that is male?

a male book (how would that work)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, your god is a book, and that is male?

My god is Love.....and the bible i read represents only part of this Love my friend. You see..Love may present itself in many ways mr. Shaky, but those who know love..will recognize it regardless of how it presents itself to them...my friend...

Originally posted by Thundar
My god is Love.....and the bible i read represents only part of this Love my friend. You see..Love may present itself in many ways mr. Shaky, but those who know love..will recognize it regardless of how it presents itself to them...my friend...

I have love in my life, and I have no need for the bible. So, you don't need the bible to have God?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have love in my life, and I have no need for the bible. So, you don't need the bible to have God?

i need the bible..or the "word"..to find the type of love im looking for mr. Shaky..but its obvious you dont need it to find the god your searching for...my friend..

Originally posted by Thundar
i need the bible..or the "word"..to find the type of love im looking for mr. Shaky..but its obvious you dont need it to find the god your searching for...my friend..

I'm not searching for any god. We are all part of God and cannot be separated from God.

Took a serious while for a decent explanation but thankfully Alliance provided a decent answer.

Originally posted by Fire
Took a serious while for a decent explanation but thankfully Alliance provided a decent answer.

He's just great in that way.

Originally posted by Fire
Took a serious while for a decent explanation but thankfully Alliance provided a decent answer.

Yeah the discussion is basicly over.

At this point it has degenerated into a clone of every other religion thread.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yeah the discussion is basicly over.

At this point it has degenerated into a clone of every other religion thread.

But I like playing with the Christians, they're funny when they get made.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But I like playing with the Christians, they're funny when they get made.

Until the holy wars start then it gets scary.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Until the holy wars start then it gets scary.

Do you real guns or just stupid children on the forum?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you real guns or just stupid children on the forum?

Do I what?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do I what?

Sorry, Do you mean... I'm missing words again.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry, Do you mean... I'm missing words again.

I see.

Well holy wars on forums aren't very dangerous so I guess I mean the one with real guns.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I see.

Well holy wars on forums aren't very dangerous so I guess I mean the one with real guns.

bag I'm not here...

Okay funs over mr. Shaky, on to the topic...

Alliance did a descent job of describing how the Catholic Church came into fruition, but he didn't do a great job of describing why many Christians have problems with Catholic doctrine, and the conflicts the doctrine has with scripture. I'll name a few just to get the ball rolling..


1. Praying to Saints. This goes directly against scripture. As Jesus acts as an intemediary between the Father and mankind, not any man.

2. Praying to Mary. Same as above. Mary has no ability to intercede on our behalf for sin. Many Catholics pray to idols of Mary and the saints, which goes directly against God's command to "put no other Gods before me.

3. Confessing sins to priests. Again, man can not offer atonement or salvation for one another. Only God can do this. Confessing sins to priests will not allow one to have their sins forgiven.

4. Deified priests living up the lap of luxury, adorned extravagant attire. They state that they have communion and authority over the church.

These are just the most glaringly obvious things, without completely delving into the paganistic history of the church. This is not to say that the Catholic church hasn't done a few good things. If it wasn't for the Church, there would have never been the Protestant reformation, nor would the gospels have spread across the globe as much as they have.

But its extremely important for all of those interested in converting to the Christian faith(as well as those presently practicing the faith), to know about these paganistic practices. So they don't get led astray by them.

Thats not exactly on topic.

Alliance answered the question so unless you contest said answer or provide one of your own you're technically off topic.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What if God is busy? Even heaven needs beuracracy.

God is never to busy. He almighty and he is everywhere. And can do many things at once!

Originally posted by erg
God is never to busy. He almighty and he is everywhere. And can do many things at once!

And yet needed seven days to form the world and forgot to give Adam a wife anyway.

Originally posted by erg
God is never to busy. He almighty and he is everywhere. And can do many things at once!

But your god does have limitations.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But your god does have limitations.

Not really he did make a universe (apparently) so within our world and within anything we can concieve God has no limitations.

Still H2H he looses to L-Sama or Haruhi

:thought this was the VS Forum

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not really he did make a universe (apparently) so within our world and within anything we can concieve God has no limitations.

Still H2H he looses to L-Sama or Haruhi

:thought this was the VS Forum

"He" can't make a perfect world.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And yet needed seven days to form the world and forgot to give Adam a wife anyway.
He didn't need 7 days he could do all in a sec. Why did he choose to take 7 days? Cuz 7 is Gods # Just like Satans is 6. And he didn't forget to give Adam a wife. He probably just wanted to keep him out of trouble. What happened after Eve came along? She got him to eat from the forbidden tree.

The first organized church was called the Christian church, the only christain church, and from there others left the faith to follow after docterines of devils.....As some would say

OR

Others left the church, the whore of Babylon (come of of her my people)...

