Got reminded about a great site that put's the reality back to the jebus and jew/christian religions: http://www.evilbible.com

The "Top 10" list had me rolling again:



However, going over the the other pages of the site remind me about how delusional and fucked up jesus freaks really are.

Can we please start feeding them to lions again, please!

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-i...ho-will-survive

Why would you use that ignorant article to prove your point, Thumper? The idiot lost me at "The Christian Crusades (11th,12th century) netted approximately one million Muslim deaths. And who started this war?" implying that The Crusades were started by the Muslims. Logic and facts went downhill from there.

The Crusades occurred about 500 years after Muslims instigated and carried out jihad against the Coptic Christians in Egypt.

Well then, kill them all. Let God sort them out.

And the two events have absolutely nothing to do with each other, as you well know.

Riiiight. The Muslim jihad against Christians ended right there with the Coptics. uh-huh.

You act like historical accuracy matters.

Does any of this negate the fact that all of the top 10 list applies to Thumper and Iky?

They're they only ones who seem to object to any or all of it.

Well, if you're asking me, I don't think Thumper and Icky belong in the same category. I think there's only one true fundamentalist here and, by proper use of the term, Catholics aren't considered fundamentalists. In fact, most fundamentalists don't even consider Catholics as really being Christians. They say all that pesky purgatory/saints/confession stuff isn't really Christian.

What must one believe to be a Christian fundamentalist?

The five fundamentals:

1. God's inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of Scripture in its original autographs, properly interpreted.

2. The virgin birth and Deity of Jesus Christ...that He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, and that He was and is the Son of God, fully human and fully God.

3. The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin and through His perfect sacrifice men through faith can find salvation and eternal life with Him in Heaven.

4. The bodily resurrection of Christ...that He was crucified, died, was buried, and rose on the Third Day...He ascended into Heaven and now sits at the right hand of God.

5. The authenticity of the miracles of Jesus Christ as recorded in Scripture and of His Second Coming.


Those have been the accepted tenets of orthodox Christianity since the Apostolic Age.
Which of those five fundamentals do you reject, funky?

You have a problem with people of religion in general, right?

What happen? Did you have a bad experience?

I don't know if 5th has "a problem with people of religion in general" or not. But, I have never had a problem with people who believe suicide as a comet is passing by will be the key to everlasting salvation. But, if I knew that's what you believed, I might have a problem leaving my children in your care... or trusting you with something else of importance. Because I would question your overall judgement. No bad experience... just concern about your judgement. What's different about the Comet chasing folk and the Virgin Birth / Resurrection folk?

Just curious.

Those who trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior don't commit flying reindeer suicide.

I reject that these are the definition of fundamentalism. Fundamentalists are a type of Christian and not indicative of all Christians. Fundamentalists believe that dinosaurs walked the earth with man when everything was created 6000 years ago rejecting science while most Christians have no problem accepting scientific facts.

Reject as you wish and be silly.
Write your own encyclopedia.
I'm sure it will be a big seller.

Those are the five FUNDAMENTALS of American Christian FUNDAMENTALISM since 1910.
That's a well known fact which is not rejected by anyone who knows the history of Protestant theology in the United States.


You liberals have such an obsession to rewrite history to fit into your own worldview.

I get what you're saying, funky. The thing is, (I'm guessing) you're using your own definition of fundamental and ikayak is using an "official" definition of the word, established all those years ago. You're jumping into a semantics argument. Certain things may seem fundamental to you, whereas ikayak is using an accepted official term of "fundamental" when applied to the Christian faith. From those perspectives you're both right.

You may not consider them all as fundamental, but the people that got to write the official paper did, so there's no point arguing. That's what they decided one must believe to wear their title. It's no different than any organization with guidelines. And it's no more important than that, really. It's a title. A descriptor. There's nothing wrong with that, if that's what one wants, but it's just a title. A way to distill the core beliefs of a given group.

You may need to believe those things to wear the Fundamentalist title, but you don't have to believe them all to be saved. For the most pure, simple example of salvation, all you have to do is look at the thief on the cross.

You see, this is one of the problems that escape so many Christians. Stash asked a legitimate question. Rather than answer, you give a flippant remark with zero evidence and make no attempt at a civil, reasonable answer. And in the process, you belittle the other group and make light of their faith.

