. . .aaand these sort of burnings make me feel sick.

*Think happy thoughts, Tyler. Happy thoughts.*

---

(February 12, 2013 at 2:05 am)Aegrus Wrote: . . .aaand these sort of burnings make me feel sick.

*Think happy thoughts, Tyler. Happy thoughts.*

And. . .I just unthinkingly gave away my name to the forum. Oh well, doesn't really matter. It's not like it's my address. Hell, it's not even my last name.

(February 12, 2013 at 1:29 am)missluckie26 Wrote: You just like me because I quote Monty Python

I assure you, Milady: it runs far deeper than that

Which gives me uber respect for your fiance for landing you. It's quite a compliment to be respected by me, or so it might seem from my irreverence.

---

(February 12, 2013 at 2:05 am)Aegrus Wrote: And. . .I just unthinkingly gave away my name to the forum. Oh well, doesn't really matter. It's not like it's my address. Hell, it's not even my last name.

Okay, Happy I really like that name... you can call me 'Purity'

(February 11, 2013 at 11:18 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 10:21 pm)Brian37 Wrote: First off, there is no contemporary evidence of the alleged Jesus character's time of his existence.

If their was a painic stop botton in a Jesus conversation, this would be it. If you not willing to entertain the Idea that Christ existed (whatever the reason) then their is no need to go any further.

Listen, take put the Jesus Kool Aid down for a second and take that puppet master hand out of your back. You act like one of Jeff Dunham's puppets, but nowhere near as funny.

I have said it before, and you are NOT the first I have had this argument with. I have been online debating religion for 12 years now, this is not my first rodeo.

The honest Historians, not the theologians, not the apologists. The honest historians HAVE NOT found one lick of evidence for the alleged Jesus character.

But, if we pretend for a second, he did exist, it still would not make virgin births real. It still would not mean human flesh can survive rigor mortis.

We know that George Washington existed, but no person I would consider sane would claim he could fart a full sized Lamborghini out of his ass back then.

You can rent a Superman movie, and in it you can see the character flying around the REAL city of New York, but you don't believe humans fly like that because New York is a real city?

"He existed" doesn't make magic real, it doesn't make your god real. The only thing it would mean if proven, would be that a man managed to start a cult. It wouldn't make him magic, and it does not mean an invisible friend in the sky is real either.

You merely swallowed a superstition. You like having a super hero. You are not doing anything differently than Muslims when they claim Mohammed existed, and they have more evidence for that than you do for Jesus, yet you are not a a Muslim.

Why should I give one lick of credibility to a tribal comic book full of violence, sexism, genocide, incest, lead by a head character whose only goal is to get you to kiss his ass? Why should I value a book that has absolutely no basis in scientific realty, much less any moral credibility?

That is your comic book, not mine.

---

(February 11, 2013 at 11:18 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 10:21 pm)Brian37 Wrote: First off, there is no contemporary evidence of the alleged Jesus character's time of his existence.

If their was a painic stop botton in a Jesus conversation, this would be it. If you not willing to entertain the Idea that Christ existed (whatever the reason) then their is no need to go any further.

Run away if you wish. But always remember when you do chose to argue with skeptics, ultimately, before you get to your comic book, you start off with the naked assertion that there is such a thing as an invisible disembodied magical super brain.

FYI I don't entertain virgin births because I know what DNA is. I don't entertain zombie gods because I know what rigor mortis is.

You don't entertain Thor do you? Why not? Thor makes as much sense explaining lightening as godsperm explains virgin births.

(February 12, 2013 at 2:52 am)missluckie26 Wrote: 1. X is still a "Christian" matter if X religion was brought to Y people and Y people used quotes from X religious texts to burn Z people. Just because the texts of Christianity were misinterpreted (word for word might I add), does not mean that Christianity gets to put it's hands in the air and call time-out.

