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

Now this thread is not meant in any way to come down on people or to puff myself up with pride that I know more than everybody or that I'm "in the know" and others aren't. That's not my intention. My intention is to help others receive the gift of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Do unbelievers know or realize that they are quietly fulfilling Bible prophecy?

Whenever I talk about the Bible, or about Jesus, or about the Good News (especially on this site), I get met with bitter words directed against me. Even though I'm usually pretty civil in my discussion (I think I am, anyway) I get those kind of responses. My absolute favorite so far has to be this one:
Originally posted by Omega Vision
No one said you were an alien; aliens are generally imagined to possess above human-level intelligence. Or at least human level intelligence.

And that's nowhere close to the worst of what many true Christians live with on a daily basis. Many, such as in Third World countries, predominantly Muslim countries, etc. suffer physical persecution, rape, assault, murder, etc. And in the western countries, especially the United States, the persecution is mostly verbal, with ridicule and mocking being the forms of choice.

The Bible said it was gonna be this way.

"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." (Matthew 5:11)

"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (John 15:18-20)

Again, I'm not trying to put myself on a pedestal. I'm just legitimately wondering if anyone who would classify themselves as unbelievers actually realize this?

Feel free to discuss

Bat Dude, I would have removed the name label from that quote.


But, yes, I generally agree with that point you are making. There is an "in" crowd with most intellectuals. If you don't share their beliefs, you are not part of their "in" crowd. I am not talking about KMC, I am talking about the scientific community, in general.


KMC? Well, most of KMC are agnostics who argue as atheists. The theists on this site generally keep quiet because of the aggressive nature of both the people and the discussions. It doesn't bother me because it helps develop my ideas or massage my confirmation bias.

It's hard believing in science AND a higher power...

Originally posted by -Pr-
It's hard believing in science AND a higher power...

For some it is the opposite and they see God in science, all the time.

That's called a self-fulfilled prophecy.

Step 1. The Bible says people should hate Christians
Step 2. Go around deliberately making a nuisance of yourself and pissing people off
Step 3. People complain about you
Step 4. See? I told you! The prophecy is true!

Originally posted by dadudemon
For some it is the opposite and they see God in science, all the time.

was speaking more about being stuck in the middle between those who believe in one over the other.

"And that's nowhere close to the worst of what many true Christians live with on a daily basis. Many, such as in Third World countries, predominantly Muslim countries, etc. suffer physical persecution, rape, assault, murder, etc. And in the western countries, especially the United States, the persecution is mostly verbal, with ridicule and mocking being the forms of choice."

Actually, this is not unique to Christians. I have run across a number of Christian news sources that are always talking about how the latest bunch of Christians got attacked by some haters, and they ignore the same attacks against non-Christian human beings. I see it as a "glass half full" form of religious discrimination. Hating on people outside your belief would be the "glass half empty" discrimination, but ignoring their suffering to protect or cover your own is just an inside-out manifestation of the same problem.

Even your own story perfectly illustrates your egocentric sense of martyrdom. Omega Vision's quote is really, really light criticism against anyone considering you're on an internet forum.

"Whenever I talk about the Bible, or about Jesus, or about the Good News (especially on this site), I get met with bitter words directed against me."

I haven't been on for a year or two, but from what I recall religious arguments are typically met with amused words or tired words on KMC. Far from being a source of bitterness, religion is a source of entertainment!!

"There is an "in" crowd with most intellectuals. If you don't share their beliefs, you are not part of their "in" crowd. I am not talking about KMC, I am talking about the scientific community, in general."

"Intellectuals" is not synonymous with "the scientific community." In my experience (can't back this up with reference), "intellectual" refers to the standard literary works you've read and how you talk and present yourself, while "scientific" refers (loosely) to the filtration process through which you place thoughts (your own and those of others, which is the value of peer review). Also in my experience, scientists only refrain from responding to people who don't pause to let the scientist respond. Their 'in' crowd isn't defined by 'beliefs', like whether you believe in evolution or god, it's defined by whether you're hostile to peer review.

Originally posted by -Pr-
It's hard believing in science AND a higher power...

even heard of the Christian science monitor?

Christians as a group are pretty much the least persecuted people in the world ever.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, most of KMC are agnostics who argue as atheists. You can be both.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, most of KMC are agnostics who argue as atheists.

you would know best

Originally posted by -Pr-
It's hard believing in science AND a higher power...

And this is why some people in the comic forums believe in Doctor Doom.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
And that's nowhere close to the worst of what many true Christians live with on a daily basis. Many, such as in Third World countries, predominantly Muslim countries, etc. suffer physical persecution, rape, assault, murder, etc. And in the western countries, especially the United States, the persecution is mostly verbal, with ridicule and mocking being the forms of choice.

I bet more Christians get raped in the US every day than in Saudia Arabia, by any metric you want to use.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
The Bible said it was gonna be this way.

I'm not surprised. If I was in charge of making prophecies "People who don't agree with you about religion will disagree with you about religion." seems like a pretty sure thing.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Even your own story perfectly illustrates your egocentric sense of martyrdom. Omega Vision's quote is really, really light criticism against anyone considering you're on an internet forum.

I don't mean to come off as egocentric. That's not my goal or intention. If I came off that way at all, I want to apologize, because I didn't mean for it to come off that way.



That's not true at all. If you're referring to people that are warming a pew in some 501c3 church somewhere, I'd agree with you, because the majority of those people, unfortunately, aren't even saved. They are in the world just as much as an atheist. They don't know the real Gospel of Jesus Christ, and they are just as offended by the true Word of God as non-Christians.

Just look at the whole Tim Tebow speech engagement thing. People got into an uproar because the pastor was preaching the Word of God. God says in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin, and that all who do not believe on Jesus Christ will not inherit the kingdom of God. Not that homosexuals or Muslims or Mormons or etc. are "inferior" or that they are "lower" than anyone else, but that if they continue in their sins and continue to reject the Jesus Christ of the Bible, they will be lost forever in hell.

But the media, offended with the Word of God, ran with that story and demonized the pastor and Tim Tebow while painting an unfair picture of Bible-believing Christians as these hate-filled bigots.

How does that not fit exactly what I talked about in the original post?

However, the reason we preach that homosexuality is a sin or that other religions are false and are destined for hell ISN'T because we hate people that do them. It's because we love them enough to tell them the truth. The truth is (and this might come as a shock to most of you) WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO GO TO HELL! If I hated a homosexual or a Muslim or an atheist, I would say nothing to them and let them end up in hell. Now what is the more merciful thing? Pleading with them to repent and believe on Jesus, or letting them live their lives deceived and end up in hell for eternity?