You don't like when people belittle your faith, yet you set the bar. You don't like when I "denigrate" your posts, but you're happy to denigrate the comet chasers, equating them with flying reindeer.

Oh please.
Stash is an atheist...he habitually ridicules "skygodders".
Many Christians don't understand biblical eschatology.
What purpose would it serve to try to explain it to an unbeliever and ridiculer?

The Heaven's Gate people were/are not Christians.
Their "theology" was/is based on ET's and UFO's.
Their "Heavenly Father" is not the Divine Triune Godhead, but some space alien...and not even a deity in their own precepts.

Heaven's Gate eschatology (end of the world/ultimate destiny of humankind) is quite different from biblical eschatology. And true Christians don't commit suicide because they believe their mother ship is hiding behind Hale-Bopp or any other comet.

I posted the Five Fundamentals of biblical American Protestant Theology.

Suffice to say they aren't/weren't the fundamentals of Heaven's Gate. Not even close.

I thought there was no "interpretation"? Or are you just saying, as I've asserted all along, that YOUR interpretation is the only "correct" one? Wouldn't that be a perfect example of the sin of pride?



This is a perfect example of the logical fallacy known as the Appeal to Belief. That a majority of people believe something does not make it true, as we have recently seen over and over again with the Teabaggers. This is precisely why Buddhist doctrine includes an admonition against blindly accepting assertions that fly in the face of common sense.

At one time most people believed the Earth was flat, the Sun revolved around the Earth, and diseases were caused by evil spirits. Some people still believe in evil spirits. Doesn't mean they exist.

You really don't know the Bible at all, do you?

Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. Romans 14:19

Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. Ephesians 4:29

Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. James 3:13

...and so on.

I find it a common courtesy, when in a discussion with someone, to answer all honest, legitimate questions. Maybe that's just me. I know it's hard to tell sometimes if a question is straight up or just a snide setup. I try to answer the ones I think are legit. I don't base my effort on whether or not it will change their mind about anything or not. I do it as a courtesy, and because I find that to be the etiquette of worthwhile discussion.

As far as Heaven's Gate's theology, none of that excuses the graceless denigrating you find so offensive when it comes your way. Do unto others and all that.

I would consider myself an equal opportunity atheist. If Keith Ellison starts waving his Koran around and screaming "This is a Muslim Nation!" and trying to get laws passed based on his hooey, I would ridicule him as well. If the Hindus were to do it, they deserve ridicule. As would Buddhists, Mormans, Shakers, Rastafarians, and even Pastafarians and Frisbetarians. It just so happens Christians (all 38,000 differents versions) are the loudest in America. So, they naturally get ridiculed the most.

I am a supporter of the Constitution including ALL the Amendments. If government tries to stop you from praying, I'll be there to defend you. But, if they try to stop the Muslim or the Frisbitarian, we need to be there, too. I think all religion is hooey, but our Constitution says government won't stop you from worshiping the hooey of your choice. I'm all over that.

But, I do find it humorous when one religion condemns another or when one particular sect of a religion condemns another while ignoring the sillyness in there own religion.

"He thinks he's going to become the god of his own planet! Ha! Ha!"

"He thinks he's going to get 72 virgins! Ha! Ha!"

"He thinks a virgin gave birth to his savior! Ha! Ha!"

"He thinks he has to wear magic underwear! Ha! Ha!"

"He thinks he has to wear a yarmulke! Ha! Ha!"

"He thinks you need to sacrifice a child to get prosperity! Ha! (well, that one isn't so funny). Like religious silliness, religious atrocities come in all shapes, sizes, and religions.

But the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God (such biblical eschatology): for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1st Corinthians 2:14).

and so on...

You have left several of mine unanswered.

Now you've gone to damn far! I shall rally my brethren Frisbeetarians, and we shall root you out! You shall rue the day I tell you. Rue the day!

See, Thumper not all religions are whack-o. Only Yours.

It's OK, I'm use to hearing it! Especially from Frisby and Pasta types.

Now you're talkin'. We could use a little "aromatic potherb" around here. Religious discussions on this board are way too serious.

I rue the day I burnt the roux.

That's what Buddhism taught.

God's Word, however, teaches that the earth is round and suspended in space. Unlike Mount Meru.

There's where proper interpretation would have come in handy.
Buddhists could have avoided looking so ignorant and silly.

...and so on.