But that is exactly what it means. If troop of girl scouts decides to break off from the offical organization, and sell their own brand of cookies, wear different uniforms, rewrites it own rules and bi-laws, are they still to be considered 'Girl Scouts?' What if they still identify themselves by that name? What if a 37 year old man wanted to call himself a girl scout? Does it make him one? In a word, no.

Why? Because there are rules that one must fall under to be considered apart of an organization. You all have been arguing the 'No true scotsmen fallacy' against Christianity so long unchecked you actually believe it. What your arguement does not take into consideration is the fact that Christianity is a organization like any other. As such there are rules and regs that determine who and what are christian. If this group who calls themselves christians does X and X is not a 'sanctioned' Christian behaivor, then its real simple. those who do X do not do it under or for Christianity.

Quote:I see it's encompassing grip on the society as an open admission of responsibility and at the very least, it should take responsibility for the effects it's influences have on the society it infiltrates.

Should Christianity also be responsiable for those people getting the witch hunters high/drunk before sending them out, when clearly Murder is a sin, Drinking, and doing Drugs is a sin?

The Christian Faith has already condemned every part of what these people have done. what more is their to do?

Quote:2. Try explaining that to illiterate New Guineans and see how far that goes. Just sayin If it's in the bible it's the word of god, straight from the horses' mouth. That's all they know. OT vs NT bi-laws are not going to be explainable to the uneducated if you can't even explain it to the educated.

I can explain it to the "educated," the problem is the 'educated' think the know better, and ignore what has been explained:
The bible repersents 2 Different religions. Judism, and Christianity. These are divided by what are known as covenants or "testaments." The Old Testament refers to Judaism, and The New Testament refers to all things Christian.

Done..

The problem? The 'educated' who do not practice this religion don't want a reconcilliation. They have found a justification in the confusion they have created for themselves, and are content living there.

Quote: Thus if history has shown us anything, it's that the ignorant will use the bible against one another when it's proclaimed to be the direct words of a higher power and states clearly (albeit OT or NT) statements that condemn someone.

Actually no. The Evil will try and use 'religion' to mask the evil in their hearts. This is the lesson History teaches. This is the lesson Christ taught. One does not have to be uneducated to be Evil.

Quote:I assure you, Milady: it runs far deeper than that

Which gives me uber respect for your fiance for landing you. It's quite a compliment to be respected by me, or so it might seem from my irreverence.

---

Well I take that as the highest compliment, miss Violet I'd say that thats the sweetest thing someone's said to me lately, but you should've heard the sweetness he was talkin to me last night!
And. . .I just unthinkingly gave away my name to the forum. Oh well, doesn't really matter. It's not like it's my address. Hell, it's not even my last name.
[/quote]
You had me wondering for a minute if u could be my cousin Tyler but then I realized, "naw he would never say 'hell' anything

(February 12, 2013 at 11:00 am)missluckie26 Wrote: You had me wondering for a minute if u could be my cousin Tyler but then I realized, "naw he would never say 'hell' anything

Well, this is a bit of an interesting development, as I don't think anyone in my family actually knows that I *can* swear. I don't at all when I'm not sure how people will react to it.

There's a simple solution to this issue; my profile picture is now my face. Is it anyone you recognize?

(February 12, 2013 at 11:06 am)Drich Wrote:

Quote:You want an NT law in particular? Jesus wanted people to follow the spirit of the law, not just the letter, but as I said in my previous post (quoted here), regardless of whether or not the OT laws need to be followed to the letter to achieve salvation or not does not change the fact that they are still the will of god. Jesus didn't say anything specifically about witches

But Paul did, He modeled How Christians are supposed to encounter then and limits our encounters to a stern rebuke.

Hence...the crusades? Christianity must have really been having a bad day if even the pope wasn't a True Christian™. Jesus directly contradicts god on this matter, though god also contradicted himself with "thou shalt not kill". How exactly does one reconcile this? I'm beginning more and more to think that the OT should be dashed from Christianity altogether, Jesus and god are just too different...