I don't think there's anything in the Bible that's more "true" than what you'd find in any work of literature. I'm not totally opposed to the notion that a God exists. I just see no reason why it should be the God of the Bible, or the Quran, or anything else. It's just as likely that Azathoth rules the Universe, or Mxy from the Superman comics. I would love to see a study where a group of children are raised to believe that Captain Ahab created the Universe from the blood of his lost leg, and every day fights and slays the Great Evil Whale Moby Dick. That's essentially the difference between the Bible and Moby Dick--no one is raised to think of Moby Dick as the Immutable Truth.
Originally posted by Bat Dude
Pleading with them to repent and believe on Jesus, or letting them live their lives deceived and end up in hell for eternity?
One time I believed on this girl's face. She got really mad at me.

If God isn't real, the how do we exist?

Checkmate.

As christians we do tend to come off as superior sounding when we present our beliefs to non believers, and not suprisingly that has a tendency to turn people off to whatever we're trying to say. Most people don't want someone else to pity them, and christians are geared to feel pity for people that they perceive as headed towards hell. What we should remember as christians though is that it is not our place to assume that anybody is destined for hell. We're literally commanded not to judge others repeatedly throughout the Bible. If every christian has a mission we can be assured that not one of them is the mission to place judgement on what WE call non believers. If a person is following Christ's teachings then they will be persecuted more regularly than someone who does not. That person will turn the other cheek when smacked for example, which invites another slap/ more persecution. Kindness is taken for weakness quite often and kindness (the golden rule) is commanded by Jesus. On the other side of the coin many people only follow their own rules and will be unkind for kicks. For people that enjoy these types of thrills, many christians are a wealth of entertainment.

Originally posted by Bat Dude . Many, such as in Third World countries, predominantly Muslim countries, etc. suffer physical persecution, rape, assault, murder, etc. And in the western countries, especially the United States, the persecution is mostly verbal, with ridicule and mocking being the forms of choice.

The Bible said it was gonna be this way.

"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." (Matthew 5:11)

"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (John 15:18-20)

Again, I'm not trying to put myself on a pedestal. I'm just legitimately wondering if anyone who would classify themselves as unbelievers actually realize this?

Feel free to discuss

I'd say your general summation of what happens in the world is a bit skewed...While a lot of the persecution is of people of faith...It is merely done in the name of another faith. I'd be hard pressed to find anywhere in the world where non religious people persecute religious people more than where religious people persecute other religions or non religious people.

So it seems your prophecy is being fulfilled by believers rather than non believers.

Do unbelievers know or realize that they are quietly fulfilling Bible prophecy?

Nether unbelievers nor believers are fulfilling Bible prophecy. Bible prophecies cannot be fulfilled because they are nothing more than imaginings my by people of the past, who had no knowledge of the future.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do unbelievers know or realize that they are quietly fulfilling Bible prophecy?

Nether unbelievers nor believers are fulfilling Bible prophecy. Bible prophecies cannot be fulfilled because they are nothing more than imaginings my by people of the past, who had no knowledge of the future.

I feel like if you and Bat Dude were in a room together you'd have two completely unrelated conversations with each other simultaneously.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I feel like if you and Bat Dude were in a room together you'd have two completely unrelated conversations with each other simultaneously.

One big difference, I would be done with the conversation quickly.

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii11/juggalojaf/text%20pic/1346293594732.jpg

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I feel like if you and Bat Dude were in a room together you'd have two completely unrelated conversations with each other simultaneously.
I doubt they'd get much talking accomplished. biscuits

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Nether unbelievers nor believers are fulfilling Bible prophecy. Bible prophecies cannot be fulfilled because they are nothing more than imaginings my by people of the past, who had no knowledge of the future.

How do you figure? Your opinion?

There have been tons of prophecies of the Bible that have already been fulfilled throughout history.

The 4 major empires of the ancient world (Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome)
The split of Rome into two empires
Destruction of the temple in Jerusalem
The return of Israel as a sovereign nation

And a lot more...

http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/Ceiling_Cat_Creates_Man.jpg
Our True Creator!

Originally posted by Bat Dude
There have been tons of prophecies of the Bible that have already been fulfilled throughout history.

The 4 major empires of the ancient world (Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome)
The split of Rome into two empires
Destruction of the temple in Jerusalem
The return of Israel as a sovereign nation

And a lot more...

Each of those and others like The Book of Mormon and the coming of Muhammad being prophesied in the Bible are open to interpretation though.

As a historian once said (of Nostadamus acolytes, the principle is the same here): "Where were the Nostradamus supporters on the 10th of September, 2001? There were an awful lot of them on the 12th."

Originally posted by Scarlet Fox
http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/Ceiling_Cat_Creates_Man.jpg
Our True Creator!

You have an insatiable desire to make a mockery of Christian beliefs, don't you? In this thread and the other...

My prophecy: Christians will think this is a mockery of their prophecies

No. Just this time I firmly believe that no matter what anyone believes you have to see humor in the world. You cant tell me thats not cute and funny. o.o where is your soul?

Did you give it to Basement Cat?! =O
http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll217/chitownladyj/Animals/cats/basement-cat-depths.jpg

Originally posted by Bat Dude
How do you figure? Your opinion?

There have been tons of prophecies of the Bible that have already been fulfilled throughout history.

The 4 major empires of the ancient world (Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome)
The split of Rome into two empires
Destruction of the temple in Jerusalem
The return of Israel as a sovereign nation

And a lot more...

There are zero prophecies in the bible. What you have listed are what is call postdiction.

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

Check it out!

Originally posted by Scarlet Fox
No. Just this time I firmly believe that no matter what anyone believes you have to see humor in the world. You cant tell me thats not cute and funny. o.o where is your soul?

Did you give it to Basement Cat?! =O
http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll217/chitownladyj/Animals/cats/basement-cat-depths.jpg

I see humor in a lot of things. John Pinette is pretty funny sometimes. Same with Jeff Foxworthy and Bill Engvall. Seeing my 3-month old son drool on himself and smile is pretty funny. And I think my wife is hilarious.

But I see no humor in my faith. I have no desire to poke fun at my faith because I see that as making fun of the Almighty God that created not only me but the entire universe. And that's not something I want to do.

Plus, it's just not funny.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
But I see no humor in my faith. I have no desire to poke fun at my faith because I see that as making fun of the Almighty God that created not only me but the entire universe. And that's not something I want to do.


You don't think God has a sense of humor? Have you seen a platypus?

Originally posted by Robtard
You don't think God has a sense of humor? Have you seen a platypus?
Or Quanchi112?

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
even heard of the Christian science monitor?

No... Do I want to?

Originally posted by Bentley
And this is why some people in the comic forums believe in Doctor Doom.

"Some people".

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There are zero prophecies in the bible. What you have listed are what is call postdiction.

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

Check it out!

Really? Postdiction? You don't say...

Then why don't you go ahead and disprove them, then?

If you are so sure of your stance, please, by all means, disprove those prophecies (among many other prophecies in the Bible).

Not trying to be rude, but just saying, "Oh, it's postdiction," doesn't prove your point.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Really? Postdiction? You don't say...

Then why don't you go ahead and disprove them, then?

If you are so sure of your stance, please, by all means, disprove those prophecies (among many other prophecies in the Bible).