As Mdean said, we're using fundamentalism differently. And I think at least one of those tenets is quite fluid as there are respected and thriving Protestant denominations who view much of the Old Testament as allegorical while others view every word as historical fact.

I'm using Fundamentalism in the factual, historical, working sense.
You are attempting to use it in the liberal pejorative sense.

Jesus did not believe OT scripture was fluid, therefore, I do not.

There was no NT written during His ministry on earth,
therefore, it was OT scripture He read to others, taught from, and scolded people for not knowing.

There is NOT ONE scriptural indication that Christ believe OT scripture to be "fluid"...therefore, if you believe it is, your belief stems from your own imagination, and not from God's Word. And we both know from scripture (or perhaps you don't) how much God despises that.




You are wrong again.

From the article entitled:

Evangelical Churches Still Growing, Mainline Protestantism In Decline


Mainline Protestant churches that have seen a fall in membership since the 1970s continued their decline; the Presbyterian Church (USA) reported the greatest membership drop (2.6 percent) of the 25 largest denominations.

Other denominations reporting declines include the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church as well as the more evangelical Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.


Your lust for "perverse pleasure" is getting the best of you.

Do the math.

Well, I didn't check attendance figures but there are still churches out there with active memberships who believe that parts of the OT are allegorical. I think it's kinda odd that your husband is in the business of medicine which is a science yet you seem to take great pride in believing in Creationism that totally disbelieves most scientific discoveries. Odd.

And are you saying that Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, and Lutherans are seeing a decline because they are among those denominations that appear to be able to co-exist with both religion and science?

Gosh, I guess you're Christ and I'm Satan.

Don't go personal, Funky. This is an anonymous board, remember? I don't think iky has ever talked about her husband's employment. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

Hardly specific considering how many people in this town are in that profession. Much less specific and far less mean than what Icky has said to and about me in the past. But I see your point.

Matthew 5:11 (Easy-to-Read Version) for 5

First of all, you have insisted on this board more than once that you are a Christian. Taking you at your word, that means that you believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit.

Taken at your word that you're a Christian, that means you believe that Jesus Christ, God's only Son, was conceived of the Holy Spirit and was born of the Virgin Mary fully God and fully man.

Taken at your word, that means that you believe that He made the blind to see, the lame to walk, and the dead to rise and live again.

Taken at your word, that means that you believe Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified until dead, that He was buried, and on the third day He arose alive and walked among the living until He ascended into Heaven to sit at the Right Hand of God the Father.

Taken at your word, that means that through faith in Him, you believe your sins are forgiven and you are washed clean and made pure, so that you will have eternal life with Him in Heaven within a mansion He is preparing for you.

Now, taken at your word that you are indeed a Christian, how does your faith embrace that, but not God's Creation?

Taken at your word that you are indeed a Christian, how do you have faith in Jesus Christ, but not in His teaching confirming God's Creation?

.






Do I need to remind you of the account of Creation that Moses has given us in His writings?

Occupation has nothing to do with it, Funky. You either believe in Jesus Christ and His Word, or you don't.

If you don't believe in His Word, in what way can you say you believe in Him and insist that you are a Christian?






Secondly, you're just ignorant if you believe that all scientists and those working in the field of medicine believe in the theory of evolution.

The Theory of Evolution and Big Bang Theory don't deny God's existence. I believe both were sparked by God. It's is not necessary to deny one in order to believe the other to be true.

So now you are saying that the theory of evolution and Creationism are compatible?

Did you post this out of your lust for perverse pleasure?



Do you believe in the biblical account of Creation as taught and confirmed by Jesus Christ?

Answered in my last post.

I see no reason to engage with you any further on this matter. There is no up-side for me, only a head-ache.

Why is that I thought Jesus was a savior and not a science teacher? Alluding to things that people had been taught to get them to understand is not confirmation.

The Bible is not a science book.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

Just googled this up, have done no research, but thought it seems an interesting add to the thread.

Excellent question!
Tell me...why is it that you thought Jesus was a savior?

You're hedging. Give a direct answer. Put on your big girl pants and show some integrity.

It was my question first: What makes you think he was a science teacher? What makes you think he even cared about anything except the job at hand, giving mankind a way out of its sins? How important would it have been for him to have set the record straight about science type things anyway?

