Oh my god, you are a terrorist
-
According to his believers: 1. God once killed all the first-born sons of Egyptions. 2. He continue to kill many thousands innocent people year after year with flood, earthquake, tornado, etc. (weapons of mass destruction he invented). Remember? These things are called acts of god. So God is absolutely the biggest terrorist of all time. Let's destroy his organization (the churches), freeze up his assets (the charitable contributions), and hunt down his supporters (the christians). :confused: :confused: :confused:
Weeeeee... If you want to wipe out the followers of the god that "kill[s] many thousands [of] innocent people year after year", the Christians are just the tip of the iceberg. What about Jews and Muslims? They have different names for god but it's the same guy. And what about the myriad of old-world gods (Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian, etc.)? They all have stories of mass destruction in their past. Ok, ok, that was the past. How about we just consider people who attribute this age's death and destruction to the mysterious will(s) of the deity/deities of their choice? That would make it... uh, everyone except the atheists. Are you suggesting that everyone except the atheists be hunted down? Welcome to 2001, sir/madam. Aren't we past all of that? J Peace
-
According to his believers: 1. God once killed all the first-born sons of Egyptions. 2. He continue to kill many thousands innocent people year after year with flood, earthquake, tornado, etc. (weapons of mass destruction he invented). Remember? These things are called acts of god. So God is absolutely the biggest terrorist of all time. Let's destroy his organization (the churches), freeze up his assets (the charitable contributions), and hunt down his supporters (the christians). :confused: :confused: :confused:
Since ya'll think I'm insane anyway. I might as well not keep my mouth shut. Our Bible clearly states that such an event will eventually happen. In what we believe to be the end-times Christians will be hunted down and slain. But we'll be victorious in the end. I am not going to respond to any responses to this thread, so I will give the secular objection here and get it over with: Revelations deals with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 and therefore, since the world has not come to an end is invalid. So there you go. Take it as you will. "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are disciples, if you love one another -- JOhn 13:34-45"
-
Since ya'll think I'm insane anyway. I might as well not keep my mouth shut. Our Bible clearly states that such an event will eventually happen. In what we believe to be the end-times Christians will be hunted down and slain. But we'll be victorious in the end. I am not going to respond to any responses to this thread, so I will give the secular objection here and get it over with: Revelations deals with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 and therefore, since the world has not come to an end is invalid. So there you go. Take it as you will. "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are disciples, if you love one another -- JOhn 13:34-45"
Amen! Praise God
-
What the hell have you been smoking? Let's destroy his organization (the churches), freeze up his assets (the charitable contributions), If you do that you cut the life line of millions of suffering people all around the world. As much as I dislike organised religion many churches and charity organisations do a lot of good in our world. They should be honoured and praised, not left to beg for more money. hunt down his supporters (the christians) So de-populating most of the western world is the answer is it? I believe though that most of the worlds power lies in Christian hands, it would not be wise to make them embark on yet another crusade. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "We would accomplish many more things if we did not think of them as impossible." - Chretien Malesherbes
I believe though that most of the worlds power lies in Christian hands Hell, yes. Bow before me, infidels..... Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
-
Since ya'll think I'm insane anyway. I might as well not keep my mouth shut. Our Bible clearly states that such an event will eventually happen. In what we believe to be the end-times Christians will be hunted down and slain. But we'll be victorious in the end. I am not going to respond to any responses to this thread, so I will give the secular objection here and get it over with: Revelations deals with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 and therefore, since the world has not come to an end is invalid. So there you go. Take it as you will. "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are disciples, if you love one another -- JOhn 13:34-45"
Given how vocal I have been on this recently, I want to distance myself from creative interpretations of Daniel and Revelation that suggest an anti-Christ figure will come and cut peoples heads off if they will not have his tattoo. I am surprised how many people take one chapter of Revelation literally and yet recognise that the rest is word pictures which need to be interpreted to be understood. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
-
