Religion Of Peace & Love Does It Again....

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:44 am

Van wrote:Did whatshisface really live to be 900 years old?

Methuselah?

Yoda was 900 years old too and he was in the geek bible, but I figured you meant the real bible so I'm going with Methuselah.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:54 am

Diego in Seattle wrote:
War Wagon wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote: Want another example?
Example of how far your reach exceeds your grasp when trying to prove that Christians are just terrible people?

Got it.
It's not a reach (sorry about your inability to deal with reality...sucks for you).

But my point wasn't intended to portray how bad christians are, but simply how they believe their morality is superior to others & thus feel justified to impose it on others.

SYHTFOTW

Christians aren't the only people who view the dismembering of tiny baby humans inside the womb as a disgusting reflection as to how low we can be. Muslims (watch out), Jews, hey - even some atheists who are intellectually honest with themselves - perceive the practice as sad.

It is sad. So care to enlighten me as to how Christians are "imposing their morality" on you ?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:09 am

poptart wrote: Christ wants people to be "perfect" (Matthew 5:48) by simply believing in HIM.

I don't read it that way, 'tart.

The 5th chapter of Matthew is Jesus basic instruction book on how to live. Pretty tough stuff, turning the other cheek and what not. The 48th verse, which is the last of the chapter, pretty much tells me to suck it up and just do it.

Nope, Jesus isn't just asking for your simple belief in him here, he's demanding and commanding your obedience.

You hear it said all the time (especially by Christians) that "nobody's perfect". Well, the way I read 5:48 is that we damn sure can be. Not that I ever or anybody ever will be, but Jesus said it's possible.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:14 am

War Wagon wrote:
Van wrote: Not good enough, WW. I want pop's specific list.

If someone comes to him with doubts about their faith, due to the absurdity of so many things they've read in the bible, I want to know which are the specific events in the bible he points to that aren't meant to be taken literally. When he tries to assuage their doubts, which events does he point to when he says, <this, this and this> are merely allegory.
Loaded question, since you don't have any faith to begin with.

WW, do you even know what a "loaded question" means?

What I said there couldn't have been simpler and more direct. I was asking pop to enumerate his beliefs and practices. It couldn't be a less loaded question.

Van, you get too caught up in what seems like an almost frantic effort to disprove and disparage the Bible based on only those items which to you, on the surface, seem absurd.

Those items, do they not also seem absurd to you? Don't dodge. Answer the question. I listed four well known incidents from the bible. Answer to those four.

pop just completely dodged them, by saying I wouldn't like his answer. I didn't ask him to give me an answer I would like. I asked him to give me his list of allegorical items, and instead he completely dodged the question.

Here's a little bit of truth, WW....

pop is plainly uncomfortable with having to defend the numerous absurd portions of the bible. Instead of addressing them head on, even when specifically prompted to do so, he invariably responds with spin. He doesn't stand and deliver, not even regarding how OWN feelings on those incidents.

He talks in vague platitudes, whenever the need arises.

Tell me you knew.

There's an old saying that I find useful, should you ever have the inclination of seeking the faith that right now you apparently have no use for.

Take what you can use, leave the rest.

And of course, once again you resort to saying that I haven't looked. Laying blame, again, because of course everyone who seeks automatically finds that which they seek.

Once again, you misunderstand the very nature of faith, which is that it's a gift, not an endeavor. One doesn't look for faith. Excepting incidents of brainwashing one doesn't simply create faith, through some time honored process.

One receives faith.

We've both read the same book. Obviously, I read, a lot. Somehow, oddly, you and pop feel something different than I do, after having read the damn thing.

Lotta' timeless wisdom in that book, even if you don't choose to accept Jesus Christ as the son of God and the savior.

That's also true of the Koran, and any episode of Family Guy. Should we all worship Stewey? Do you get defensive and snippy towards people who have no faith in the divinity of Muhammed?

There's no difference.

As for myself, I'll reset the line from Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence...

I hold these truths to be self-evident

Which truths? The bible states a lot of things as "truth." That's what I'm trying to get at here. Which things are naked truth, and which are only meant as allegory?

You and pop both profess to have faith in the same book, yet you two must come in conflict over various claimed "truths," since you're nowhere near the literalist he is, and you're nowhere near as learned as he is.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:15 am

Moving Sale wrote:
Van wrote:Did whatshisface really live to be 900 years old?
Methuselah?

Yoda was 900 years old too and he was in the geek bible, but I figured you meant the real bible so I'm going with Methuselah.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:27 am

It's works on many levels*.