Since he wrote nothing, instructed people who were primarily Jewish in ways they would understand and all accounts of his life and work were written by those people, why cannot folks like you concentrate on the real message, the real purpose of his life instead of foolishly making his word the textbook for everything else?

Why?

You are free to think whatever you want. You always do. I'm simply making a decision to not get drawn into yet another negative discussion with you. I've got better places to spend my time and energy.

I understand that is your usual run-away m.o. excuse.
But what does holy scripture instruct you to do?

Worship the Lord God in your heart and be ready to always give an explanation of your faith to everyone who asks you for the reason for your hope that is in you in meekness and in reverence. (1 Peter 3:15)

Scripture confirms that Jesus was a teacher (John 3:2), and that He created both the physical world and the natural world (Genesis ex: 2:4 These the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens;

and Col 1:16-17: For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him, and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.)

If He hadn't created all things physical and natural, there would be no science.




It's very sad and unfortunate that you have such a limited view of Christ's redemptive work on the Cross.

He cared enough to suffer torture and death to reconcile to God His Creation.

Col 1:19-20: For it pleased God that in Christ should all fullness dwell, and through Him God reconciled everything to Himself. He made peace with everything in heaven and on earth by means of Christ's blood on the cross.





We've already established that you have very limited knowledge and perspective on the "real purpose of his life", which imo, is an example of foolishness.

We know of Christ's instruction/teaching to people by the revelatory accounts given us through God's Word. And we know that the foundation for His instruction was always His Word, recorded for us from the beginning as OT scripture.

Example: do you not remember that after His Resurrection, walking on the road to Emmaus, He instructed Cleopas and another disciple this way concerning His crucifixion and Resurrection, saying: "How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter His glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself. (Luke 24)

And btw, God's Word is our enduring, historical, spiritual textbook. However that doesn't mean it is void of "science".







Because folks like me have a passion for and concentrate on and study the whole counsel of God's Word in Holy Scripture, not limiting it or our understanding to only the words published in red that we read (or hear). Folks like me have a love relationship with the Lord and we want to know everything we can possibly know about Him from His Word.


Your turn. Answer my question.

Fair enough. Because there are thousands billboards telling us all this. If there are enough billboards you know it is true just like all those that promised Obama was going to straighten out Washington DC.



Okay, you covered the word science. How about the word teacher. What would his followers thought if he started teaching dinosaurs, comets, relativity, speed of light, etc.

He taught none of that. His mission wasn't a science mission. If he had chosen that route your detractors would be on your side and the people of that time would have known he was a lunatic. It would have totally taken away from the real message. No, he chose to use the tools he had to explain how the important things work.

(Or, maybe in a secret meeting he discussed quarks and physics and half a lifetime later the attendees forgot to mention it.)

And, forever after, fundies have linked Adam and Eve as his contribution to science. They just can't get over that hurdle.




iyo? I am wounded. I better leave this subject alone if you are going to think that.

That is more than okay by me.

Thank you for your honesty.
Your answer makes everything crystal clear.




What anyone states in direct response to that would be pure speculation. Best guess based on similar scriptural situations: some would believe and some would not believe. Some would remain followers, others would leave Him.





That's pure unscriptural speculation on your part.

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. (John 21:25)





The fullness of the Deity dwelled in Him. (Col 2:9)
He was omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

What tools are you imagining He lacked?




What hurdle are you imagining and whose hurdle is it to vault? Should Mr. Hawking's example be followed by jumping over hurdles simply by changing one's limited mind?




In Christ's opinion. I'm just echoing what He said to Cleopas, about how foolish Cleopas was to not really know all about Him when Cleopas had all of the OT revelations of Him available to study. You not only have the OT, but the NT revelations as well.




I should be more conscientious in remembering how thin-skinned and cowardly some people are on this board, and post to them as to fragile and sensitive little babies.




No doubt, pookie.
There, there, it's okay.
Hush little baby, don't say a word...
Hawking's gonna be your mocking bird.

The questions I asked are pretty good questions. Christ wrote no gospels. Whatever science he really knew is not recorded but the point that he did not seem to teaching science is obvious. He was interested in spiritual things. The teachings in the Bible would have to reflect a lot of Jewish beliefs especially when told by them.

Whatever, it could be a pretty good discussion but the familiar pattern appeared.