Weeeeee... If you want to wipe out the followers of the god that "kill[s] many thousands [of] innocent people year after year", the Christians are just the tip of the iceberg. What about Jews and Muslims? They have different names for god but it's the same guy. And what about the myriad of old-world gods (Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian, etc.)? They all have stories of mass destruction in their past. Ok, ok, that was the past. How about we just consider people who attribute this age's death and destruction to the mysterious will(s) of the deity/deities of their choice? That would make it... uh, everyone except the atheists. Are you suggesting that everyone except the atheists be hunted down? Welcome to 2001, sir/madam. Aren't we past all of that? J Peace
Are you suggesting that everyone except the atheists be hunted down? I'll need to stop off at a Sports store and pick a gun and plenty of ammo first, but count me in... ----------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
-
Given how vocal I have been on this recently, I want to distance myself from creative interpretations of Daniel and Revelation that suggest an anti-Christ figure will come and cut peoples heads off if they will not have his tattoo. I am surprised how many people take one chapter of Revelation literally and yet recognise that the rest is word pictures which need to be interpreted to be understood. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
I am surprised how many people take one chapter of Revelation literally and yet recognise that the rest is word pictures which need to be interpreted to be understood. Well, I'm not surprised at all! Haven't I been saying that picking through the bible and reading any old bit any way you like is a basic activity of all christian churches? Just out of curiosity Christian, where do you draw your references from ? A) Which of the 4000 or so Ancient Greek manuscripts acts as your source. Can you identify the exact manuscript, please. And what process did you follow to conclude that this particular one is the 'right' one to work from? B) Who does your translation from Ancient Greek to English? What qualifications do they/you have to lead us to believe the translation is accurate and appropriate ? Just like to know, so we can start using the same 'reference' in our discussions. ----------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
-
I am surprised how many people take one chapter of Revelation literally and yet recognise that the rest is word pictures which need to be interpreted to be understood. Well, I'm not surprised at all! Haven't I been saying that picking through the bible and reading any old bit any way you like is a basic activity of all christian churches? Just out of curiosity Christian, where do you draw your references from ? A) Which of the 4000 or so Ancient Greek manuscripts acts as your source. Can you identify the exact manuscript, please. And what process did you follow to conclude that this particular one is the 'right' one to work from? B) Who does your translation from Ancient Greek to English? What qualifications do they/you have to lead us to believe the translation is accurate and appropriate ? Just like to know, so we can start using the same 'reference' in our discussions. ----------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
You've got it all wrong, I'm happy to argue my case from the worst of Bible translations, the problem is not in what version, but in the interpretation. Anyone with a basic understanding of English comprehension should be able to understand what I am referring to from Revelation from even the worst translation. Like going to heaven when you die, the Futurist view of Revelation is followed pretty blindly because it's something the churches have believed for long enough that it is taken as read in some circles that this is what the Bible says. The people who made these initial conclusions are long dead, but those who follow read the Bible in that light instead of letting it be the sole authority. And I'm really not up for a lot of obtuse questions about manuscripts and such. I'm way too busy to argue for the sake of it. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
-
You've got it all wrong, I'm happy to argue my case from the worst of Bible translations, the problem is not in what version, but in the interpretation. Anyone with a basic understanding of English comprehension should be able to understand what I am referring to from Revelation from even the worst translation. Like going to heaven when you die, the Futurist view of Revelation is followed pretty blindly because it's something the churches have believed for long enough that it is taken as read in some circles that this is what the Bible says. The people who made these initial conclusions are long dead, but those who follow read the Bible in that light instead of letting it be the sole authority. And I'm really not up for a lot of obtuse questions about manuscripts and such. I'm way too busy to argue for the sake of it. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