Originally posted by erg
And he didn't forget to give Adam a wife. He probably just wanted to keep him out of trouble. What happened after Eve came along? She got him to eat from the forbidden tree.



that's really mean

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"He" can't make a perfect world.

or chooses not to do so

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But your god does have limitations.
The only limitation my God as you say, is that he can't force us to choose in what we do with our lives. Meaning to follow him or the world.

Then how can he be an omnipotent god?

Originally posted by erg
The only limitation my God as you say, is that he can't force us to choose in what we do with our lives. Meaning to follow him or the world.

You're wrong (again)... God is the Alpha and the Omega; God is the epitome of Omnipotence. Logically thinking, God could force us to do anything, God chooses to give us free will, key word "chooses".

Edit: Damn you Alliance, beat me to it by meer seconds.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"He" can't make a perfect world.
He has made a perfect world. And his followers are the only one's that will get to see it.

Originally posted by erg
He has made a perfect world. And his followers are the only one's that will get to see it.

seems really pointless if you think about it

"I'll make two worlds. One will be perfect and the other will be screwed up but nobody goes in the perfect one to start with. Then after people die I'll choose a bunch of things about them and tell them if they go to the perfect world or not." - God

(PS marchello I know God didn't really say that)

Originally posted by erg
He has made a perfect world. And his followers are the only one's that will get to see it.

You are fully delusional.

Originally posted by erg
He has made a perfect world. And his followers are the only one's that will get to see it. I say no. Could you please address my earlier question?

Originally posted by Alliance
I say no. Could you please address my earlier question?
Omnipotent means all powerful and almighty. But the only thing that he has given to us that he has basically no control of is freewill. And that was of his will. He didn't want to program everyone to worship him. He wanted us to worship him because we wanted to.

Originally posted by erg
Omnipotent means all powerful and almighty. But the only thing that he has given to us that he has basically no control of is freewill. And that was of his will. He didn't want to program everyone to worship him. He wanted us to worship him because we wanted to.

He wanted to. What a great argument. Where did you get that little jewel?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
seems really pointless if you think about it

"I'll make two worlds. One will be perfect and the other will be screwed up but nobody goes in the perfect one to start with. Then after people die I'll choose a bunch of things about them and tell them if they go to the perfect world or not." - God

(PS marchello I know God didn't really say that)
No he did make a perfect world before and when Adam took the bite of the apple he allowed for sin to enter the world. That's why the earth started getting " screwed up". If it it wasn't for people committing such atrocities then maybe this earth would not have to come to and end. God loves sinners but hates the sin. People have become to think that they are invincible and that's not true. So God for the last time is getting rid of all the evil in the earth.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
He wanted to. What a great argument. Where did you get that little jewel? It's common sense. Why are you so opposed to the truth?

Originally posted by erg
It's common sense. Why are you so opposed to the truth?

Because truth is subjective and you cannot prove your truth in any way.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're wrong (again)... God is the Alpha and the Omega; God is the epitome of Omnipotence. Logically thinking, God could force us to do anything, God chooses to give us free will, key word "chooses".

Edit: Damn you Alliance, beat me to it by meer seconds.
Yeah, I admit you described it better

Originally posted by erg
Yeah, I admit you described it better

I was just pointing out your lack of knowledge about a topic you vehemently debate about.

Originally posted by Robtard
God is the Alpha and the Omega; God is the epitome of Omnipotence. Logically thinking, God could force us to do anything, God chooses to give us free will, key word "chooses". And there you have it folks.

Originally posted by erg
It's common sense. Why are you so opposed to the truth?

I'm not opposed to truth, but you're not expressing truth.

Originally posted by erg
It's common sense. Why are you so opposed to the truth?

It is called circular logic not common sense.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because truth is subjective and you cannot prove your truth in any way.



I guess I am the only one who recognized the irony in this statement.

Originally posted by Robtard
Logically thinking, God could force us to do anything, God chooses to give us free will, key word "chooses".

Originally posted by erg
Omnipotent means all powerful and almighty. But the only thing that he has given to us that he has basically no control of is freewill. And that was of his will. He didn't want to program everyone to worship him. He wanted us to worship him because we wanted to.

No one has free will according to The Bible:

Originally posted by Thundar
How can a dead person guide or pray for a living one? If you could, please provide something of a scriptural nature to support this notion. I've never seen anything in the bible supporting it.

In the same way that a living person, i.e. a Christian can claim to have a relationship with a dead person, i.e. Jesus.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In the same way that a living person, i.e. a Christian can claim to have a relationship with a dead person

Must . . . resist urge . . . to make necrophilia joke . . .

Originally posted by Darkchoco
Dont Catholixs Beleive in mary as a god?

No.

Originally posted by Thundar
These are just the most glaringly obvious things, without completely delving into the paganistic history of the church. This is not to say that the Catholic church hasn't done a few good things. If it wasn't for the Church, there would have never been the Protestant reformation, nor would the gospels have spread across the globe as much as they have.