You first attack the other person's knowledge with one of your "if you understood scripture" statements. Really, the discussion is pretty much over there. No one can discuss anything with you. You are just so superior everyone...and an opportunity is lost.



Good for you. No need to think things through logically, you only need a blanket statement like this and you have it made.





Eventually you have to insult. Ilky, Ilky...

I think "was a" are the operative words in the question.

As in, why was a and not is?

Time period being discussed was the during the life with disciples, teaching, similar to ilky's and there are also many other things which Jesus did.

We've just had this conversation dozens of times already.

Fair enough! Jesus was a man. For our sake he was crucified. But, I think it is wrong to use the phrase "Jesus was a Savior." That is past tense, and can cause a misunderstanding of our belief.

Not to be insensitive about beliefs but this was Ilky I was addressing. "Jesus is the Savior" would have gone a whole different direction.

Not that it didn't anyway.

Tell us why...if you can.
(Hint: Jesus tells us why in scripture.)

BTW, there is only ONE Gospel...and it is THE GOSPEL of Jesus Christ...as given in the Holy Bible.

Also, btw, Luke was not a Jew, so the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Luke was not written having "to reflect a lot of Jewish beliefs".

And all scripture is given by inspiration of God.
You post as though Christ was dissociated from scripture.

The Gospel as recorded in the OT (Jesus surely would have reminded Cleopas of this):

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Isaiah 52:13-15 See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as there were many who were appalled at him -- his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness -- so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand.

Isaiah 53:1-12 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.





"Whatever science he really knew"

There you go again.
He was fully God, omniscient.
Do you know what the word "omniscient" means?
You mention thinking logically.
Considering the definition of "omniscient", utilizing logic, whatever science do you imagine He did not really know?

"He was interested in spiritual things."

"Interested"?
Jesus was dedicated to doing His Father’s will and devoted to His Father’s glory unto torture and death.
That's spiritual and goes way beyond "interested".




Attack? Did Jesus attack Cleopas? Did Cleopas say "whoa, dude, you attacked, wounded, and insulted me by saying I was foolish and inferring I don't know scripture, so the discussion is pretty much over now. I can't discuss with you"...?

It doesn't have anything to do with superiority. Your responses indicate you are not familiar with the whole counsel of God as recorded in scripture. If you don't like it pointed out, then demonstrate more knowledge of scripture in your posts.




If you pick and choose which scripture you will believe and which scripture you will not believe, you design and adhere to your own religion. Logically, that's not Christ's (God's) Christianity.




And you're always so gracious and complimentary with your standard "Ilky" designation.

I refuse to coddle disingenuous (and hypocritical) adults.
If you choose to feel insulted and wounded, suit yourself.
It only confirms my observation.
Personally, I consider indulging in such childish ego-centric poor-me-I'm-insulted feelings a huge waste of precious and limited time on earth.




And you've run away one dozen and one. If you can't stand up for and give a cogent argument from your beliefs, they are worth nothing...worthless. But you already know that, don't you? That's why you run away.

A totally predictable answer. It assumes my respect and that I could be insulted by you, lacks the understanding that I was poking fun at you to start with about being wounded, and totally nauseating in it's whole self important nastiness.



Refusing to play your silly games equals running away? Right. But here is a guarantee:

You won't get it, any of it. I, and I am guessing funky, are trying to tell you the same thing: Done playing with your goofiness and wondering you are wasting your precious and limited time on earth with us anyway.

The next tangent you go on will be unread by myself as it has been in the past.

Do you really think that I didn't know that you were feigning?


Hence the word I used: "DISINGENUOUS".


Who's playing nasty self-important little games, Mr. Bill?





And miss another opportunity to be disingenuous, belittle, and poke fun at me?
Must be holiday spirit...you know, the peace and goodwill stuff.

This was an accident. I clicked on the last post in the wrong forum and read your reply. And I am going to reply:

First I don't know you or who you are. Subconsciously I know there is a person behind every post but I have been debating on forums for a very long time and tend to forget that others might take insults personally. I was wrong in forgetting.

I used to make a rule to never, ever post in the religious forum but I read them because you can learn so much about people. My attempt to steer the conversation to why anyone needs to believe the Bible is anything other than a spiritual guide was doomed and I should have known it.

So now I really will bow out of this forum with the above half-assed apology. Why the reply? Maybe it is holiday spirit. Maybe it is because I know I was wrong.