No, your faith is based on that.
Many, many, many, many, many, many Christians do not take every last word literally.
Who is more pushy with their POV atheists/agnostics or the religious.
- Thread starter Mark1031
- Start date
No, your faith is based on that.
Many, many, many, many, many, many Christians do not take every last word literally.
Mowque
Hypermodernist
Please, can everyone NOT judge all of us religious folks by candle? I know one bad apple can stick out but...
Seon
Not An Evil Liar
Why? Vcl
'kay, people. Let's make sure to stay civil.
This is my favorite biblical quote.
1 Corinthians 15: said:
Clearly, all will be saved and joined with God.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
No. Thats not true at all.
The Christian faith isnt based on the 'bible'....quite simply its based upon the Lord Jesus Christ and his divinity.
The bible is merely the instruction manual. And although its contents are inspired by God, its still written by men. Men who very often were quite limited in their ability to describe that which was occurring around them.
For example, it matters very little to me that God either brought a 'pillar of flame' to keep Pharoah from killing Moses and the tribes of Israel during the Exodus, or if he simply caused a volcano to explode and had lava block their path. To me, one is just as much a miracle as the other, and absolutely still the work of God.
Don't worry, I'm just judging the fundies
I consider myself a fundie. I consider candle a poser.
Red Stranger was extremely consistent with his act, but no human capable of posting on a message board could have been that stupid. So, I'm just assuming candle is a fraud.
i consider anyone who would doubt and question god a heratic, and anyone who says they are not a fundamentalist is not really a christian. Anyone who does not belive that what the bible says is 100% is not a christian. Anyone who seeks worldly gains over those of the kingdom is not a christian. Anyone that supports homosexuality and evolution is not a Christian. And I will not refer to you as such, and if the "christians" here dont like me that sounds to more like you all need a good fire and brimestone teaching to get your buts in gear and stop following the crowd. I also strongly belive if you vote democrat you can in no way be a Christian, as the party is far removed from a proper moral life
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Someone still takes him seriously after what he pulled in that Texas secession thread?
no candle is a fundamentalist christian taht is not content to follow the throngs to hell
I haven't come across such a person. 'Twould be humerous if there was one.
You are wasting your time on this site. Either you actually believe what you say, in which case you either have never had an intelligent conversation with another believer, much less an atheist or you have a mental deficiency in which case I'm sorry for you, OR this is all an act and you are enjoying yourself, in which case please come back when you reach maturity.
Also: pay special attention to the text Birdjaguar quoted above. Clearly, we're all with God.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Whoh, this is the first time I see Moss flip his lid! 
and agree with his statement, eventhogh it's curtish (I am reaching to that point with the poster known as Ned Flanders).
There's realy no point in telling you that the words in a book was written by man, you've compleately missed that point compleately. Not every single Christian takes the bible litteraly. You cry that "false" Christians are celibrating pagan holidays, yet you deny that the Bible borrowed from other sources in the cradle of civilization like the Epic of Gilgamesh and other Mesopotamian epics and mythologies. I remind you that the Jewish people of the time of Babylon had their civilization invaded by the Babylons and were scattered about.
and agree with his statement, eventhogh it's curtish (I am reaching to that point with the poster known as Ned Flanders).Wrong, the Catholic Church never fell from grace. Do you celibrate Christmas since that was based on a pagan holiday as well along with Christmas Trees and the Yule Log. you're starting to sound as nutty as the puritans way back in early colonial times
Wrong, I don't deny the bible. Unlike you, I don't take it litteraly and view it with a rational mind (even if some of the stories have been overblown and exadurated) Do you eat shellfish? Do you shave? Do you stone sinners? The bible by your logic tells you to refrain from eating shellfish, shaving, and allows stoning of sinners.candle said:
There's realy no point in telling you that the words in a book was written by man, you've compleately missed that point compleately. Not every single Christian takes the bible litteraly. You cry that "false" Christians are celibrating pagan holidays, yet you deny that the Bible borrowed from other sources in the cradle of civilization like the Epic of Gilgamesh and other Mesopotamian epics and mythologies. I remind you that the Jewish people of the time of Babylon had their civilization invaded by the Babylons and were scattered about.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
There were a number online back in like 2002, and it made me hate what I thought was agnosticism for a good year. Basically they were agnostic about everything except one thing, which is that "we can't know anything so stop arguing, you're both stupid, no one can ever know" etc. That's what I call hard-agnosticism, and it's somewhat self contradictory, and certainly very obnoxious. I don't see it much anymore, I think all those people grew up.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
There we are!