But its extremely important for all of those interested in converting to the Christian faith(as well as those presently practicing the faith), to know about these paganistic practices. So they don't get led astray by them.

Because the whole of Christianity is not the result of the syncretism of various pagan religions?

So basically you're supporting my initial supposition with the statement above, since you have just defined i.e "a Christian" as being of a different faith than a i.e. Catholic.


Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because the whole of Christianity is not the result of the syncretism of various pagan religions?


Umm...no. Actually it is not.

Originally posted by Thundar


So basically you're supporting my initial supposition with the statement above, since you have just defined i.e "a Christian" as being of a different faith than a i.e. Catholic.

No, I am not.

All Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholics.






Originally posted by Thundar
Umm...no. Actually it is not.

The Christian myth is wholely unoriginal.

The following is a list of over 30 saviors who were said to have descended from heaven, taken the form of men, were born of virgins, furnished evidence of their divine origin by various miracles and marvelous works, laid the foundation for salvation, were worshipped as Gods, and crucified:

Chrishna of Hindostan
Budha Sakia of India
Salivahana of Bermuda
Zulis and Orus of Egypt
Odin of the Scandinavians
Crite of Chaldea
Baal and Taut of Phoenecia
Indra of Tibet
Bali of Afganistan
Jao of Nepal
Wittoba of the Bilingonese
Thammuz of Syria
Atys of Phrygia
Xamolxis of Thrace
Adad of Assyria
Deva Tat and Sammonocadam of Siam
Alcides of Thebes
Mikado of the Sintoos
Beddru of Japan
Hesus or Eros and Bremrillah of the Druids
Thor of the Gauls
Cadmus and Adonis of Greece
Hil and Feta of the Mandaites
Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico
Universal Monarch of the Sibyls
Ischy of the island of Formosa
Divine teacher of Plato
the Holy One of Xaca
Fohi and Tien of China
Ixion and Quirinus of Rome
Prometheus of Caucasus
Mohamud or Mahomet of Arabia

ADAM POE !



You Forgot SYOSHYANT of Zoroastrianism !



HE IS the ORIGINAL CHRIST !

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, I am not.

All Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholics.




Actually you did essentially state that by the way in which you originally phrased the sentence. It's good that you clarified what you meant though, so we can get to the heart of the argument. As Paul stated to the Corinthians:

I Corinthians 4:5
Do not be quick to say who is right or wrong. Wait until the Lord comes. He will bring into the light the things that are hidden in men's hearts. He will show why men have done these things.

It is Christ and not man who considers the intentions of the heart, and then determines as to whether or not a man is truly his follower and/or his friend.

So some Catholics will indeed prove to be Christians, as will some Buddhists, some Baptists, and some Hindus despite their knowledge(or lack thereof) of the scriptures, specifically because of the loving intentions of their hearts.

Still, it is very important for those who are very well versed in the scriptures and who follow Christ, to inform others of practices that go directly against it. As mentioned previously, Catholicism is very paganistic in its interpretation and presentation of the bible. Its paganistic rituals should be brought to the attention of those who subscribe to the Catholic faith, particularly those Catholics who profess these paganistic practices to others as being Christian.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The Christian myth is wholely unoriginal.

The following is a list of over 30 saviors who were said to have descended from heaven, taken the form of men, were born of virgins, furnished evidence of their divine origin by various miracles and marvelous works, laid the foundation for salvation, were worshipped as Gods, and crucified:


You have to take into account though that prophecy of a savior was actually presented to Abraham sometime in 1400-2000 BC, pre-dating just about all of the earlier prophecies you've presented. Jesus makes a reference to Abraham being informed of the savior prophecy in the following verse taken from John:

John 8:56
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.


So now with this nugget of information, take this into consideration. Abraham is the father of much of the world, so logically one would think it very possible that he shared this knowledge of the coming savior with his children. This is probably why many cultures, particularly those descended from Abraham, have similar accounts of a "Christ", as this prophecy was passed down to them by their father Abraham.

Now let's go back a bit further, specifically back to man's creation and the Garden of Eden. As it is described in the book of Adam and Eve, Adam was made aware of the the coming messiah after his initial fall from grace. So one could then make the assumption that it is highly probable, for mankind to have had knowledge of a messiah shortly after the onset of creation.

All of this again of course, pre-dates the historical accounts of similar stories you've presented. I'm sure you'll disagree with me, but If you truly want to learn more about what I've posted, I suggest you pick up a bible and read the verses/books I've presented.

Please take not that all of this is not a sermon. It is just some thoughts.

The only records we have of Adam and Eve are mythological texts that existed 5000 years B.C. at the very most...so no, they're not entirely reliable....

Wow, that's just not true. A lot of evidence for the patriarchs has been found. There is also plenty of evidence for the united Israel.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Wow, that's just not true. A lot of evidence for the patriarchs has been found. There is also plenty of evidence for the united Israel.