Not trying to be rude, but just saying, "Oh, it's postdiction," doesn't prove your point.

What prophecies? There are no prophecies in the bible. Sure, the bible makes claims of prophecies, but so does the book Harry Potter. So, the burden of proof is on you.

Originally posted by Mindset
http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii11/juggalojaf/text%20pic/1346293594732.jpg

Mindset is the best poster on the site.

There can be no doubt.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What prophecies? There are no prophecies in the bible. Sure, the bible makes claims of prophecies, but so does the book Harry Potter. So, the burden of proof is on you.

There have been tons of prophecies of the Bible that have already been fulfilled throughout history.

The 4 major empires of the ancient world (Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome) Read Daniel 2
The split of Rome into two empires, again, read Daniel 2
Destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, read Matthew 24:1-2
The return of Israel as a sovereign nation, read Isaiah 11:11-12, or pretty much any of the Old Testament prophets

And a lot more...

Whoa, am I getting deja vu?

Originally posted by Bat Dude
There have been tons of prophecies of the Bible that have already been fulfilled throughout history.

The 4 major empires of the ancient world (Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome) Read Daniel 2
The split of Rome into two empires, again, read Daniel 2
Destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, read Matthew 24:1-2
The return of Israel as a sovereign nation, read Isaiah 11:11-12, or pretty much any of the Old Testament prophets

And a lot more...

Whoa, am I getting deja vu?

You are delusional. Someone told you these lies and you choice to believe them.

Do unicorns realize they are fulfilling the prophesies in Harry Potter?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are delusional. Someone told you these lies and you choice to believe them.

Do unicorns realize they are fulfilling the prophesies in Harry Potter?

Name calling isn't proof that you're right

Lies? All 4 of those prophecies came to pass, and there's a ton more prophecy in the Bible that has come to pass.

The biggest proof of all? Israel. The Babylonians are gone. The Assyrians are gone. The Persians are gone. Yet Israel is a sovereign nation again, against all odds. As the Bible said it would be.

I gave you my proof.

Now let's see yours.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Name calling isn't proof that you're right

Lies? All 4 of those prophecies came to pass, and there's a ton more prophecy in the Bible that has come to pass.

The biggest proof of all? Israel. The Babylonians are gone. The Assyrians are gone. The Persians are gone. Yet Israel is a sovereign nation again, against all odds. As the Bible said it would be.

I gave you my proof.

Now let's see yours.

I never called you any names.

Those are not prophecies; those are examples of postdiction.

You have given No proof. All you have done is told me what you believe.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I never called you any names.

Those are not prophecies; those are examples of postdiction.

You have given No proof. All you have done is told me what you believe.

You called me delusional (which you have no proof of).

Why? Because YOU say they are?

And you just described what you've been doing this whole time.

I'd like to point out that I prophecied this a page ago.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd like to point out that I prophecied this a page ago.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
You called me delusional (which you have no proof of).

Why? Because YOU say they are?

And you just described what you've been doing this whole time.

I didn't ask the question of this thread. That was you!

The question you asked is based on an assumption that prophecies in the bible are true. Before you can ask the thread question, you must prove your assumption, and you have not done that.

It is far more likely that these prophecies are postdiction, and not prophecies at all.

You keep trying to get me to prove something, and that is why I say you are delusional.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I didn't ask the question of this thread. That was you!

The question you asked is based on an assumption that prophecies in the bible are true. Before you can ask the thread question, you must prove your assumption, and you have not done that.

It is far more likely that these prophecies are postdiction, and not prophecies at all.

You keep trying to get me to prove something, and that is why I say you are delusional.

Ok, then how about this?

You give me your definition of a prophecy, because it seems to me like you and I are reading these Bible verses completely differently (if you're reading them at all).

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Ok, then how about this?

You give me your definition of a prophecy, because it seems to me like you and I are reading these Bible verses completely differently (if you're reading them at all).

My definition of prophecy? I don't believe in magic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
My definition of prophecy? I don't believe in magic. In a young girl's heart? Or how the music can free her, whenever it starts?

....

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I see humor in a lot of things. John Pinette is pretty funny sometimes. Same with Jeff Foxworthy and Bill Engvall. Seeing my 3-month old son drool on himself and smile is pretty funny. And I think my wife is hilarious.

But I see no humor in my faith. I have no desire to poke fun at my faith because I see that as making fun of the Almighty God that created not only me but the entire universe. And that's not something I want to do.

Plus, it's just not funny.
You have terrible taste in comedians.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You have terrible taste in comedians.

What can I say? I'm not a big fan of "F*** f*** f***, look at me, I'm saying f***" type of comedians. Those three are some of the cleanest comedians I know of. And I don't know what you're talking about, but Pinette's pretty funny.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't care.



Prophecy isn't magic if it's of God. Yes, when fortune tellers and psychics and all these people try to prophesy, it's witchcraft and they're usually wrong with their prophecy anyway.

That's why the Bible talks about the test of a true prophet of God: if they are hitting on their prophecies 100% of the time.

But anyway, there's the problem. You wouldn't believe no matter what. It didn't matter what I said or did, you weren't going to believe anyway.

As the Bible said, "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke 16:31)

Originally posted by Bat Dude
You wouldn't believe no matter what. It didn't matter what I said or did, you weren't going to believe anyway. The exact same is true for you.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd like to point out that I prophecied this a page ago.

Actually, relevant question for Bat Dude. How do you explain my ability to know how your conversation with Shakya would go? Does it count as prophecy?

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Name calling isn't proof that you're right

Lies? All 4 of those prophecies came to pass, and there's a ton more prophecy in the Bible that has come to pass.

The biggest proof of all? Israel. The Babylonians are gone. The Assyrians are gone. The Persians are gone. Yet Israel is a sovereign nation again, against all odds. As the Bible said it would be.

I gave you my proof.

Now let's see yours.

Well, for starters...Persians are not gone. Nor are Assyrians. They are both ethnic groups that still exist. Iran was known officially as Persia until the 1930s. And Israel is it's own country only because we decided to make it so.

Your 'prophecies' don't hold up to actual history.

Also, as far as god saying homosexuality is a sin...god said a lot of things in the old testament. But here's a fun fact that many Christians forget about - Jesus's sacrifice made it so Christians were freed from Old Testament law. Jesus preached to love and help everyone. So by saying that you believe homosexuality is a sin because the Bible said so, what you are really saying is that you are ignoring a core tenet of your own religion and that you think you know better than your own savior. And if you are going to continue to insist it's a sin because of Leviticus, you'd better not be doing all of the other things that book forbids!

Though hypocrisy is common amongst Christians, it seems.

Also, being called out for something blatantly offensive, "word of god" or not, doesn't make you persecuted. Nor does being forced to accept you aren't the only religion around.

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

Warlocks are the enemy of God.

I dont care what kind of hero you make them. And had it been in the Old Testament, Harry Potter would have been put to death.