And I'm really not up for a lot of obtuse questions about manuscripts and such. I'm way too busy to argue for the sake of it Fine by me - things to do as well. Wasn't trying to be tricky, or funny, or to trap you. Instead, I was/am seriously trying to establish a framework for any future discussions. Twice in the past few weeks we've discussed bible verse in some details - the Flood/Punishment of Cain; and women in the church. Both times, the debate ended up being that you quoted different English words and different interpretions of specific verses. I have been working from KJV, you are working from a source not identified. I am also happy to work from any particular version of the bible. However, if I understand this post correctly, you are essentially arguing that the meaning of the "bible" (or all the different "bibles") is the same, no matter what the actual words might say. How then do I (or anyone else) gain this understanding of the 'real/underlying' meaning if the actual words are not that important? How do I judge the quality/menaing of a verse if the exact English words do not really matter? For exmaple, does this mean that when the/a "bible" says that god killed the first born of every Egyptian that he might not have actually done so? Should I take this as "god really taught them a big lesson". Is this how you approach your bible reading? If so, then I agree that the version and /or wording is not important! ----------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
-
And I'm really not up for a lot of obtuse questions about manuscripts and such. I'm way too busy to argue for the sake of it Fine by me - things to do as well. Wasn't trying to be tricky, or funny, or to trap you. Instead, I was/am seriously trying to establish a framework for any future discussions. Twice in the past few weeks we've discussed bible verse in some details - the Flood/Punishment of Cain; and women in the church. Both times, the debate ended up being that you quoted different English words and different interpretions of specific verses. I have been working from KJV, you are working from a source not identified. I am also happy to work from any particular version of the bible. However, if I understand this post correctly, you are essentially arguing that the meaning of the "bible" (or all the different "bibles") is the same, no matter what the actual words might say. How then do I (or anyone else) gain this understanding of the 'real/underlying' meaning if the actual words are not that important? How do I judge the quality/menaing of a verse if the exact English words do not really matter? For exmaple, does this mean that when the/a "bible" says that god killed the first born of every Egyptian that he might not have actually done so? Should I take this as "god really taught them a big lesson". Is this how you approach your bible reading? If so, then I agree that the version and /or wording is not important! ----------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
And I'm really not up for a lot of obtuse questions about manuscripts and such. I'm way too busy to argue for the sake of it Fine by me - things to do as well. Wasn't trying to be tricky, or funny, or to trap you. Instead, I was/am seriously trying to establish a framework for any future discussions. Twice in the past few weeks we've discussed bible verse in some details - the Flood/Punishment of Cain; and women in the church. Both times, the debate ended up being that you quoted different English words and different interpretions of specific verses. I have been working from KJV, you are working from a source not identified. a/ Fair enough - I'm sorry if I misjudged your post. b/ In each case the point has been the interpretation, not the version. I prefer the NKJV, but the KJV is fine and dandy with me. I dunno what version I have been quoting, I just go to Bible.org to get the verses I want to quote ;P I am also happy to work from any particular version of the bible. However, if I understand this post correctly, you are essentially arguing that the meaning of the "bible" (or all the different "bibles") is the same, no matter what the actual words might say. How then do I (or anyone else) gain this understanding of the 'real/underlying' meaning if the actual words are not that important? a/ No, most Bibles have errors, my point is that none of them are SO bad as to be useless, and that any version will do fine to discuss the issues specifically at hand. b/ The Bible says if you want to understand it, you need the Holy Spirit experience. Having read the Bible prior to this, when I thought I was a Christian through 'giving my heart to Jesus' &tc., I can testify that this is dramatically the case. So in the first instance I recommend you stick to the Gospels and Acts, they are the only books you are meant to be trying to understand. How do I judge the quality/menaing of a verse if the exact English words do not really matter? For exmaple, does this mean that when the/a "bible" says that god killed the first born of every Egyptian that he might not have actually done so? Should I take this as "god really taught them a big lesson". Is this how you approach your bible reading? If so, then I agree that the version and /or wording is not important! Every Bible I know of says the first born in Egypt were killed, and the Red Sea was parted ( to bring up another example ). I don't believe these events are in serious doubts by anyone who believes in God and the Bible. My poi
-
Are you suggesting that everyone except the atheists be hunted down? I'll need to stop off at a Sports store and pick a gun and plenty of ammo first, but count me in... ----------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
We're not allowed to have guns here in Australia. Can you pick some up for me? Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone