Let's look at scientific fact then. 2 can be any number from 1.500000000000000000000 (adnauseum decimal places) up to 2.499999999999999 (ditto with the places) as there is a tendency to round it off to 2 for the understanding of simpletons. 2 itself is not a very precise number. Given this SCIENTIFIC FACT 2 + 2 can equal a range of numbers from 3 through 5, however those numbers themselves also are imprecise and and run their own gamut of rounded numbers. This IS stuff you should have learned in primary school, or the US equivalant, LhChihuaua77.

Just because I think one way or another does not make it an absolute "truth". It seems as far as those working in the name of their chosen deity for example have no issue with the murder of others. The bible dictates "kill kill kill" then contradicts it with the commandment of "thou shalt not". Others in their own minds, conjure up justifications for their own actions, as in times of war for example. As for rape, I personally don't perceive it is justified or right, whether it be little children or men or women of ANY age as it a violation of the individual. IF however a rape victim was able to murder his/her attacker in self defence, would THAT be wrong in YOUR eyes? It would be murder, regardless of the self-defence angle.


Life is not as simplistic as a yes or no as veriables always enter the equation, given circumstances.
.
I have made it patently clear throughout this entire thread that I don't necessarily believe in "truth". What you may well determine as TRUTH, may well be in total contradiction to how I determine it, so perhaps as YOU are requiring this black/white - yes/no response you show to me what YOUR interpretation of "truth" is and I can then give you the "yes" or "no" as you seem to require in your black and white "world". The irony is though, whether I end up agreeing with YOUR interpretation, is irrelevant, as there is someone else out there whom, disagrees and probably has a totally diferent interpretation, hence making theirs, yours or mine, not truth to the other concerned.

Do you GET it now?

Thank you for the reassurance as to our personal relationship. I should let you know though, I actually don't have ANY problem with you, as I realise you believe what you believe, however, when you state "Everything you say about the Christ is wrong, well, nearly everything", I do have an expectation of you at least stating the points you personally perceive I am wrong about?

I agree totally however, when you use the words "truth-seeking" and "historical truths" I assume you do look at as many avenues as you can, regardless of whether they "fit" with your current ideology or not.

Well if that IS the case as you determine it to be..."historically true and accurate", then why has no other medium BUT the bible, or post bible reference ONLY writings given this alleged "historically true and accurate" account mention?

I am happy to work with you as to this alleged "historically true and accurate" account as per the bible, and I do, as a result, give up a challenge..to you or ANY of the "christian faith" out there. It is simple and you only have to use biblical reference. I do not request anything else for you to state your case, so therefore no external to the bible "proof" required. ALL you have to do is use the bible as reference.

Phil, SOTL, trueblue,LhChihuaua77...etc..??

Just begin at "easter" morning...and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's "snippet" version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. There is only around 160 odd verses, so it shoudln't take so long. Then, without omitting a single detail from these individual accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

ANYONE willing?



Then please do.


--------------------

Off note re "talk to you soon". Bonsai lost the election... *YAY*... ;) :D

[quote="cmar1965"]
God Choose to reveal Himself thru His written word, His thoughts are greater than our thoughts.
God came to earth and yet people still do not believe. He is vauge for a reason, cause if people would only believe in Him for all the signs he did then He would be interfearing with free will. SO the people that will have child like faith believe in Him, those who claim to be wise are made fools. He said If you seek Him with all your heart you would find Him.
Now if you were a true believer you are still saved, you were sealed until the day of Redemption, but if you were just someone who said ya I was a christian but not anymore, there is a good chance you never did believe Jesus was the Son of God.
You have to realize that Satan hates God and will blind even you, satan has you blind, I know you wont believe me now, but all the info that says there isnt God is false, I know I know you will think its the stupidst and most illogical thing you have herd and that I am brainwashed, then again you could be the one brainwashed by satan, a angel hell bent on deciving you from the truth.
Anyway I will pray for you and the battle that we followers of Jesus are going thru. I will pray for your salvation, the seed has been planted and now its all up to the Holy Spirit, God Bless. Believe read the Word of God and Believe!

Lhchihuaua,

The irony is, it was probably someone just like me who indoctrinated you! lol It is more than apparent to me as well that you are a relatively "new" christian as well.(just a personal observation)

If you need the hope of a"god" to fulfill your life, then go with it, but please don't ever try to represent to me that there is any ACTUAL "truth" behind the myth.

As Phil pointed out, with the many pictures of certain mary and child statues, your "belief" comes purely from pre-existing examples of paganism. It goes back even further though with Rhombus - "calfbearer/hersman"circa 570BCE, vs jesus-lamb circa 400CE, and assorted other "god" style mythological figures who were, virgin-birth, then alleged "teachers of truth', then cruciFICTION( on purpose typo), ressurection and assention. There is ZERO "new" about your jesus/god. Again, I have NO issue at all with your ideology, just don't push it on me as any alleged "truth".

"jesus and lamb" depiction ca. 300CE


VS

"rhombus and calf" depiction. ca. 570BCE (ahem...near 1000 years EARLIER than your "jc').



Apparently, even though you read the "challenge" I put up (as you posted it as a quote), you weren't able to correlate your alleged "truth" into one singular sequential event, despite being given the cart blanche to use EVERY biblical text relating to the specific event that dictates your "reason" to "believe". lol There is NO contradiction in any absolute truth, which I have no doubt you claim "jesus" allegedly "is"! lol *shaking head* Sure, you may argue that your "god" was vague, but life NEEDS, rather than wants are depicted by INSTINCT, not taught concepts. We all "poop", regardless of where we are "taught" to. We all instinctually KNOW we have to eat...(tummy grumbles..so we look for food). there however is NOTHING instinctual about reading ANY religious ideology. written in a book, even you as a "believer" state is "VAGUE".(yes I corrected your spelling)

I will not "pray" for you as you did for me, however I do wish you would stop believing in crap like, heaven and hell, and that there is a "satan" out there. Both the concepts of satan and sin were invented IN THE BIBLE to make people feel bad about themselves and NEED to conform to certain expectation. The up-side I suppose for you is, IF you happen to do anything "wrong", you can negate responsibilty and blame it on external..'satanic" influence, rather than yourself. IF there is a positive in your life, you no doubt contribute it to "gods will"! (oops where did that free will go there??)

Just a suggestion for you LhChihuaua. Find clarity of SELF. LOVE yourself. I promise there is no fear you will be banished to an "afterlife-eternity of hellfire" if you do, nor will there be if you DON'T take up the suggestion. THAT decision is Free-will, what YOU folow however is conditional will......ie: "bible jesus salvation" OR ELSE...satan, sin, fear, conformity etc...

Your "god" is allegely "omni", so that idea itself negates ANY free-will you claim you have anyway! lol I do like your freudien slip of "interfearing"... Quite telling.

;)

Traci--

You totally misquoted and took grossly out of context both what I said and the pictures of all the Madonna & Child statues I posted. There are "dualing resurrection stories" is what it comes down to. One real and one false. All the statues of "Mary & Child" are not, and were not of her and Jesus. Rather they are of Semeramis/Isis & Nimrod/Osiris, who was both her son and her husband.

This is no wise says or declares that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is false. It was simply co-opted by Semeramis and her then dead son and husband, Nimrod, before it came to pass, "In the fullness of time..."

You have to learn to separate Catholicism and Christianity, as the two have nothing in common, and one is false while the other is true. Roman Catholicism are where the mystery religions of babylon finally found their last home. And not too ironically, the mystery religions of babylon were begun and started by Semeramis and Nimrod.

Semeramis and Nimrod worshipped Lucifer/Satan. And the stars and statues, idols, and everything but the one true God.

You must learn to separate Catholicism and Christianity. Catholicism is violently opposed to Christianity, and always has been. History is replete with no less than 60,000,000 examples of this, and probably at least 320,000,000 separate examples of this.

The Roman Empire never fell, but was rather "Catholicized" and "Christianized." And this through Constantines false conversion to Christianity. Here is some 101 type stuff which you should already know but apparently are ignorant of. This will show you how the Roman Empire never fell but replaced itself and morphed itself into the "Holy Roman See."

Cheers-
phil

[hr:19dc2e1e6c]

The Hierarchy of the Roman Empire now called the Roman Church.

Vatican City is a landlocked state within the city of Rome, Italy. It is governed by the Bishop of Rome (called the Pope) are in fact clergymen.

It is the smallest sovereign state in the world.

Caesar Constintine began the "corporate takeover" by renaming all the old Roman offices, this evolution of name changing still occurs. Name changing allows a person to hide their tracks of origin.


Roman Empire offices & their modern names:


Roman Empire (Imperium Romanum) renamed: Roman Catholic Church

Curia (legal body of Senators) slight name change: Curia (legal body of Cardinals)

Roman Emperor renamed: Roman Pope (head of all church and state affairs)

Civil government matters of state: Extra-Ordinary affairs (matters of civil-state governments)

Religious orders matters: Church "ecclesiastical" matters

Roman College of Senators renamed: College of Cardinals

Magistrate of College of Senators renamed: Dean of College of Cardinals

Departments of the Roman Senatorial Curia renamed: Congregations

Political Ambassador renamed: Pro-Nuncio (highest civil ambassador sent to other governements, ie Wash.DC, London etc)

If a government has not signed a treaty with Rome which makes the Romans the head of the foreign country as certified in the Roman Code of Canon Law. This rebel nation which has no official ties has an ambassador called an Apostolic Delegate. The United States and the United Kingdom never allowed the Vatican to serve as their legal head until President Reagan quickly signed into law on January 10, 1984. This Treaty for the very first time in U.S. history recognized full diplomatic relations between the United States and the Vatican State.

In 1534 when the United Kingdom realized that the Treaty with the Vatican City-State made them subject to all the Popes rules they voided the treaty. Formal plomatic relations between England and Vatican State were broken. Full diplomatic relations with the the Pope's Vatican State were never restored for 448 years until 1982.

Roman Senators renamed: Cardinals

Roman Governors renamed: Archbishops

Roman Senator with no territory: Bishop (Code of Canon Law 376)

(Large) Roman Province renamed: Archdiocese

(Small) Roman Territory renamed: Diocese

Imperial Chair of Jupiter where Caesar sat renamed: Throne of St. Peter

Vestal Virgins renamed: Nuns

Pontifex Maximus (high priest of College of Senators) renamed: Supreme Pontiff of College of Cardinals

Pontiff or "high priest " of a pagan religious order (Zues, Apollo, Diana, Mars, Jupiter, Baal, Dionysys, Pythia etc) same name: Pontiff

A Pontiff (Latin: "pontifex") means bridge-builder or priest between man and the gods of the underworld.

The Roman Calender and Holy Days of the gods renamed: Calendar Holidays of the Saints

Voice of the gods speaking through Caesar: Ex-Cathedra: Voice of God speaking through Pope

Meeting of the Pontiffs (high priests) of the pagan religious orders renamed: Ecumenical Council of the Bishops

Legal act of creating a god (of a living or dead human, as was done to most of the Caesars) "Apotheosis of the Gods" renamed: Canonization of the Saints

A decree of Caesar (dictator for life): Pope's infalliable Dogma

Praying to a dead human god renamed: Praying to a saint

In the US the highest law of the land is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the Vatican State the Constitution is called the Code of Canon Law

__________________


"In disquisitions of every kind there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasoning must depend." --Alexander Hamilton

Actuly I am 30 years old and became a believer when I was 7, I choose to serve Jesus, as a child I decided.
Satan is all about loving yourself he was full of himself full of pride thats why God Almighty thru him from heaven and in short time satan will be cast into the lake of fire forever:>), everything he stands for is self. I say satan has blinded your mind to his
existance, thats his favorite thing to do, it immobilizes you and then you are a non threat to him because of it.
Satan is the most powerful being God has created, he is cunning, to think that a human can out think a supernatural being that far outweighs our thoughts and streangth, thats why we use Gods Word the HOLY BIBLE, it is a sword a spiritual sword.
I leave the conversation with this:

1 Corinthians 2:14

14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

LHChihuaua77 wrote:Like I said, a "new" christian. 23 years is not that long "in faith". I was a cart-wheeling evangelical tosser, before you could even read your "good-book"! It is interesting to know though, that you claim at the age of 7 it was YOUR alleged "choice"? lol Of course there would have been no external influence, like your parents or the local friendly pastor, telling you that the "holy bible" held all "truth" you needed to know. There is no intrinsic knowledge in taught concepts chihuaua, and it was taught concepts IE "reading the "holy bible" which lead you to your claimed "choice".

lhchihuaua wrote:The concept of satan is pure fabrication, created to instill fear. It has apparently worked a treat on you, and as a result, you conform based purely on the fear of the "nasty" consequences, if you don't comply. Again, your faith is determined by conditional will and has squat to do with ANYTHING you allege "free-will". SIN too is purely biblical concept. The irony is, christianity...(salvation from SIN) offers to solve a problem it actually created! lol

The irony is too with your satan babble in the above quote, you must love yourself in SOME capacity to deem yourself worthy of saving. WHO is "saved" by YOUR personal "choice", there lhchihuaua? ONLY YOU. If that is not arrogant "pride", I don't know what is!;)


You little pup, are preaching to a de-convert. Save your spiel for the poor plebs you no doubt accost in shopping malls.

Ahh, another follower of the pauline doctrine. They seem to be the "main" on this forum, the "owner"(Phil) included. "His" existence is just as dodgy as the one he's claimed to be "speaking" for.

Odd again, that the bible is the only reference to that fella too. Oh and like your 1 Corinthians example, I can quote the crap, right back at you.:D

One is informed by Acts that Paul's early day stance was as "Saul, the Christian persecutor". Yet if Saul really was a vigilante for orthodox Judaism at the time of Stephen's stoning (Acts 7.58-8.3), becoming the chief persecutor of Christians, no less – one wonders just where was Saul, not long before, when a supposed radical rabbi called Jesus was stirring up whole towns and villages?

Paul's role as religious policeman seems not to have awakened until shortly after the godman's death. But in itself this suggests Jesus of Nazareth had no great impact.(that could have much to do with nazareth not actually existing as a town at the time...lol) After all, Saul was allegedly a contemporary of Jesus in time and place, raised in Jerusalem ("at the feet of Gamaliel" – Acts 22.3) at precisely the time the godman was overturning moneychangers in the Temple and generally provoking Pharisees and Sadducees.

Would not Saul, a young religious hothead ("exceedingly zealous of the traditions" – Galatians 1.14) have waded into those multitudes to heckle and attack the Nazarene himself? Would he not have been an enthusiastic witness to JC's blasphemy before the Sanhedrin? And where was Saul during "passion week", surely in Jerusalem with the other zealots celebrating the holiest of festivals? And yet he reports not a word of the crucifixion?

Paul, another "witness for Jesus", saw and heard nothing of it! lol

The "trail-blazing" christian missionary and apostle, Paul, appears nowhere in the secular histories of his age (not in Tacitus, not in Pliny, not in Josephus, etc.) Though Paul, we are told, mingled in the company of provincial governors and had audiences before kings and emperors, however no scribe thought it worthwhile to record these events. The popular image of Paul is selectively crafted from two sources: the Book of Acts and the Epistles which bear his name. Yet the two sources actually present two radically different individuals and two wildly divergent stories. Biblical scholars are only too familiar with the conundrum that chunks of Paul's own story, gleaned from the epistles, are incompatible with the tale recorded in Acts but live with the "divine mystery" of it all. Perish the thought that they might recognise the whole saga is a work, as they ALL ARE, of pious fiction.

Acts

The Paul of Acts is a team player. His conversion on the road to Damascus is allegedly so important that it is repeated three times (son et lumiere). From a previous state of error (as "Saul", the persecuting Jewish zealot) he is brought into the loving embrace of the fledgling church.

Now part of the brethren ("with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem" - 9. 28 ), he is "managed" by the elders. Disciples "took him" from Damascus (9.25) and Barnabas "brought him" to the apostles (9.27). They "brought him" to Caesarea and then they "sent him" to Tarsus. Barnabas "brought" Paul back to Antioch (11.26) and then with him was "sent" to Jerusalem with famine relief (11.30) – (as it happens, a visit to Jerusalem completely unknown to Paul himself).

Eventually the brethren "send" Paul on his first missionary journey (13.4). As a missionary, Paul is very much on the collective message:

"And as they went through the cities they delivered them the decrees for to keep that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. And so were the churches established." (Acts 16.4,5).

From Thessalonica, Paul is "sent away" to Berea by the brethren (17.10). He is also "sent away" by sea and "brought" to Athens (17.14,15). In Cenchrea, Paul even takes a Jewish vow and shaves his head! (18. 18 ).