*As Lucas intended I'm sure.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:42 am

Van wrote: And of course, once again you resort to saying that I haven't looked. Laying blame, again, because of course everyone who seeks automatically finds that which they seek.

"Take what you can use, leave the rest" is "laying blame"?

I'm curious, Van... are your feelings always so easily bruised? Jeebus, get some steel toed boots or something.

Once again, you misunderstand the very nature of faith, which is that it's a gift, not an endeavor. One doesn't look for faith.

One receives faith.

Yikes! You're preaching to me about how one gets faith?

Yes, you receive faith, but you have to be ready and willing to accept it... and it doesn't hurt to look for it either.

If faith were a water spigot and you were a 10 qt. thermos, you'd have to take the damned lid off first, you big dummy.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:43 am

<-------Never saw a Star Wars or Star Trek movie.

Yoda was 900? For real? Bwaaa.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:04 am

War Wagon wrote:
Van wrote: And of course, once again you resort to saying that I haven't looked. Laying blame, again, because of course everyone who seeks automatically finds that which they seek.
"Take what you can use, leave the rest" is "laying blame"?

No, but this surely is....

WW wrote:...should you ever have the inclination of seeking the faith that right now you apparently have no use for.

With no room for debate, you're asserting that I don't have the inclination to seek.

Fail.

Then, on top of that, you're simply wrong in how the entire process works.

I'm curious, Van... are your feelings always so easily bruised? Jeebus, get some steel toed boots or something.

Bruised feelings? Me? By religious/bible talk, on a smackboard??

You have to be kidding. I enjoy the fuck out of this topic. I especially enjoy religious talk when someone completely steps in it, by saying something stupid to me about faith, or Noah's ark.

Once again, you misunderstand the very nature of faith, which is that it's a gift, not an endeavor. One doesn't look for faith.

One receives faith.
Yikes! You're preaching to me about how one gets faith?

Yes, I am. You apparently have no clue as to what it is, and how someone acquires it. Sounds to me like you need someone to preach to you about it, since you clearly think people can just go out and find it, merely by looking for it...in the prescribed manner.

Yes, you receive faith, but you have to be ready and willing to accept it... and it doesn't hurt to look for it either.

Since I haven't received it, of course it could only mean that I was never ready and willing to receive it, and that I never sought it.

"My bad!"

How convenient.

If faith were a water spigot and you were a 10 qt. thermos, you'd have to take the damned lid off first, you big dummy.

There it is. Placing blame, again. Dammit, WW, stand up for your convictions. Just fucking admit what you believe, and quit waffling and obfuscating every time I call you on it.

When someone doesn't have faith, it's their fault. They didn't try hard enough, and they went about it all wrong. They resisted it, thus preventing it from filling their cup.

Gotcha.

Just say it, stick to it, be proud of your cluelessness and move on. NASCAR isn't going to watch itself, and someone's gonna need to give the pre-race invocation.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:08 am

War Wagon wrote:
"Take what you can use, leave the rest" is "laying blame"?

No, but it's plagiarism.

Sin
Robbie Robertson

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:11 am

Jeez, now that was obscure.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:16 am

Van wrote:Jeez, now that was obscure.

Obscure and esoteric are my specialties.

RACK you, though, for getting it.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:25 am

Hey, no kidding, you've been on a seriously good one-liner roll lately.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:32 am

If I'm ever on a roll, it'll be a one liner roll.
Anything more than two sentences and I start to lose interest.

Just ask my high school English teachers (if they're still alive).

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:34 am

That 3rd sentence sucked horsecock.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:45 am

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:"Don't you think worshipping a guy is a little...gay? Jesus? How about Jane? I could worship a Jane."

Racks for being pret-tay, pret-tay epic.

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:21 am

War Wagon wrote:As for myself, I'll reset the line from Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence...

I hold these truths to be self-evident

Good old Jefferson...

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity." -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:26 am

Van wrote:Here's a little bit of truth, WW....

pop is plainly uncomfortable with having to defend the numerous absurd portions of the bible. Instead of addressing them head on, even when specifically prompted to do so, he invariably responds with spin. He doesn't stand and deliver, not even regarding how OWN feelings on those incidents.

Van, reading you borders on reading Annie.

White Chocolate, you are.

I have NO problem answering questions about the Bible from you.
I'd like to.
But you did the same thing you did in the Bill Maher thread -- you just went buckshot and fired off 6 or 8 questions ...

What about ...
What about ...
What about ...
What about ...
What about ...
What about ...
What about ...

Hey, ask me one question and I'll give you one answer.
Then we can move on from there.
Many of the questions you would like to ask require an answer that has some depth and length to it.

Such a thread would probably play better in another forum, but I have no problem answering questions here.

Just give me ONE and I'll answer it.

Btw, some of the questions you rattled off were already answered by me in the Maher thread.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:12 am

pop, that's pure bullshit, and you know it.

I clearly asked you one easy question....

Which parts of the bible do you not take literally? Give me your specific list.

One question, pop, a very clear and unambiguous question, and I've now asked it of you at least three times.

When you didn't answer it, and instead gave me this safe non-answer about how YOU aren't literally walking though any valley of death (which isn't a list of events in the bible), I finally broke down and gave you four specific incidents in the bible for you to speak to.

Again, you went to the spin card....

"I could answer you, but you wouldn't like my answer."

No shit, I wouldn't like your answer, because your answer would be another non-answer.

Those were simple yes-or-no questions I spoon fed you, in lieu of your unwillingness to answer the one question I spoon fed you.

Four simple incidents....

-Noah's ark, and all the animals, and the impossibility described in that fable. Do you take that story literally? Yes or no?

-900 year old men? Yes or no?

-Adam was created from dirt, and merely though his one strand of DNA all mankind was created. Yes or no?

-The earth stopped on its axis, and nothing catastrophic happened? Yes or no?

You again went to the spin car. This time, it's "Annie" deflection.

Face it, you simply will not stand and deliver, not about these really embarrassing fables. You just keep spinning and spinning, either by quoting non sequitur passages from the bible, or by changing the subject.

It's really getting to be quite revealing. The biggest thumper, unwilling to thump; not unless he can first shape the discussion to his liking.

I've learned two cool things in this thread. One: WW doesn't know what faith is, or how one comes to have it. Also, through sheer arrogance, he places blame on those who don't feel as he feels. Two: You won't discuss the embarrassing parts of the bible, not directly. When pressed, you simply gloss over them with...passages from the bible! You're supposed to be telling me what you think about certain events described in the bible. Quoting the bible doesn't address the question. Then you shift the topic.

It's rather like watching the Catholic church, and the shell game they play when one of their embarrassments is brought to light.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:20 am

Wagon, if you read Matthew 5, and especially Matthew 5:48, and received grace from it ----------> thumbs up.

But since what we do in here is kick things around, I'll toss a couple more "things" out for you to consider about that chapter and verse.

Matthew 5:20
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

It's a stunning comment, because the Scribes and Pharisees level of righteousness (by law) was THE TOP.
VERY pious, VERY law-abiding.

Nobody could match the standard, and yet Jesus was telling disciples that they can't enter the kingdom of heaven unless they EXCEEDED that level.

Woah!

Can you, War Wagon, enter the kingdom of heaven??

If you look at Genesis 17:1, as God appeared to Abraham (the father of faith), it says this ...

Genesis 17:1
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Matthew 5:48 says again, Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect.

We're going to be as perfect as our Father in Heaven?

There is no other method of living justly than that of simply depending upon God, who IS perfect.

Abraham was perfect because ... "I am the Almighty God" ... led Abraham.

We are perfect and led by God when we have taken Christ.

Colossians 1:28 -- every man is perfect in Jesus Christ.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:26 am

Van wrote:Which parts of the bible do you not take literally? Give me your specific list

Van, the Bible is FULL of things that are clearly and certainly NOT to be taken literally.

I can't give you a list, as there are just TOO many things.
Not possible.

If you ask if I think certain things are literal, yes, I can give you my answer.

About the 4 incidents you questioned, yes, all literal, imo ... except I of course take exception to your "impossibility" comment regarding the Ark.

As described in the Bible, it happened that way.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:29 am

Van, what if I told you I believe Jesus (the historical figure) is God incarnate?

That's just the crazy me saying, but I really am not one to push my beliefs on you or anyone else. Truthfully, I really don't care what others on this board think in regards to religion. I don't side with anyone because the may be Presbyterian like myself or anything else.

I certainly don't identify with the whack jobs that speak for God on this board. Every thread on religion brings out retarded conversations about it, so why try to convert dumbfucks to an opposite belief?

When you (everyone) die(s), then there is no obama government to speak for yourself.

To any future thread about religion... Why post one about it? Nobody is going to change their thoughts about it. Get a life and roll the dice as you will. When you die, where will you be? Personally, I don't give a shit where you fuck ups land. However, you are lying if you aren't scared about where you will go when you die. No joke.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:43 am

pop wrote:every man is perfect in Jesus Christ

I sense on the coming horizon another "homosmack Christ" blast from mvscal.

Otherwise, since you truly believe in Adam, 900 year old men and Noah's ark, what can I say? We've arrived at an impasse. You're a grown man who truly believes in a spiritual Easter Bunny, and I'm in shock.

Unfathomable. Yours is a special brand of insanity.

It's a good thing for you the bible doesn't say Christ was an aardvark, born of a wise and virtuous virgin eggplant. You'd still be quoting us scriptures as proof it happened, just like that.

AP wrote:Van, what if I told you I believe Jesus (the historical figure) is God incarnate?

I'd say you're a non-practicing Unitarian. What about it?

The only time I give a crap about what a person believes is when it manifests itself in the type of strange behavior I'm witnessing from WW and pop.

People who start off from indefensible positions (ignorance and timid arrogance, in WW's case; a passionate belief in the Tooth Fairy, in pop's), who still have the temerity to pass judgment on others, I find that to be really interesting.

"I haven't a clue, and I've completely turned my brain off, but I'm here to tell you: I'm going to the Big Happy Place In The Sky, and you aren't fit to join me. You're flawed...eternally so, at least until you can manage to make your beliefs match mine."

Fascinating. I've always wondered how American Idol could be such a hit and now I guess I know.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 8:24 am

Van wrote:Otherwise, since you truly believe in Adam, 900 year old men and Noah's ark, what can I say? We've arrived at an impasse. You're a grown man who truly believes in a spiritual Easter Bunny, and I'm in shock.

This is a common take in this day and age and I can understand it.

As noted, I believe a man died, resurrected three days later, and now rules EVERYTHING from His throne in heaven.

How kooky is that?

The fact that I believe Adam was really 900 years old shouldn't surprise you.

Hey, I might even believe Oakland will win another Super Bowl before the old man takes his dirt nap.

I brought this up in the Maher thread, and it is, imo, a VERY powerful testimony that the 12 apostles all went to horrific deaths because they insisted that Jesus had resurrected and that He is the promised Christ.

If He did not resurrect, these people knew that He didn't, and yet they willingly died ... crucified upside down, etc.

But yeah, at least they weren't A.P. haha

Take it as you will.

Terry in Crapchester · Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:17 pm

Moving Sale wrote:
Van wrote:Did whatshisface really live to be 900 years old?
Methuselah?

Yoda was 900 years old too and he was in the geek bible, but I figured you meant the real bible so I'm going with Methuselah.

Actually, I thought he was referring to Wolfman.

socal · Post by **socal** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:17 pm

Van wrote:<-------Never saw a Star Wars or Star Trek movie.

Hey, Spatially Challenged One, your avatar is thissaway: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

:P

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:28 pm

socal wrote:
Van wrote:<-------Never saw a Star Wars or Star Trek movie.
Hey, Spatially Challenged One, your avatar is thissaway: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

:P

Not the way I see it.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:33 pm

Moving Sale wrote:That 3rd sentence sucked horsecock.

See what I mean?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:34 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:
socal wrote:
Van wrote:<-------Never saw a Star Wars or Star Trek movie.
Hey, Spatially Challenged One, your avatar is thissaway: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

:P
Not the way I see it.

I think you guys should take this to the dyslexia forum.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:39 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:
socal wrote:
Van wrote:<-------Never saw a Star Wars or Star Trek movie.
Hey, Spatially Challenged One, your avatar is thissaway: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

:P
Not the way I see it.

I tried the other two styles with the 'tard on the left. That second one that looks like a pron site made my retinas hurt.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:40 pm

Mikey wrote:I think you guys should take this to the dyslexia forum.

Go kcuf yourself.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:27 pm

Atomic Punk wrote:I don't side with anyone because the{y} may be Presbyterian like myself or anything else.

In the little known Transvestite wing of the Presbyterian church no doubt. Do they encourage you wear your grandma panties to church?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:29 pm

poptart wrote:The fact that I believe Adam was really 900 years old shouldn't surprise you.

Hey, I might even believe Oakland will win another Super Bowl before the old man takes his dirt nap.

Fuck off Godboy.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:46 pm

poptart wrote:
Van wrote:Otherwise, since you truly believe in Adam, 900 year old men and Noah's ark, what can I say? We've arrived at an impasse. You're a grown man who truly believes in a spiritual Easter Bunny, and I'm in shock.
This is a common take in this day and age and I can understand it.

I'm shocked that in this day and age it's not a universal take.

I'm also shocked that you can understand it, yet you can't understand that all mankind could not have been created by a single strand of DNA derived from a man born of dirt, or that mating pairs of penguins never made it to the middle east, ready and able to share a wooden boat with rattlesnakes, crocodiles, panda bears and tree sloths.

As noted, I believe a man died, resurrected three days later, and now rules EVERYTHING from His throne in heaven.

How kooky is that?

Maybe a little bit kooky, but nowhere near as kooky as literally believing in all those other completely ridiculous things.

I'm reasonably okay with the notion of Christ as divine. I'm not completely sold on it, far from it, but I don't see the very notion of believing in it as being insane.

The other stuff? How would you look upon Mike The Lab Rat if he ever managed to convince you that he truly believes in fire breathing dragons, flying unicorns, the boogeyman and Change You Can Believe In?

That's where I'm at right now, with you. I'm completely incredulous.

The fact that I believe Adam was really 900 years old shouldn't surprise you.

The fact that I believe you actually believe something like that should offend you. It's tantamount to being called a simple idiot. Most people wouildn't willingly wear such a label.

Hey, I might even believe Oakland will win another Super Bowl before the old man takes his dirt nap.

Now you're just talking crazy. Rubber room stuff.

I brought this up in the Maher thread, and it is, imo, a VERY powerful testimony that the 12 apostles all went to horrific deaths because they insisted that Jesus had resurrected and that He is the promised Christ.

None of them were around for Noah's ark. They just were told the same fairy tale you and I read. Who wrote that nonsense again? Which reputable historian was there to record it, despite the habitable world having just been flooded to death?

If He did not resurrect, these people knew that He didn't, and yet they willingly died ... crucified upside down, etc.

MUCH stranger things have happened, all throughout history.

This thread, for instance. You're not even some completely uneducated desert nomad kook who's living well before the Dark Ages, back when people believed the most batshit crazy nonsense imaginable. You're a very bright guy, living in 2009. You really oughtta know better. You really ought to be able to differentiate between fantastical oral traditions passed down and altered from one lunatic fringe to the next, vs Christ's teachings and Christ's historical record, such as it is.

But yeah, at least they weren't A.P. haha

Take it as you will.

This is like a Comedy Central roast, where the stage hands flash the "Sincere Moment" sign to the roaster, telling him it's time to wrap up his segment by saying something nice about the roastee....

I don't know what to make of you, pop. You're a really smart guy and you seem to be a good guy too, near as I can tell from mere message board intuition.

You seem to value common sense, and having one's facts in order. All in all, you come off as someone who could easily be a scientist, with the way you neatly organize your thoughts and collate information.

Your faith is obvious, or at least it's remarkably well faked. Your depth of knowledge would be difficult to fake, especially on such short notice. One would need to be a googling wizard to keep up with you, in real time.

Then, somehow, you're that child we pat condescendingly on the head, because he still lives in that sweet, goofy wonderworld where fairy tales are real. Intellectually, you're still putting out cookies and milk for Santa.

You're very difficult to reconcile.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:51 pm

socal wrote:
Van wrote:<-------Never saw a Star Wars or Star Trek movie.
Hey, Spatially Challenged One, your avatar is thissaway: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

:P

:?

No, it isn't. On my screen it's on the left, and my little arrow thingy points right at my avatar.

For your next trick are you going to pick up the ball and race seventy yards in the wrong direction, jubilantly scoring a TD for the other team?

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:59 pm

Van wrote:I'm reasonably okay with the notion of Christ as divine.

In Ehrman's latest book, "Jesus, Interrupted," he concludes: Doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus and heaven and hell are not based on anything Jesus or his earlier followers said.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/05/15/bi ... pstoryview

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:01 pm

Okay then, in that case, I'm reasonably okay with the notion of Christ being the most wildly delusional and outright conceited fucker in the history of history.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:12 pm

At least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries.

Taking into account that they're supposedly written by the hand of god, along with the addtional fact that they've been translated and re-translated throughout history, I'd say all 27 are forgeries. I'd say the entire bible is a forgery, in varying degrees.

There's no proof Jesus physically rose from the dead, and the resurrection stories contradict one another, he says.

He says he doesn't believe the followers of Jesus saw their master bodily rise from the dead, but something else.

"My best guess is that what happened is what commonly happens today when someone has a loved one die -- they sometimes think they see them in a vision," Ehrman says. "I think some of the disciples had visions."

Bedraggled, grief ridden desert nomads/outlaws living in the time of Christ, having visions?

No way. Nah, it couldn't be that. Religious kooks never see visions. Those heads of lettuce really do reveal the face of Christ.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:17 pm

Van wrote:Religious kooks never see visions. Those heads of lettuce really do reveal the face of Christ.

Honest to God & G0d, it really WAS the Virgin Mary I saw on that tortilla!

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:24 pm

That was no tortilla, and even though its owner probably was named Mary, she weren't no virgin.