We also have precedent of people who were in hell because they did not know Jesus, and then Jesus went to hell and introduced himself (this happened between death and resurrection). Then those who accepted Jesus went to heaven. Since we all know Jesus, when we die and find ourselves in hell, we then will have both been shown the light and suffered the torment of 1000 torments, will accept Jesus into our hearts (or choose not to, defiance and rejection are wholly possible, and weed out the wicked from the wrong) and then find our way to heaven.
And of course there's my "why I can't fear hell" thread, which MobBoss and I pretend to debate but really we are discussing two completely different things since our premises are entirely unrelated.
There was a "why I can't fear hell thread?" Was it derailed by poster's presuming their epic prowess at prognosticatory riddles to put Proust, and Mephistopheles, to shame but predictably pushed too far against Perfection's perfunctory preemptive spamming?
Spoiler :
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
Perhaps, but depending on the particular brand of Christianity you espouse, you're also morally obligated to do a bunch of other insane things.
I actually go out of my way to be pleasant with the door to door types. I find it's the best way to make them go away quickly.
As for evangelism, it's certainly not friendly. If I came into your living room with a bunch of research papers detailing the flaws of the Bible, and trying to demonstrate that Christ was obviously not who Christian Churches make him out to be, would that not be hostile to you? Perhaps it's a matter of definition.
I would definitely consider them attacks. Though I suppose they wouldn't be personal attacks in most cases, it's still an attack, just as it would be an attack upon your beliefs if your government tried to inscribe 'There is no God' on it's money, placed it in oaths, and carved it on buildings.
On the other hand, distrusting those who don't believe in a deity or deities is most certainly a personal attack. It is the same as distrusting people for their skin colour, sex, sexual orientation, family status, etc.
Yet can you honestly regards these deities as credible, and who's people's rules you should obey?
I suppose that's the inevitable end to the argument. Though I don't see how I've been rude about it.
I could say the same about you.
Well, while I loathe to play into Mobby's hand here, isn't that the exact definition of Agnosticism? People use the term with other connotations certainly, but to be Agnostic is to be without knowledge. Since nobody can produce any evidence proving or disproving the existence of god(s), we are all agnostic.
Since when did I say anything about Nazism?
Hitler is most certainly in the religious camp if he is to be in any. While he may have only been Roman Catholic in name, those around him described him as very religious. Germans most certainly were not forced to renounce their religion; Hitler said publicly that religion provided a good moral basis for Germany. He was also fearful of the power of the churches, and had no wish to confront their power until the wars were finished.
Moreover, England, France and US were not in anything to save the Jews. What was happening to Jews was public knowledge, and American Quakers were making trips to Germany in an attempt to help the Jews there, with no real support from any government.
It is also fundamental to know that Hitler's original plan was not to exterminate the Jews. He simply did not want them in Reich, and was more than happy to deport them. On more than one occasion he made proposals to resettle the Jews in such places as Madagascar, Mauritius, and I believe the Dominican Republic. After winning the war against France, Hitler planned to deport all the Jews to French colonies which he saw as rightfully belonging to Germany.
It is an unfortunate coincidence that neither England, France or the US was willing to take in the Jews, and that helping them was never given priority. Churchill was hesitant to lift the blockade in order for ships to bring supplies to the Jews in Vichy France. I believe only one was let through. No German vessels were allowed or risked to move Jews overseas.
Keep it straight that the war was never about the Jewish question. The Allies thankfully were willing to fix the situation when they came upon it, but it's not why they were there.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
A commonly cited myth. Our resident theologian would be happy to grind you into the dirt for saying that.
You know that there's a huge hole in Epicurus' logic, right?
You keep saying this. I don't think you understand the part where every single Christian in this thread is saying the exact opposite thing you are accusing them of (bar Classical Hero, but he hasn't posted I don't think). And if you do understand, that you continue to declare it as such without offering any sort of proof, of which none exists anyway, then you are trolling.
I should correct the
