I was wondering about your signature about evolution. Do you not think that evolution and creationism work hand in hand?

I know this was directed to Jake but I just wanted to say it was one of the reasons I initally began to turn from Christianity. I had a Methodist professor once that told me, "I allow science to tell me how and G-d to tell me why." I thought that made so much sense. Then when I started getting deeper into Judaism, I realized that they most definitely can go hand in hand. There is nothing in the Tanakh that says science isn't real or that evolution doesn't exist.

That's fabulous for you. I'm glad that you found your path. Now you should be respectful that others have found theirs as well.

If you were talking to yourself, I understand.
I however, merely spoke my beliefs and you started in with why you thought they were wrong.


As for the evolution thing, it is just what it says.
I believe science and the bible go hand and hand. I am educated enough to see that evolution is a pile of assumptions.
It takes faith to fill in the many gaps.

I dont have enough faith to believe evolution. I do have enough to believe in G-d.

Originally posted by jake1997
The eyes of the nonbeliever are closed.

How does not believing everything one hears make their eyes closed? Being open to other possibilities would be anything but. Doesn't the Christian religion teach to not trust everything you hear?(ie False prophets).

Im sorry if it sounds like I'm attacking you, but I just really disagreed with that statement and thought I could give another point of view.

[edit on 27-5-2005 by Charlie Murphy]

Originally posted by Shonet1430

I havenot been able to find any info on the statue itself.

The statue was made by Charles Niehaus in 1897 and was chosen by Ainsworth Rand Spofford, the librarian.

Thanks Shonet

Quoting dead men actually proves nothing, as they are not around to defend the context of their quotes.

My comments were in reference to the founding fathers displaying the Ten Commandments and Christianity being widely practiced. I commented back that they were deists and the comments I chose reflected such.

I admitted my mistake in saying that the founding fathers displayed the ten commandments.
I never said that the founding fathers were Christian, I only said that Christianity was widely practiced. By this I meant a belief system based on the Bible. I agree that some of the founding fathers were deist and some, although appeared Christian really were not.
The funny thing is that although John Adams was a deist, the quote I used has been quoted by some people to prove that he was Christian. Hence my remark about not being able to question dead men.

If you were talking to yourself, I understand.
I however, merely spoke my beliefs and you started in with why you thought they were wrong.

I don't think your beliefs in Christianity are wrong. However, your interpretation of the Tanakh is wrong as is the Christian OT flawed in many cases. Take a look at the KJV of Psalm 34. Does it say "Of David?" No. Does your "OT" end with Divrei Ha-Yamim a.k.a. Chronicles? No. I could go on and on. The point is that Christians use Jewish texts and yet don't want to know anything about them except what they interpret them to be. That plainly shows who is "blind" as there are people who will willingly tell you what is what and you want nothing to do with it. You shouldn't be threatened by that. You should embrace it....like wisdom.

As for the evolution thing, it is just what it says.

Main Entry: re·li·gion
1 a : the state of a religious nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 : archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Could you give me an example of how people worship G-d through evolution? Also, I would like an example of the items that go along with a religion, i.e. the sacreds...text, songs, symbols, etc.

I believe science and the bible go hand and hand. I am educated enough to see that evolution is a pile of assumptions.
It takes faith to fill in the many gaps.

That's your right to believe. I would be interested to know how educated you are in the subject of evolution.

I dont have enough faith to believe evolution. I do have enough to believe in G-d.

IMO, it's harder to believe that G-d couldn't control the phenomenon that science uncovers.

Thanks Shonet

You're welcome

I admitted my mistake in saying that the founding fathers displayed the ten commandments. I never said that the founding fathers were Christian, I only said that Christianity was widely practiced. By this I meant a belief system based on the Bible. I agree that some of the founding fathers were deist and some, although appeared Christian really were not.
The funny thing is that although John Adams was a deist, the quote I used has been quoted by some people to prove that he was Christian. Hence my remark about not being able to question dead men.

I know. Sadly through text, tone can't be conveyed. It's hard for some people to realize that our nation, despite our current president, isn't founded on Christianity.

Originally posted by Shonet1430


I don't think your beliefs in Christianity are wrong. However, your interpretation of the Tanakh is wrong as is the Christian OT flawed in many cases.

It IS the christian OT btw. So why expect it to conform to a Jewish (proper) standard?

Take a look at the KJV of Psalm 34. Does it say "Of David?" No.

Psa 34:1 A Psalm of David, when he changed his behavior before Abimelech; who drove him away, and he departed. I will bless the LORD at all times: his praise shall continually be in my mouth.
Psa 34:2 My soul shall make her boast in the LORD: the humble shall hear thereof, and be glad.

Does yours?

Does your "OT" end with Divrei Ha-Yamim a.k.a. Chronicles?

No. Does yours include the prophets? No. Seems like I got the better deal ehh?

I could go on and on.

I noticed. The thing is, I dont view 'more words' as more meaning. Let Bill do the bloviating.

The point is that Christians use Jewish texts and yet don't want to know anything about them except what they interpret them to be.

Umm...see...your wrong again. Your inability to see that same logic from my POV will only ensure that we never come to a conclusion on the matter.