The Patriarchs are Abraham, his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob, who are placed in the early 2nd millennium BCE by the dates given in Genesis. There is however no evidence for their historicity.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The only records we have of Adam and Eve are mythological texts that existed 5000 years B.C. at the very most...so no, they're not entirely reliable....

Thank you Urizen. At least you have somewhat acknowledged(although probably inadvertently) that the texts I referenced in my prior post, pre-date most of the savior stories that Adam_Poe enumerated.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The Patriarchs are Abraham, his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob, who are placed in the early 2nd millennium BCE by the dates given in Genesis. There is however no evidence for their historicity.


Grossly innacurate at worst, and purposely misleading at best. Listed below is archeological evidence supporting the existence of the Patriarchs.

1) Abraham's name appears in Babylonia as a personal name at the very period of the patriarchs, though the critics believed he was a fictitious character who was redacted back by the later Israelites.

2) The field of Abram in Hebron is mentioned in 918 B.C., by the Pharaoh Shishak of Egypt (now also believed to be Ramases II). He had just finished warring in Palestine and inscribed on the walls of his temple at Karnak the name of the great patriarch, proving that even at this early date Abraham was known not in Arabia, as Muslims contend, but in Palestine, the land the Bible places him.

3) The Beni Hasan Tomb from the Abrahamic period, depicts Asiatics coming to Egypt during a famine, corresponding with the Biblical account of the plight of the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob'.

4) The doors of Sodom (Tell Beit Mirsim) dated to between 2200-1600 B.C. are heavy doors needed for security; the same doors which we find in Genesis 19:9.

5) Jericho's excavation showed that the walls fell outwards, echoing Joshua 6:20, enabling the attackers to climb over and into the town.

6) David's capture of Jerusalem recounted in II Samuel 5:6-8 and I Chronicles 11:6 speak of Joab using water shafts built by the Jebusites to surprise them and defeat them. Historians had assumed these were simply legendary, until archaeological excavations by R.A.S. Macalister, J.G.Duncan, and Kathleen Kenyon on Ophel now have found these very water shafts.

All of the numbered information above was directly taken from the following website, which contains more information relating to biblical archeology:

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibarch.htm

Below are a few references to various articles and literary works, which support what is listed above:

Lemonick, Michael D., "Are the Bible Stories True?", Time, December 18, 1995, pgs. 50-58

Nevo, Yehuda D., "Towards a Prehistory of Islam," Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, vol.17, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1994

The rest of the sources can be found at the following:

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/ref.htm

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
ADAM POE !



You Forgot SYOSHYANT of Zoroastrianism !



HE IS the ORIGINAL CHRIST !

Krishna is the original Christ. shockish

Originally posted by Thundar
Still, it is very important for those who are very well versed in the scriptures and who follow Christ, to inform others of practices that go directly against it. As mentioned previously, Catholicism is very paganistic in its interpretation and presentation of the bible. Its paganistic rituals should be brought to the attention of those who subscribe to the Catholic faith, particularly those Catholics who profess these paganistic practices to others as being Christian.

I believe you will find, with any reasonably comprehensive study of theology, be it Christian or whatever, that there is never a "true" version of a religion. There are simply variation based upon the flow of time and human interpretation. There is not a single Christian sect or denomination in existence today that is without at least some Pagan aspect, be it religious occasions it holds dear or otherwise.

While it is true Catholicism (Roman Catholicism) might have more prominent remnants of "pagan" traditions, this can be attributed to the context in which it was founded, with those later Christian groups that split from the Catholics re-imagining doctrine again and again. When exactly has there been a "true" or "correct" or "Pagan free" branch of Christianity? Never is the answer. Just what people believe is true or correct or Pagan free.



Operative word "just about all" (though to be honest more then a couple predate the Abraham period.)



Which would be a valid theory if there was some logical proof supporting the concept that these cultures were spawned by Abraham. Which doesn't really stand up to what seems to be the soundly evidenced way in which humanity is seen to have spread. Likewise many of these cultures in question would, in classical terms, be considered Oriental, which is quite outside Abraham's theorised sphere of historical influence. Hehem.



Which is quite a lot to swallow. "One could make the assumption..."

What exactly is the time line for the Biblical progression of events? How long after they got removed from the Garden did it take for people to become "civilised"? Were they passing the same savior story down through oral history for what? 3000 years? 7000? 10000? 20,000?

Hmmm. The Aboriginals of Australia have been here for 20,000 years at least. So to have moved from Africa, all that way, built up such numbers... maybe 30,000 years? What we seem to have a list of claimed events (this happened then this then this etc) but no real sense of them in either a temporal or spatial reality. How exactly does it work in? And of course remember, if we assume the Garden of Eden story is the "original savior story"... well, it wasn't actually recorded in a physical way till a long, long, long time after it happened (if we assume it did at all.)



Of course. If all humanity is descended from two people cast out of a garden but made aware of some distant future event then of course it predates all other claims. In all honesty do you think it would be unreasonable if people disagreed?



By which logic the Greek myths are certainly true (since in the depths of their history there might be semi-historical causes), as would the Egyptian myths... and others. Is the Bible historical text (a record of history intended as such) or an "imaginative fiction" that included references to real places and events, much like fictional works of our era?

In the case of the walls of Jericho - they fell. The authors of the Bible give that a divine reason, were as others think differently on why they could have fell. So is it history - God knocked those big old walls down, or historical fiction - the walls fell, lets attribute supernatural reasons to something that wasn't.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Krishna is the original Christ. shockish

The guy who did the whole "I am become death the destroyer of worlds"?

No thats Shiva.......... god of destruction. BUt also the one who set in motion the creation of the universe.

Originally posted by fini
No thats Shiva.......... god of destruction. BUt also the one who set in motion the creation of the universe.

Really? I'm pretty sure its Krishna speaking in the Bagahavad Gita.

Nope

Krishna is the incarnate of Vishnu........ who is part of the Trinity in Hinduism
Brahma, VIshnu, and Shiva. Where Shiva creates and destroys, while the other two embody mind and spirit.

SO it is Shiva that said that.

I was quoting the Baghavad Gita

There is no way Shiva could have said that considering that Krishna and Arjuna are the people having the conversation (unless he popped in unannounced for one line)

AH, but he calls himself Shiva.......... the one who first said these words. Here on the Battle Field, he is likening himself to Shiva. Here he calls all the qualities of the Trinity, shiva, brahma, vishnu. After he is god incarnate upon earth

.......I am gracious Shiva among howling storms.

Of restraints, I am death,
Of measures, I am time.
I am the purifying wind.
I am the cleansing Ganga.

Of sciences, I am the science of the self;
I am the dispute of orators.
I am victory and resolve,
the lucidity of lucid men.
I am the brilliance of fiery heroes.

I am the morality of ambitious men;
I am the silence of the mystery
I am the seed of all creatures,
I am the death destroyer of all.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I believe you will find, with any reasonably comprehensive study of theology, be it Christian or whatever, that there is never a "true" version of a religion. There are simply variation based upon the flow of time and human interpretation. There is not a single Christian sect or denomination in existence today that is without at least some Pagan aspect, be it religious occasions it holds dear or otherwise.

While it is true Catholicism (Roman Catholicism) might have more prominent remnants of "pagan" traditions, this can be attributed to the context in which it was founded, with those later Christian groups that split from the Catholics re-imagining doctrine again and again. When exactly has there been a "true" or "correct" or "Pagan free" branch of Christianity? Never is the answer. Just what people believe is true or correct or Pagan free.


You're probably correct with the above assumption. But the ultimate deciding factor of who is a Christian, will be determined by Christ himself. He will base this decision not just by one's knowledge of scripture or their ability to strictly follow every ritualistic Christian practices, but also on the loving intentions of an individual's heart.

Remember that neither the thief on the cross nor the Centurian were active participants of the Mosaic Law, while the Pharisee's, Scribes, and Saduccees were. But the former two peoples turned out to be Christians over the latter 3, because of their faith in Christ and the loving intentions of their hearts.



Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Which would be a valid theory if there was some logical proof supporting the concept that these cultures were spawned by Abraham. Which doesn't really stand up to what seems to be the soundly evidenced way in which humanity is seen to have spread. Likewise many of these cultures in question would, in classical terms, be considered Oriental, which is quite outside Abraham's theorised sphere of historical influence. Hehem.


No I don't believe it to be unreasonable for people to not believe, particularly if there is no proof to support these claims. That being stated - without completely getting into geneology, I think it is quite apparent that many of these cultures share a common history with the stories presented within the bible.

Although not entirely accurate with its accounts or interpretations, the Muslim Koran incorporates much of the old testament into its doctrine. Abraham is referenced many times within it, and much like the bible, it refers to him as the father of most of mankind.

Abraham is also referenced in the Hindu Artharva Veda(sp?), although in the Hindu scripture he is given the name "Brahma", and his wife Sarah is given the name "Saraswati." With all of these religious works containing such glaring similarities, its quite obvious that their is some common relation among their peoples. Even if this relationship between these peoples isn't a geneological one(although logic and common sense dictate that it probably is), it still shows that these peoples did share many cultural, historical and religious dogmas, which supports why so many of them have similar stories referring to a "savior."

Its obvious that you're over-reaching in a lame attempt to justify your own religion.

Where does Kali fit into the Trinity ?


She's the Goddess of Death and Destruction, doesn't her role conflict with Shiva's ?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Krishna is the original Christ. shockish


SYOSHYANT fits the role more accurately however.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
SYOSHYANT fits the role more accurately however.

Really? And hows that?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Really? And hows that?


According to the Avesta, Saoshyant, is the savior which Ahura Mazda (God) will send to Earth to will possess and spread Truth, he will lead the battle against Evil (Angra Mainu), where evil will finally be destroyed, and all evil people on Earth shall be engulfed in flames....meanwhile, Saoshyant will reward the righteous by bringing them into Heaven to meet and become united with Ahura Mazda....



Tell me, that is NOT Jesus Christ's past incarnation

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
According to the Avesta, Saoshyant, is the savior which Ahura Mazda (God) will send to Earth to will possess and spread Truth, he will lead the battle against Evil (Angra Mainu), where evil will finally be destroyed, and all evil people on Earth shall be engulfed in flames....meanwhile, Saoshyant will reward the righteous by bringing them into Heaven to meet and become united with Ahura Mazda....



Tell me, that is NOT Jesus Christ's past incarnation

no2

Krishna and Jesus -

Jesus and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
Both were "without sin."
Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."
Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.

Somebody plagarised something...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
no2

Krishna and Jesus -

Jesus and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
Both were "without sin."
Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."
Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.

Somebody plagarised something...
No man is or has been without sin except Lord JESUS Christ. No one else before or after him.

Originally posted by erg
No man is or has been without sin except Lord JESUS Christ. No one else before or after him.



Except Jesus Christ wasn't just a man, he was also God.

Originally posted by erg
No man is or has been without sin except Lord JESUS Christ. No one else before or after him.

However, those who believe in Krishna and other Christ types would disagree with you. Why should I believe you any more then them.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
no2

Krishna and Jesus -

Jesus and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
Both were "without sin."
Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."
Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.

Somebody plagarised something...




Okay Lil B....you pwned me therr....there isn't that much detail about the legend of Saoshyant, only what he/she is meant to do, and it is even debated what Saoshyant's gender is...

So I'll argue that Saoshyant is the second Christ, and Krishna is the first, and Jesus himself is the third version









Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No man is or has been without sin except Lord JESUS Christ. No one else before or after him.






Hush !

shockish I can't believe you just did that!!!!

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
shockish I can't believe you just did that!!!!


Did what ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Where does Kali fit into the Trinity ?


She's the Goddess of Death and Destruction, doesn't her role conflict with Shiva's ?

WEllllllllllll not really

Kali is an incarnation of Durga, who is the mother of Ganesh. But the mother of Ganesh is also known as Paravati.......... who is the consort or Shiva.

SO u can nearly say that Kali is the female version of Shiva, but what she actually is , Is Shiva's ability to destroy. SO if you took out all his destructive power, you will have Kali and a powerless Shiva.

Shiva keeps his destructive power under control while it is in him, but as Kali, there is no stopping it.

Originally posted by Thundar
Grossly innacurate at worst, and purposely misleading at best. Listed below is archeological evidence supporting the existence of the Patriarchs.

1) Abraham's name appears in Babylonia as a personal name at the very period of the patriarchs, though the critics believed he was a fictitious character who was redacted back by the later Israelites.

2) The field of Abram in Hebron is mentioned in 918 B.C., by the Pharaoh Shishak of Egypt (now also believed to be Ramases II). He had just finished warring in Palestine and inscribed on the walls of his temple at Karnak the name of the great patriarch, proving that even at this early date Abraham was known not in Arabia, as Muslims contend, but in Palestine, the land the Bible places him.

3) The Beni Hasan Tomb from the Abrahamic period, depicts Asiatics coming to Egypt during a famine, corresponding with the Biblical account of the plight of the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob'.

4) The doors of Sodom (Tell Beit Mirsim) dated to between 2200-1600 B.C. are heavy doors needed for security; the same doors which we find in Genesis 19:9.

5) Jericho's excavation showed that the walls fell outwards, echoing Joshua 6:20, enabling the attackers to climb over and into the town.

6) David's capture of Jerusalem recounted in II Samuel 5:6-8 and I Chronicles 11:6 speak of Joab using water shafts built by the Jebusites to surprise them and defeat them. Historians had assumed these were simply legendary, until archaeological excavations by R.A.S. Macalister, J.G.Duncan, and Kathleen Kenyon on Ophel now have found these very water shafts.

None of the information that you have provided directly supports that the biblical patriarchs existed, and even if we presume that it does, it does not prove that they existed outside of historical fiction.

Originally posted by fini
WEllllllllllll not really

Kali is an incarnation of Durga, who is the mother of Ganesh. But the mother of Ganesh is also known as Paravati.......... who is the consort or Shiva.

SO u can nearly say that Kali is the female version of Shiva, but what she actually is , Is Shiva's ability to destroy. SO if you took out all his destructive power, you will have Kali and a powerless Shiva.

Shiva keeps his destructive power under control while it is in him, but as Kali, there is no stopping it.



Yes, according to Hindu Myth, Kali is a force to be reckoned with, someone who is totally undefeatable

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Yes, according to Hindu Myth, Kali is a force to be reckoned with, someone who is totally undefeatable

new thread: superman vs kali

Originally posted by PVS
new thread: superman vs kali


Beleive it or not, there was already a thread in the comic book forums called: Kali vs Galactus


This was in reference to Galactus from the Silver Surfer title, and Kali from the Spawn series....until we realized that Kali was just an avatar of the creator of Spawn's universe

lol, my bets are on Kali, lol........... sorry superman, you're great and all....... but not this fight, lol

Yes she would be nearly invicible. She is the one that gives the power to Shiva to destroy worlds, galaxies, even the universe. So once she goes unchecked, she is undefeatable.

Originally posted by fini
lol, my bets are on Kali, lol........... sorry superman, you're great and all....... but not this fight, lol

Yes she would be nearly invicible. She is the one that gives the power to Shiva to destroy worlds, galaxies, even the universe. So once she goes unchecked, she is undefeatable.



KALI WINS



FATALITY

Originally posted by Thundar
You're probably correct with the above assumption. But the ultimate deciding factor of who is a Christian, will be determined by Christ himself. He will base this decision not just by one's knowledge of scripture or their ability to strictly follow every ritualistic Christian practices, but also on the loving intentions of an individual's heart.

Remember that neither the thief on the cross nor the Centurian were active participants of the Mosaic Law, while the Pharisee's, Scribes, and Saduccees were. But the former two peoples turned out to be Christians over the latter 3, because of their faith in Christ and the loving intentions of their hearts.

So basically we can't really say who is Christian and who isn't, we just have to leave it up to whatever happens after death? Fine, though from a human perspective, one of definition, all Catholics are Christian, as Christian, as a term, simply means one believes Jesus is the Christ. Which all Catholics do.



I think we will have to agree to disagree then. Even if one assumes Abraham was real, that he was such a large figure, and that his influence did spread through beyond the borders of wherever he lived, it just doesn't fit in with the spread of humans or early tribes throughout the world.



Possibly because it was really created hundreds of years after Christianity first started kicking and thousands after the Jewish religion got it together. A factor of the rise of Islam was the cultural reaction of eastern peoples towards a religion (Christianity) that was infringing. Islam unified them and gave them identity against it. The same problem remains. We are now looking at the Koran, which did some sourcing of the OT... so it is back to that single source. It is easy to claim something when it was recorded, physically, some time after the actual events it is making claims about.



Um?

Are we talking about Brahma, Hindu God from which things came and his consort, the wise goddess Saraswati?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So basically we can't really say who is Christian and who isn't, we just have to leave it up to whatever happens after death? Fine, though from a human perspective, one of definition, all Catholics are Christian, as Christian, as a term, simply means one believes Jesus is the Christ. Which all Catholics do.


Yes but it is goes beyond just the mere belief of Christ being the savior. It's also dependant upon the intentions of one's heart, and them acting upon these loving intentions. For even Satan and all of his demons know that Jesus is the Christ.

And remember, although one can't truly say who will be considered a Christian in the end, it's still important for those who have faith in Christ, to assist one another when they see each other struggling along the path, or as Jesus puts it..they should "love one another."

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I think we will have to agree to disagree then. Even if one assumes Abraham was real, that he was such a large figure, and that his influence did spread through beyond the borders of wherever he lived, it just doesn't fit in with the spread of humans or early tribes throughout the world.


I believe it does quite well, but you are indeed entitled to your opinion.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Um?

Are we talking about Brahma, Hindu God from which things came and his consort, the wise goddess Saraswati?


Yup. Although the original story fell more along the lines of the Christian one, as Abraham is obviously not a God. The "Brahma" sect is still one of the largest one's of Hinduism today. And before you ask, no the original information on Abraham's Hindu roots was not quickly googled...

Originally posted by JacopeX
No.

that would be christians. As they sin, they beg for forgivness while us catholics belive the same but we must be punished.

Wtf no, we beleive we can get forgiven through Jesus Christ our Savior, not through a Porgoitory Slip or w/e Catholics call it.

lol just came back from few days and already have 130 posts

Originally posted by Darkchoco
Wtf no, we beleive we can get forgiven through Jesus Christ our Savior, not through a Porgoitory Slip or w/e Catholics call it.

But then again I don't know a single Catholic who believes heaven is gained through "Porgoitory slips." But then again my experience with Catholics is primarily Australian and Irish in nature, and certainly far from comprehensive. I have no doubt there are Catholics who believe more has to be done to get into heaven.

Just as there are Christians who believe they have to: avoid science and medicine and/or modern appliances and/or politics and/or self flagellate and/or not wear makeup and/or have women working in the home only and/or believe they have to energetically convert anyone with even the slightest different views and/or... well, you get the picture. There are plenty of Christians who believe in "Jesus Christ our Savior" who also believe more is needed, and feel it is justified by their interpretation of the Bible.

In fact, if that somehow refers to purgatory there has been recent talk of Pope nowsit scrapping such outside areas of doctrine - no more purgatory or limbo.



Ok, would you care to explain in a clear and concise fashion the way in which Abraham influenced cultures some distance from the region he was in before he lived and after - since there were primitive cultures around at the same theoretical time Abraham was. And since there is more then a little evidence of spiritual (if not religious) beliefs in "primitive" tribes and the like (we are talking 8000+ years at a minimum here.) And those people who had nothing to do with, nor originated from, his sphere of influence? The variety of cultures that show not a single acknowledgement of Abraham until after contact with those that did?



I love history, and have always liked Hinduism (narratively , conceptually and as a practice) and to be honest I had no idea there was a theory Brahma, one of highest Hindu gods, is believed by some to simply be Abraham by another name.

A theory, it seems, that has yet to make it into the mainstream of historical study. Could there be a reason for that? Naturally of course since you support the claim that the sacred and divine of other cultures are just Christian things of another name you would also be open to the concept that so many Christian things might be derived from other cultures beliefs? Mithra and Jesus? Ancient Sumerian creation myths? And so on? I mean surely it must work both ways.

*takes a deep breath in* I love the smell of misinterpretation in the morning...

Jesus certainly does tell us to "love one another." Jesus loved humankind on earth by becoming friends with Gentiles and prostitutes, outcasts and sinners, by healing the sick, feeding the hungry... etc. etc. I don't recall a time when he sat down a group of people and said, "All right now, believe this or you're going to DIE!!!"

"Loving one another" DOES NOT mean preaching endlessly about how everyone should believe what you believe, or else... all in a holier-than-thou tone. Loving one another means being a good person, bringing the kindgom of heaven to earth like Jesus did, by comforting our fellow man.

Thundar, what I think I love the most about your post(s) is that you say "we shouldn't judge," blah blah blah, especially up here, "although one can't truly say who will be a Christian in the end..." *meaning: I am a true Christian and I can only hope that my benevolent presence amongst you heathen posters will make it so you will be too...*

Isn't that a tad bit hypocritical?

Originally posted by siriuswriter
...Thundar, what I think I love the most about your post(s) is that you say "we shouldn't judge," blah blah blah, especially up here, "although one can't truly say who will be a Christian in the end..." *meaning: I am a true Christian and I can only hope that my benevolent presence amongst you heathen posters will make it so you will be too...*

Isn't that a tad bit hypocritical?

Thank you.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Thundar, what I think I love the most about your post(s) is that you say "we shouldn't judge," blah blah blah, especially up here, "although one can't truly say who will be a Christian in the end..." *meaning: I am a true Christian and I can only hope that my benevolent presence amongst you heathen posters will make it so you will be too...*

Isn't that a tad bit hypocritical?

Everyone knows Thundar is god's perfect gift to the world how dare you question him shifty

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Everyone knows Thundar is god's perfect gift to the world how dare you question him shifty

I thought he was god's favorite sockie.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I thought he was god's favorite sockie.

eek God sticks his foot into Thundar's ass?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
eek God sticks his foot into Thundar's ass?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Everyone knows Thundar is god's perfect gift to the world how dare you question him shifty

Oh dear, I AM sorry. I'll have to work on the whole Thundar-God connection. I don't want to be smited, after all.

Just remind Thundar that hes a pitt_sock

Originally posted by Alliance
Just remind Thundar that hes a pitt_sock

Using my impressive detective skills I tracked down Thunder in his natural habitat (hint - look at the feet)...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y216/sfrajett/Bunny20bowing20to20cross.jpg

If you look at the sign you can see 'RMAN' preceded by what looks like the end of an 'O'. Thundar would never show up to a Morman event.

Originally posted by Nellinator
If you look at the sign you can see 'RMAN' preceded by what looks like the end of an 'O'. Thundar would never show up to a Morman event.

You never know, the Jesus impersonator might be there to smite Mormons with his ridiculously small cross. Look at the rabbit beg for mercy, he knows he's in for a smiting.

Which of course seems perfect for a sock (socks with sandals... not even Jesus can pull that off.)

But the rabbit looks so happy... The gaze of the impersonator seems fixed on someone though. scared

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
You never know, the Jesus impersonator might be there to smite Mormons with his ridiculously small cross. Look at the rabbit beg for mercy, he knows he's in for a smiting.

Which of course seems perfect for a sock (socks with sandals... not even Jesus can pull that off.)

I'm actually the rabbit.

Originally posted by Thundar
I'm actually the rabbit.

You enjoy a good smiting eh?

Is that why the rabbit is smiling? Dominatrix style or what?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Using my impressive detective skills I tracked down Thunder in his natural habitat (hint - look at the feet)...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y216/sfrajett/Bunny20bowing20to20cross.jpg



I do not feel it is a great offense to poke light hearted fun at Jesus Christ as a character, but to make fun of his suffering is a whole other level of low

Do we even know that he suffered?