Though his name is cited in Acts 177 times, "Paul" is never coupled with the familiar honorific "apostle". The closest Acts comes to bestowing the title is 14.14 where his name follows Barnabas and the plural is used. In every other instance, Paul is an entity quite separate from, and implicitly subordinate to, the apostles. The slight is striking, given that Acts was supposedly written by Luke, Paul's companion and admirer.

Epistles

In stark contrast, the Paul of the Epistles is a bombastic maverick, representing no one but himself and under no one's direction. It is Paul who is doing the directing. Full of his own importance, in all his letters Paul hammers home the point that he is an apostle and that his appointment comes directly from the divine. His "proof" of this is his own success as a missionary (e.g. 2 Corinthians 2 , 3) – an argument of dubious merit still used by churches today. Look at our success! We must be right!

Paul makes no reference to a "Damascene road" conversion nor to an origin in Tarsus (Jerome reported that Paul was from Galilee!). He makes no reference to Cyprus and the battle with a rival magician, nor does he refer to the edict from James on food prohibitions and fornication. Paul, it seems, owes nothing to any man. A bad-tempered bully, he wastes little sympathy on those who do not accept his point of view. Thus when he loses the support of Peter and Barnabas over eating with Gentiles, Paul rebukes Peter publicly and writes that he has reneged out of "fear" and Barnabas has been naively "carried away" (Galatians 2.12,13).

It is curious that no Jewish rabbinic writings of the 1st or 2nd century so much as mention a renegade student of Gamaliel who, having studied under the master and vigorously enforced orthodoxy on behalf of the high priests, experienced a life-changing vision on an away mission. Not a word emerges from the rabbis about the star pupil who "went bad", a heretic who scrapped the prohibitions of the Sabbath, urged his followers to disregarded Judaism's irksome dietary regulations, and pronounced the Law and circumcision obsolete. Surely such a renegade could not have completely escaped the attention of the scribes?


I CAN continue with this probe if you like, chihuaua??? NO?:D


As you can see Lhchiuaua77, I know this BS, backwards, forwards, sideways, up and down. The difference is, I have researched it all, where it is more than apparent that you are like the vast majority of indoctrinated plebs, whom accept, not the WHOLE "holy bible" but specifically "plucked" verses as your verbatim "proof" of your alleged "truth".

AGAIN, as stated, I personally don't give a tinkers cuss if you "choose" to believe something as ...(pardon the pun...GOSPEL), however don't ever assume the position of arrogance (oops... you pride-filled..alleged "truth-knowing" individual, you), that you KNOW anything for "sure".

Now, I finish my post with this: Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits.

I think there is something in that for all of us!;)

MODERATOR COMMENT

I will now ask that the preaching cease, especially from you LHChihuahua77. I have politely requested this from you via PM. You have read the PM, so I guess you have ignored the request. It's now in public.

You may debate and discuss, but please do not preach. As has now been demonstrated ... yet again, this sort of activity creates friction and is not useful to the forum as a whole. We have experienced the Tocarm effect before and all it does is divide the huddled masses.

I'm sure we would rather turn this around into a positive discussion rather than a shit slinging match. Please stay rational or refrain from posting in this forum

Thank you guys !!

Stann
(Moderator)

I agree with Stann, and this as a Christian, 77. I try never to preach but rather try to persuade others that this is a more excellent way. Take some time, and do some research, and present your points, and try as much as possible to say things like; "In my opinion, from my perspective, as I see things, etc..." This doesn't water anything down, as your opinions are all based upon what you believe is truth anyways.

And people get less agitated and aren't on the defense. Remember Paul didn't go about preaching fire & brimstone to unbelievers. He preached Christ crucified, and the Love of Christ.

And I say the same thing only reversed to Cmar. Try as much as possible to say things like; "In my opinion, from my perspective, as I see things, etc..." Or else your posts come off as preachy in a secular sense.

Thanks you guys!

Cheers-
phil

Following these simple guidelines will help us avoid flamewars and the like, in which nobody benefits. And once flae-wars begin, nobody is listening to the debate anyways or the points presented.

__________________


"In disquisitions of every kind there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasoning must depend." --Alexander Hamilton

Will do Phil.