Whoops, my bad. I knew I should have used different examples... Haha, see, I'll admit when I'm wrong

Originally posted by Peach
Also, as far as god saying homosexuality is a sin...god said a lot of things in the old testament. But here's a fun fact that many Christians forget about - Jesus's sacrifice made it so Christians were freed from Old Testament law. Jesus preached to love and help everyone. So by saying that you believe homosexuality is a sin because the Bible said so, what you are really saying is that you are ignoring a core tenet of your own religion and that you think you know better than your own savior. And if you are going to continue to insist it's a sin because of Leviticus, you'd better not be doing all of the other things that book forbids!

Though hypocrisy is common amongst Christians, it seems.

Uh, sorry, but you're wrong. And here's why:

In the New Testament, Jesus' apostles had this to say:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"
-1 Corinthians 6:9

If Jesus had accepted homosexuality, why would His apostles (the ones who were with him throughout His ministry and who knew what He said) go about saying something the EXACT opposite?

Jesus himself said this:

"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me."
-John 5:46

What did Moses say?

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
-Leviticus 18:22

So if we believe Moses, we'll believe Jesus. Moses wrote that homosexuality was an abomination in the sight of God.

Jesus also said:

"And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"
-Matthew 19:5

If Jesus had accepted homosexuality, why would He make a point to mention that a MAN leaves his parents to cleave to his WIFE. Why not a man to his husband?

Jesus said this, as well:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
-Matthew 5:17

The apostles also said:
"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet."
-Romans 7:7

Jesus FULFILLED the law. We are no longer justified by the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ, but He didn't outright destroy the law. The parts of the law that point out sin (as the apostles re-iterated) are still VERY valid, because what was sin then is still sin now. The ceremonial laws (like diet, etc.) have wisdom (the majority of unclean animals in the Bible were bottom-feeder types. You are what you eat), but are not necessary to follow anymore.

I actually had neighbors who were Assyrians/Part-Assyrians: the Bin-Sayaads. The wife was a fat redneck, the husband was a bronze muscle man who mowed his lawn shirtless every other day. You know, Soap Opera stuff.

Batdude,

Corinthians 6:9 - "effeminate" means "having feminine qualities untypical of a man : not manly in appearance or manner". So god doesn't want men to be girly, not necessarily homosexual. I've met gay men who were stereotypical "manly men" in dress, manner, speak. All barring their sexual taste.

John 5:46 - If you're going to use this passage to dictate that Leviticus is back on the table, then don't pick and choose which parts of Leviticus are back on. It's all or nothing. Now tell me, do you eat shellfish? Mix materials of clothing? Do you condone slavery of Mexicans and Canadians? Sacrifice and burn bulls?

Matthew 19:5 - Doesn't tell us homosexuality is wrong.

Matthew 5:17 - See above, if you're going to use this to support Leviticus, don't pick and choose. Accept all of Leviticus.

Originally posted by Peach
Well, for starters...Persians are not gone. Nor are Assyrians. They are both ethnic groups that still exist. Iran was known officially as Persia until the 1930s. And Israel is it's own country only because we decided to make it so.

Your 'prophecies' don't hold up to actual history.

Also, as far as god saying homosexuality is a sin...god said a lot of things in the old testament. But here's a fun fact that many Christians forget about - Jesus's sacrifice made it so Christians were freed from Old Testament law. Jesus preached to love and help everyone. So by saying that you believe homosexuality is a sin because the Bible said so, what you are really saying is that you are ignoring a core tenet of your own religion and that you think you know better than your own savior. And if you are going to continue to insist it's a sin because of Leviticus, you'd better not be doing all of the other things that book forbids!

Though hypocrisy is common amongst Christians, it seems.

Also, being called out for something blatantly offensive, "word of god" or not, doesn't make you persecuted. Nor does being forced to accept you aren't the only religion around.

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

First time I'm going to agree with Peach on something, and that is the freeing of people from the Law. Sure a sin is still a sin, but it should only be applied to Christians themselves. Imposing that upon non believers is pointless and even Jesus himself illustrates that in several parables.

On a side note... I approve of homosexuality much more than I approve of shellfish. Shellfish is just nasty.

My only problem right now is that secular society keeps me from making a whip and driving out the money changers.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Whoops, my bad. I knew I should have used different examples... Haha, see, I'll admit when I'm wrong

No, not your mistake. That would be the mistake of whoever wrote the Bible.

As well as all of the people who have translated it over the years. Who knows what's been lost in translation?

And no, Bat Dude, you are definitely incorrect here.

Originally posted by Robtard
Batdude,

Corinthians 6:9 - "effeminate" means "having feminine qualities untypical of a man : not manly in appearance or manner". So god doesn't want men to be girly, not necessarily homosexual. I've met gay men who were stereotypical "manly men" in dress, manner, speak. All barring their sexual taste.

John 5:46 - If you're going to use this passage to dictate that Leviticus is back on the table, then don't pick and choose which parts of Leviticus are back on. It's all or nothing. Now tell me, do you eat shellfish? Mix materials of clothing? Do you condone slavery of Mexicans and Canadians? Sacrifice and burn bulls?

Matthew 19:5 - Doesn't tell us homosexuality is wrong.

Matthew 5:17 - See above, if you're going to use this to support Leviticus, don't pick and choose. Accept all of Leviticus.

I didn't really want to have to go into a big Bible study on this issue, but that's ok, I have no problem doing that if you want me to.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9, you're forgetting the second thing I bolded, "Abusers of themselves with mankind".

In Romans 1:27, we read:
"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

John 5:46 - You conveniently skipped Romans 7:7, which says we did not know sin but by the law. But we also see here, in the previous passage, Romans 7:6, we see this:

"But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter."

Now if we put the two together...

"But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet."

Putting all of that together, we see that the apostles were saying that we are delivered from the law, but that we know what sin is BY the law. What was sin under the law is still sin today. That has not changed. But we are not bound by the CEREMONY of the law.

We can eat pork and shellfish and etc. See here in 1 Timothy 4:4...

"For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:"

And here in Acts 10:12-15...

"Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."

Matthew 19:5 - It sets the Biblical definition of a marriage, and is a direct quote from Genesis 2:24, where God says this:

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

God the Father makes it abundantly clear what marriage is, proclaiming it at the creation of the human race. And Jesus (God the Son) re-iterates it during His ministry. If God had intended for there to be "same-sex marriage", He would have outlined it in His Word. But He didn't. Actually, He makes many mentions of how it is an abomination in His sight, a lot of which I've already posted.

Matthew 5:17 - Prohibition was legal a while back, but now it isn't. Since we've been freed of Prohibition, I guess we have to just throw out the whole Constitution then, right? I mean, according to you, it's all or nothing!



Then give me Bible for it. Not your opinion.

"Abusers of themselves with mankind" is still vague and could or could not be interpreted as "ewww, man-man buttsex."

I did not "conveniently ignore" anything, you tried using John 5:46 (and Matthew 5:17) as a means to support that Leviticus 18:22 is still in effect. I pointed out why just 18:22, when there's a laundry list in that book. Would you condone slavery under the guise of Leviticus?

And Matthew 19:5 still doesn't tell us homosexuality is wrong. Your view of Matthew 19:5 as "biblical definition of marriage" is pointless. A marriage is a marriage because of human law (state law in the US), not because a religion (which there is more than just Christianity in the US) acknowledges it. If you don't believe, look it up. Just getting married in a church doesn't mean you're legally married, you have to file paperwork.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Abusers of themselves with mankind" is still vague and could or could not be interpreted as "ewww, man-man buttsex."

I did not "conveniently ignore" anything, you tried using John 5:46 (and Matthew 5:17) as a means to support that Leviticus 18:22 is still in effect. I pointed out why just 18:22, when there's a laundry list in that book. Would you condone slavery under the guise of Leviticus?

And Matthew 19:5 still doesn't tell us homosexuality is wrong. Your view of Matthew 19:5 as "biblical definition of marriage" is pointless. A marriage is a marriage because of human law (state law in the US), not because a religion (which there is more than just Christianity in the US) acknowledges it. If you don't believe, look it up. Just getting married in a church doesn't mean you're legally married, you have to file paperwork.

And I pointed out that if we repealed Prohibition from our laws in the US, we obviously are no longer held to the other amendments since, according to you, its all or nothing.

What was a sin then is a sin now. Period.

Tell me, did you read the whole post before you replied, or just what you wanted to read?

I've made my points. If you want to read them, you can read my previous posts.

Either you didn't read them, or you ignored them.

According to the Bible, and according to Jesus, homosexuality is a sin. Whether someone believes it or not is another matter, but based on everything I posted, according to the Bible and according to Jesus Christ, it is a sin.

And that's all I have to say regarding the matter.

What now? The US Constitution was written to allow Amendments. Even amending Amendments.

Can you point me where in the bible it says something like 'ignore the parts of OT/Leviticus that are inconvenient for you, but not the parts that support your intolerant views'?

And what was condoned then, is condoned now.

Tell me, do you condone slavery? Leviticus 25:44 says it's okay. Blaming rape victims(might be a Deut, iirc)? Do you shave? Death penalty for adultery?

You'd think if Jesus was against something so much, he'd have outright said "homosexuality is wrong". He's a chill "live and let live" kind of guy though.

Originally posted by Robtard
What now? The US Constitution was written to allow amendments . Even amending amendments. Can you point me where in the bible it says something like "ignore these parts of Leviticus".

And what was condoned then, is condoned now.

Tell me, do you condone slavery? Leviticus 25:44 says it's okay. Blaming rape victims?

You'd think if Jesus was against something so much, he'd have outright said "homosexuality is wrong". He's a chill "live and let live" kind of guy though.

If Jesus was pro-homosexual, why would His apostles, whom He taught directly throughout His entire ministry here on earth, outright condemn homosexuality?

Originally posted by Bat Dude
If Jesus was pro-homosexual, why would His apostles, whom He taught directly throughout His entire ministry here on earth, outright condemn homosexuality?

Because they are flawed human beings.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because they are flawed human beings.

So they're all just liars, then?

All 12?

Originally posted by Bat Dude
If Jesus was pro-homosexual, why would His apostles, whom He taught directly throughout His entire ministry here on earth, outright condemn homosexuality?

I didn't say Jesus was "pro-homosexual", just because you don't condemn something doesn't mean you're for it. eg homosexuality doesn't bother me and it's not my concern what two or more consenting adults do sexually, but do I go around trying to spread it or speak of its benefits? No.

Your statement also implies that the twelve apostles were without free-thought, that they by knowing Jesus didn't have their own individual hang-ups and such. They were men and as pointed out, man is flawed. So Paul was a gay-basher, it happens. Don't try and lay his intolerance on the big J.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
So they're all just liars, then?

All 12? 12? Wow, what a huge number.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
What can I say? I'm not a big fan of "F*** f*** f***, look at me, I'm saying f***" type of comedians. Those three are some of the cleanest comedians I know of. And I don't know what you're talking about, but Pinette's pretty funny.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't care.



Prophecy isn't magic if it's of God. Yes, when fortune tellers and psychics and all these people try to prophesy, it's witchcraft and they're usually wrong with their prophecy anyway.

That's why the Bible talks about the test of a true prophet of God: if they are hitting on their prophecies 100% of the time.

But anyway, there's the problem. You wouldn't believe no matter what. It didn't matter what I said or did, you weren't going to believe anyway.

As the Bible said, "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke 16:31)

I see your problem: The bible was written by humans and not any god. The bible is no more the word of a god then the koran is. Also, I don't see why a god would prophesy in the first place.

Also, why would I believe in a false religion like Christianity? Just think about all the people who have been murdered by Christianity in the past. There is no good reason to believe in a religion with that much blood on its hands.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Also, why would I believe in a false religion like Roman Catholicism? Just think about all the people who have been murdered by Catholicism in the past. There is no good reason to believe in a religion with that much blood on its hands.

FIFY

Now it's truth.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
FIFY

Now it's truth. First in first out?

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Roman Catholics believe:

-Mary is their "co-redeemer"
-Bowing before statues is ok
-You get to heaven by practicing the seven sacraments
-The wafer and wine are the LITERAL body and blood of Jesus
-The pope is the "vicar" (substitute) for Jesus on earth

You get the idea...

Christians believe:

-Jesus is the only mediator between God and man
-You should only bow to God and make NO graven image (idol)
-You get to heaven by having faith in Jesus Christ
-The bread and wine are symbolic of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross
-The pope is a dictator sitting on a throne in Rome

An unbeliever is not a derogatory term. It is a matter of fact term. You don't believe in Christianity, do you? Hence, you are an unbeliever. Just like I'm an unbeliever in Buddhism. Besides, I'd rather offend you telling you the truth than tickle your ears with lies, anyway.

Until Christianity (your religion) is able to face, and except the wrongs that it has done in the past, then Christianity (your religion) is bound to repeat it.

No, unbeliever = less than human.
I am NOT an unbeliever! I believe in BUDDHISM!

Batdude's "Christians" are a minority of Christians.

I love how he thinks the King James Bible is somehow authoritative when all the Biblical Scholars and Religion Professors I've talked to read it to their kids or in the bathroom but laugh when asked about it's accuracy or propinquity to the original Greek/Hebrew.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Roman Catholics believe:

-Mary is their "co-redeemer"
-Bowing before statues is ok
-You get to heaven by practicing the seven sacraments
-The wafer and wine are the LITERAL body and blood of Jesus
-The pope is the "vicar" (substitute) for Jesus on earth

You get the idea...

Christians believe:

-Jesus is the only mediator between God and man
-You should only bow to God and make NO graven image (idol)
-You get to heaven by having faith in Jesus Christ
-The bread and wine are symbolic of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross
-The pope is a dictator sitting on a throne in Rome

An unbeliever is not a derogatory term. It is a matter of fact term. You don't believe in Christianity, do you? Hence, you are an unbeliever. Just like I'm an unbeliever in Buddhism. Besides, I'd rather offend you telling you the truth than tickle your ears with lies, anyway.

Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity. Someone who is Catholic is also Christian. Someone who is Christian may be Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, UCC, and so on and so forth.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Until Christianity (your religion) is able to face, and except the wrongs that it has done in the past, then Christianity (your religion) is bound to repeat it.

No, unbeliever = less than human.
I am NOT an unbeliever! I believe in BUDDHISM!

Way to go. Catholics have COMPLETELY different beliefs than Christians. I highlighted some of those differences in my last post. The only thing that ties them together is the names that they use (Jesus, Moses, Mary, Abraham, etc.)

Catholics are the ones who perpetrated the Crusades, the Inquisitions, etc. Not Christians. There has always been a separate secttion of Christianity. Baptists are from this secttion (and thus are not Protestant, which came out of the Catholic Church)

The only thing tying them together is the names.

Uh, no, that isn't what unbeliever means. Here is the dictionary definition of "unbeliever":

NOUN: somebody who does not share beliefs, somebody who does not believe in an established religious faith (courtesy of the Encarta World English Dictionary)

You are an unbeliever of Christianity. Just like I'm an unbeliever of Buddhism.



Bible scholars that trust in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus just because they are older? No thanks.

Every modern Bible version, save the King James Bible, comes from the Revised Version of 1881, which derives from the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (which contradict in so many different places they had to arbitrarily decide which one wins in those instances), which are Catholic manuscripts that get their lineage from Alexandria, Egypt.

The King James Bible comes from the Majority Text (or Byzantine Text) which comes from an ENTIRELY separate line from Antioch



In name only. Trust me, I was a Catholic for 15 years. I know what Catholics believe...

Originally posted by Bat Dude
In name only. Trust me, I was a Catholic for 15 years. I know what Catholics believe...

Good for you. You aren't the only former Catholic here. Catholicism is part of Christianity, whether you like it or not, and you claiming otherwise does not change that fact.

I know what Catholics believe as well, because I was raised Catholic. It's more or less the same as most other Christian denominations.

Incidentally, to be fair on bat dude, there is a huge debate about how to translate the end of 1 Corinthians 6:9, and a strong body of opinion that outright translates it as 'homosexuals'. Of course, this all leads back to the ludicrous nature of taking as sacred something that we don't actually even know what the text should be, but we can at least accept that bad dude was brought up believing that was the meaning.

I like the way he associates Protestants with Catholics but not Baptists, as if Baptists suddenly sprang into existence out of nowhere, though.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Catholics have COMPLETELY different beliefs than Christians.

If you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you are a Christian (gee, I feel like Maury Povich).

IMHO, to say otherwise suggests you value division over unity, superiority over humility.

Originally posted by Mindship
IMHO, to say otherwise suggests you value division over unity, superiority over humility. So in other words, a Christian. *cue laughtrack*

Originally posted by Bat Dude
So they're all just liars, then?

All 12?

Did I say liars? No. I said human.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Incidentally, to be fair on bat dude, there is a huge debate about how to translate the end of 1 Corinthians 6:9, and a strong body of opinion that outright translates it as 'homosexuals'. Of course, this all leads back to the ludicrous nature of taking as sacred something that we don't actually even know what the text should be, but we can at least accept that bad dude was brought up believing that was the meaning.

I like the way he associates Protestants with Catholics but not Baptists, as if Baptists suddenly sprang into existence out of nowhere, though. I wonder what his take on Calvinists is.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Christians as a group are pretty much the least persecuted people in the world ever.

Said no historian, ever.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
If Jesus was pro-homosexual, why would His apostles, whom He taught directly throughout His entire ministry here on earth, outright condemn homosexuality?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because they are flawed human beings.

Why...uhhh...yes. SC is 100% on target.



Originally posted by Ushgarak
I like the way he associates Protestants with Catholics but not Baptists, as if Baptists suddenly sprang into existence out of nowhere, though.

Yeah...he treats Baptists like they are Mormons.

At best, Roman Catholicism is pseudo-Christian. At worst, it is pagan.

Way back in the day, there were three main lines:

1. Gnosticism - An esoteric belief system where you can only understand the Scriptures through "hidden knowledge". They did not believe that Jesus was God in the flesh. They believed that Christ was not a physical being, but an idea. This line can be traced to about 150 AD. Many say the Gnostic views originated with Simon Magnus. It also has quite a bit similar to theosophy.

2. Roman Catholicism - Unlike what they would tell you, the Roman church did not begin until the emperor Constantine, who lifted the ban on Christianity to unite the fracturing empire. Many Christians became lukewarm and formed a hierarchy in Rome under the emperor. During this time, many of the Catholic doctrines were created, the most important being that only the clergy could interpret Scripture. Using this doctrine, the Catholics deceived millions of people, kept the Word of God out of the hands and ears of the masses and led everyone into the Dark Ages.

There is a pantheon in ancient Roman paganism, and there is a pantheon in Roman Catholicism, namely the canonized "saints". The "Christian" holidays of today (X-mas, Easter, Valentine's Day, etc.) almost always have pagan counterparts (Saturnalia, Ishtar, Lupercalia, etc.) They just "Christianized" the paganism.

No mention is made of the title "pope" or "pontiff" in the life of the apostle Peter in Scripture. He was not a pope, despite what they want to tell the world. The first popes were Roman emperors, hence the transfer of the title "Pontifex Maximus" (originally the title for the head of the pagan priesthood) or "supreme pontiff" from the Roman emperors to the Roman Catholic popes.

The Catholic church doesn't even follow the most basic of basic doctrines in the Bible and in Christianity: namely that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation.

Here's a quotation from canonized "saint" Alphonsus Liguori in his work "The Glories of Mary":
"Listen," Exclaims St. Bonaventure, "listen, all you who desire the kingdom of God: honor the Blessed Virgin Mary and you will find life and eternal salvation." (p. 21)

". . . The designs by which He is able to dispense His mercy more abundantly to us, for desiring to redeem the whole human race. He has placed the whole price of redemption in the hands of Mary, that she may dispense it at will." (p. 37)

"The Glories of Mary" contains the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, which are Roman Catholic marks that declare the work to be sound and correct in Catholic doctrine...

We can see that the Catholic church holds Mary on a goddess-like level, something the Bible condemns. Therefore, it is not Christianity. It has more in common with old Roman paganism than Christianity.

It is from the Roman Catholic church that Martin Luther and the other reformers branched off of. While the Reformation was a good time in history (it broke the Catholic stranglehold, and some ended up breaking away from Catholic doctrine completely), many ended up keeping a lot of common ground with Catholic doctrine (such as the Anglican church).

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I like the way he associates Protestants with Catholics but not Baptists, as if Baptists suddenly sprang into existence out of nowhere, though.

The Baptists didn't "spring into existence out of nowhere". I mentioned two of the three lines already, now I'll talk about the third:

3. Scriptural Christianity - These were the ones that followed the actual teachings of Jesus. They had, for the most part, remained separate from the Catholic church. There are exceptions of course, but generally they remained out of Catholicism. Many Christians were burned at the stake or tortured by the Catholic church during the Dark Ages. Those Christians were from this line.

The doctrine of the Baptists (for the most part, outside of a few bits of leaven) has been around since Jesus' time. I'm not talking about specific names of denominations or anything of that sort. I'm not gonna say "Oh the Baptists are the only Christians," because I couldn't care less about denominations. Where are denominations in the Bible? They don't exist. Because there are only two types of beliefs according to God: those that are with Him, and those that are against Him. Jesus said as much in the Gospels.

I'm not saying the Baptists are perfect and that they have everything right, but they have a lot right in terms of what the Bible says and what they teach (which is why I personally go to an unregistered Baptist church). And I'm not saying that Protestants aren't saved or that Catholics can't get saved, I'm just saying the Catholic church is more akin to paganism than Christianity and that mainstream Protestantism has a lukewarm bent because of its close association to Catholicism. Ever seen the "Come home" ads by the Catholic church? They aren't just talking about Catholics.

Anyway, I've mentioned in another thread that the Roman empire destroyed a lot of primary source documents about the early Church, and that was done for a reason...

I probably offended the vast majority of the members on this forum with this post, but hey, what can I do? I'd rather offend you with truth than tickle your ears with lies.

This will probably (barring extraordinary circumstances) be my last post on this thread, because I'm a little exhausted with explaining to people who won't listen anyway.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
... bla bla bla bla bla... bla bla bla bla bla bla... ... bla bla bla bla bla... bla bla bla bla bla bla... ... bla bla bla bla bla... bla bla bla bla bla bla... ... bla bla bla bla bla... bla bla bla bla bla bla... ... bla bla bla bla bla... bla bla bla bla bla bla... ... bla bla bla bla bla... bla bla bla bla bla bla... ... bla bla bla bla bla... bla bla bla bla bla bla... ... bla bla bla bla bla... bla bla bla bla bla bla... ... bla bla bla bla bla... bla bla bla bla bla bla... ... bla bla bla bla bla... bla bla bla bla bla bla... ... bla bla bla bla bla... bla bla bla bla bla bla...

FIFY

Now it's more interesting.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
FIFY

Now it's more interesting.

Bat Dude, if you can't take it, then don't dish it out.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Anyway, I've mentioned in another thread that the Roman empire destroyed a lot of primary source documents about the early Church, and that was done for a reason...


Don't forget the library at Alexandria that burned...

And the library of Constantinople that burned.

I cringe just thinking about all the stuff we lost. Stupid.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't forget the library at Alexandria that burned...

And the library of Constantinople that burned.

I cringe just thinking about all the stuff we lost. Stupid. We still wound up with curly fries, so I think it turned out alright in the end.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Bat Dude, if you can't take it, then don't dish it out.

I never childishly equated your posts to gibberish.

You seemed to have missed out the enormous important area of Orthodox Christianity there, bat dude. There's no point reaching for history if you aren't going to do the job right, and no point talking about Roman Catholics and their foundation without talking abut Orthodox. 'pope', incidentally, comes from the Greek word for 'father', is not related to Pontifex Maximus in any way (aside from anything else, Roman Emperors still had that ceremonial title long after the first Popes of Rome), and needs to be understood in relation to Orthodox Christianity. Roman Catholicism as a distinct entity did not exist until long after Constantine. The whole point of the ideological split between Roman and Orthodox Catholicism is over the primacy of the Roman patriarchy, and that was centuries after Constantine.

The idea that Baptists are part of any form of ancient tradition is laughable- that's just something made up by some Baptists to give themselves some sort of particular legitimacy. They are no different from Protestants in origin; a split-off from an existing structure (mostly from Anglicans). Protestants would make the same claim about them representing essential biblical truth as Baptists would.

Is it just me, or are the most nutty Christians almost always Baptists?

'Baptist' is such a broad term. You have the Westboro bunch on one side, but on the other they are one of the few Christian groups in the UK willing to consider the legitimacy of gay marriage.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I never childishly equated your posts to gibberish.

But I did tell you time and again that I wasn't interested in the differences of opinion in your religion.

The Eastern Orthodox church came from the 2nd line, the Roman Catholic line. They have pretty much the same structure (religious hierarchy with a pope-like "patriarch" and same doctrines (pray to saints, "venerate" Mary, works-based salvation, bowing to icons/statues/pictures, etc.). They (EO and RC) only split after 1054. Before that, they were in lock-step together.

And there HAD to be a separate line of Christians (whether they were "Baptist" or not is not my concern. I try not to put a denominational label on born again, Bible-believing Christianity. I decided to use that label because the unregistered Baptist movement is as close to Biblical Christianity as a denomination will get, imo) because the Catholic church persecuted, tortured and killed Christians who had a different doctrine during the Inquisitions and the Dark Ages. These Christians came from a separate line.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But I did tell you time and again that I wasn't interested in the differences of opinion in your religion.

...Which has nothing to do with "not being able to take what I dish out." I didn't blatantly disrespect you, I replied to your posts with documented fact and you ignored it, likening it to complete gibberish. Now whether you want to read it or not is up to you, but to make a joke out of it is rude and disrespectful, imo.

If you can prove what I'm saying wrong, I WILL admit I'm wrong. But until you BIBLICALLY prove to me that what I'm saying is wrong, then I won't.

But, like I said, I can't make you read what I post.

You realize that something being in the bible does not make it documented fact, right?

Originally posted by Peach
You realize that something being in the bible does not make it documented fact, right?

Again, showing that nobody took the time to read my post...

I was referring to what I quoted from the book "The Glories of Mary" by Roman Catholic canonized "saint" Alphonsus Liguori. The book bears two marks: the nihil obstat and Imprimatur. These marks are used to denote a work that correctly reflects Roman Catholic doctrine.

Go back and read the two quotes I posted and know what I actually said before you try to rebuke me please

Bat Dude, I agreed with your general premise but I don't agree with the severity of that premise. However, you're being just as demeaning of other's opinions as you said they were of yours. That won't get you very far.

You may be frustrated or even irritated but don't let that reflect in your words. I know you're human and should not be expected to have "Gandhi-like" patience and humility. If you need to, take a break, come back to the topic, and respond with a level head. Don't get caught up in ***-for-tats.

I am being a hypocrite but I don't pretend to be a good Christian by any stretch. I have a foul mouth, I am perverted, and I don't keep kindness in mind with many of my decisions. Maybe I expect someone like you, who actually has a brain and at least gives the impression of being a good Christian, to be of a higher standard. We have had people like JLA come through these parts (sorry, dude, I hope I don't offend you with this) so it is refreshing to see someone as smart and as dedicated as you posting.


Basically, I think this thread is good but you're going about it wrong.

That's the thing, he's smart.

Religion probably got him motivated on his education, or pulled him out of some steep shit. However, it wasn't the ancient archaic bible, it was the people who practiced it with him, and were able to make decisions outside the bible for themselves that inspired his good through positive example; thus explains his pertinacity to try and convince us of it's validity and power.

However, I have come to the conclusion that distinguishing religions based on minor differences, when all religions and faiths preach goodness, is a little silly. Religions are based on the unknown and perhaps the forever unknowable. I say perhaps because I have never to my knowledge died.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
The Eastern Orthodox church came from the 2nd line, the Roman Catholic line.

No, see, you really need to check properly! You have this backwards. The Roman Catholics came from the Orthodox Church. You're also looking at the formal rather than practical split if you are dating 1054.

The Roman Catholic Church didn't persecute any specific 'line' of Christians. They just persecuted individual groups that sprung up for all sorts of different reasons over time. Protestantism was only distinguished in that it split successfully. Baptism in turn split from Protestantism. There's no historical line; no traditional group from the beginning that baptism represents, and certainly no better claim to being Christian than other groups making the same claim.

I wish you were correct.
I truly wish that there were super heroes in outer space.
On the Hay Zeus question my mini-doc, two parts, sums my
thoughts/research on that.
youtube.com/watch?v=ZzY2bVsZK5s

youtube.com/watch?v=sckuqPulRGk

& below is my "Da Vinci Code" parody

Tor__Hershman, that's a terrible rhyme.

Baptists? Are these the ones that either approach you on the street or blatantly knock at your house door hoping to persuade you to take "true" Christianity?

Originally posted by -Pr-
It's hard believing in science AND a higher power...
Belief in science and belief in a higher power are not mutually exclusive. Example: Max Planck, father of the quantum theory in physics. A theory that virtually every modern scientist gets serious "hots" for.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
You have an insatiable desire to make a mockery of Christian beliefs, don't you? In this thread and the other...

There is such a thing as religious humor. It's a close rendition of the god/man "touch" from the basilica in Vatican city... why not joke about it?

There is a difference between mockery than showing a silly picture.

I mean, if you can't laugh at yourself for something that's a part of you... you walk through the world without a sense of humor. And that's no fun at all.

Originally posted by Peach
Good for you. You aren't the only former Catholic here. Catholicism is part of Christianity, whether you like it or not, and you claiming otherwise does not change that fact.

I know what Catholics believe as well, because I was raised Catholic. It's more or less the same as most other Christian denominations.
This.

That's why I'm a big fan of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christainity. The idea of basic unity between Christian denominations, while idealistic, seems to be very cogent.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Now this thread is not meant in any way to come down on people or to puff myself up with pride that I know more than everybody or that I'm "in the know" and others aren't. That's not my intention. My intention is to help others receive the gift of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Do unbelievers know or realize that they are quietly fulfilling Bible prophecy?

Whenever I talk about the Bible, or about Jesus, or about the Good News (especially on this site), I get met with bitter words directed against me. Even though I'm usually pretty civil in my discussion (I think I am, anyway) I get those kind of responses. My absolute favorite so far has to be this one:


And that's nowhere close to the worst of what many true Christians live with on a daily basis. Many, such as in Third World countries, predominantly Muslim countries, etc. suffer physical persecution, rape, assault, murder, etc. And in the western countries, especially the United States, the persecution is mostly verbal, with ridicule and mocking being the forms of choice.

The Bible said it was gonna be this way.

"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." (Matthew 5:11)

"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (John 15:18-20)

Again, I'm not trying to put myself on a pedestal. I'm just legitimately wondering if anyone who would classify themselves as unbelievers actually realize this?

Feel free to discuss if you want to know if someone feels guilty for not buying an invisible product after reading that, it's a resounding "lol no".

Originally posted by psycho gundam
if you want to know if someone feels guilty for not buying an invisible product after reading that, it's a resounding "lol no".

I buy water all the time, that's almost like invisible.

More men and women and children were killed in the name of the Christian/Catholic God then many other religions despite one of the 10 commandments being 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. That being said I am closest to christian in my beliefs. there are three topics you aren't supposed to discuss in public because of how silly people can get-and verbally or physically violent- and those would be politics, religion and I don't remember the other. My post was not meant to be a form of attack. I apologize if I offend.

Originally posted by Mindset
If God isn't real, the how do we exist?

Checkmate.

Because we, you, I have evidence that we do.

Oye vey. So basically if rape and murder and hate happens against christians its because jesus said so. And its his fault? But in this instance its not the "world" that apparently hates christians... but muslims...

And what if you switched it. Cause not everyone looks favorably upon muslims.

And the buddhists who mind their own business but don't necessarily hate... shouldn't they be hating on the christians because of this preconceived notion from the bible?

oye vey. i'm guessing picking a name like "batdude" also doesn't assume that you like batman or some other false idol before god right?

Originally posted by rotiart
And the buddhists who mind their own business but don't necessarily hate... shouldn't they be hating on the christians because of this preconceived notion from the bible?

funny that, when Buddhists control a government, they act just like anyone else

Re: Rohingya in Myanmar

Originally posted by Oliver North
funny that, when Buddhists control a government, they act just like anyone else

Re: Rohingya in Myanmar
Ditto for Sri Lanka.

hadn't heard of that...

Originally posted by Oliver North
hadn't heard of that...
It's not quite as bad (I don't think the Civil War was about a struggle against the ruling Buddhist majority so much as one for Tamil separatism) as in Burma, but they seem to take Buddhism very seriously, and recently a British man was denied entry at Colombo airport for a tattoo of the Buddha on his arm, and insulting Buddhism is a criminal offense.

@ ON: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22356306

very cool, thanks

Originally posted by Endless Mike
That's called a self-fulfilled prophecy.

Step 1. The Bible says people should hate Christians
Step 2. Go around deliberately making a nuisance of yourself and pissing people off
Step 3. People complain about you
Step 4. See? I told you! The prophecy is true!

Lol, this. ^

More damning is that he only sees one interpretation of peoples' dissent. As if there isn't any valid reasoning outside his own. We're just pawns fulfilling a prophecy for the enlightened fartbags like Bat Dude.

Originally posted by Digi
Lol, this. ^

More damning is that he only sees one interpretation of peoples' dissent. As if there isn't any valid reasoning outside his own. We're just pawns fulfilling a prophecy for the enlightened fartbags like Bat Dude.

Thanks...

Originally posted by Bat Dude
...

...Which has nothing to do with "not being able to take what I dish out." I didn't blatantly disrespect you, I replied to your posts with documented fact and you ignored it, likening it to complete gibberish. Now whether you want to read it or not is up to you, but to make a joke out of it is rude and disrespectful, imo.

If you can prove what I'm saying wrong, I WILL admit I'm wrong. But until you BIBLICALLY prove to me that what I'm saying is wrong, then I won't.

But, like I said, I can't make you read what I post.


Biblically prove? The Bible is just a book. Think for yourself.