Main Entry: re·li·gion
1 a : the state of a religious nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 : archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

# An organized system of belief that generally seeks to understand purpose, meaning, goals, and methods of spiritual things. These spiritual things can be God, people in relation to God, salvation, after life, purpose of life, order of the cosmos, etc.
www.carm.net/dictionary/dic_p-r.htm


To put it simply, it takes faith. But perhaps Darwinism is the religion and evolution is the method of faith.
Im really disappointed in you that you could not come up with any obvious candidates for sacred texts and symbols. I dont think its worth responding on it to you until you get yourself up to speed.

Could you give me an example of how people worship G-d through evolution?

Nope. Sorry. I never made such a claim.

I dont have enough faith to believe evolution. I do have enough to believe in G-d.

IMO, it's harder to believe that G-d couldn't control the phenomenon that science uncovers.

I'll pray for you.

[edit on 27-5-2005 by jake1997]

It IS the christian OT btw. So why expect it to conform to a Jewish (proper) standard?

I'm sorry. I seemed to have forgotten that all of the people in the Tanakh are Christian. So what if it's the Christian OT. That means nothing. The scriptures are J-E-W-I-S-H. Come on. Say it with me. The NT writers used the Tanakh when writing their books. The Tanakh is necessary if you want to try and shove Jesus into it and try to backup a claim. How else would they get people to believe? The Tanakh was there. It was written. It was what was used.

Psa 34:1 A Psalm of David, when he changed his behavior before Abimelech; who drove him away, and he departed. I will bless the LORD at all times: his praise shall continually be in my mouth.
Psa 34:2 My soul shall make her boast in the LORD: the humble shall hear thereof, and be glad.

You did not post the KJV. Go to bible.com or any other site and look. It's the same as my KJV. There is no, "Of David."

Psalms 34
1 I will bless the LORD at all times: his praise shall continually be in my mouth.

Does yours?

Of course mine does. It's the original.

No.

Didn't think yours did.

Does yours include the prophets? No. Seems like I got the better deal ehh?

Oy, seems like someone REALLY lacks knowledge. Surely you have seen me posting quotes from the prophets. I'm not sure what led you to believe that mine didn't have the prophets or that it was somehow an exclusive to Christianity. You have been done a great injustice if you have not been taught that one should never assume because you will make an ass of you and not me. But I feel sorry for you so let me teach you a bit. Tanakh comes from TNK...T=Torah, the law. N=Nevi'im, the prophets. K=Kethuvim, the writings.

Here they are in the order of the Hebrew.

Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

Nevi'im: The Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, First Samuel, Second Samuel, First Kings, Second Kings), The Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekial), The Twelve Minor Prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

Kethuvim: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, The Scrolls (Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther), Daniel, Ezra, Nehimiah, First Chronicles, Second Chronicles

I could be the one laughing now but I'm not boastful.

I noticed. The thing is, I dont view 'more words' as more meaning. Let Bill do the bloviating.

Who said anything about more words are more meaning? No one. But when words such as "Of David" are left out, speculation is used and then messianic b.s. is formed.

Umm...see...your wrong again. Your inability to see that same logic from my POV will only ensure that we never come to a conclusion on the matter.

You obviously failed to notice that I did come to a conclusion on the matter. The texts are Jewish. You are not. Thus your interpretation is not based on the actually teachings and meanings of Judaism. It looks as if I'm not the one who isn't using logic. I have seen your POV. It's flawed. I fixed that for myself and for my family.

Just for clarity sake, I'm keeping mine here.
Main Entry: re·li·gion
1 a : the state of a religious nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 : archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
So begins yours....
# An organized system of belief that generally seeks to understand purpose, meaning, goals, and methods of spiritual things. These spiritual things can be God, people in relation to God, salvation, after life, purpose of life, order of the cosmos, etc.
www.carm.net/dictionary/dic_p-r.htm

Same thing as I posted. Tell me how evolution is an organized system of beliefs to understand the purpose, meaning, goals, and methods of spiritual things. What is spiritual about evolution?

To put it simply, it takes faith. But perhaps Darwinism is the religion and evolution is the method of faith.

How? How is Darwinism practiced? What rituals are used? Songs? Texts? Prayers? Symbols? How does evolution evoke these sacred things?

Im really disappointed in you that you could not come up with any obvious candidates for sacred texts and symbols.

Point is...you can't answer the question. You have been taught that evolution is devilution and you can't question that blind faith that leads your life. G-d gave you a brain. It's a shame that you aren't using it. So again, what sacred texts? What symbols?

I dont think its worth responding on it to you until you get yourself up to speed.

I think it's rather comical that you're trying to appear as if you are more intelligent than I am on the subject. When I was growing up, my mom wouldn't sign the permission slips for me to take the evolution classes. I was home schooled for high school. The curriculum was Christian based thus NO evolution. I learned about evolution for the first time in 1998 during my first year of college at a Christian college. So here I am 7 years later, and still my belief in science does not interfere with my belief in G-d. If anything, it shows me just how wonderful and awesome G-d can be. Science is what you can see before your very eyes. It's sad that you can't take that in and attribute the myriad of different inventions, theories, etc to G-d.

Nope. Sorry. I never made such a claim.

You said it's a religion. How do people worship through evolution? Who are they worshipping?

I'll pray for you.

There is no need for that.

Edited to space out the books of the Tanakh


[edit on 5/27/2005 by Shonet1430]

It looks like the only thing left to teach you concerns the proper view of Gods Word today.

God promised a Messiah. Jesus Christ came and filled that promise. So now, any jew who is still following his own religion, is now a christian. A follower of Christ.

So then following that logic from a christian POV, which is unattainable to you it seems, the OT and NT belong to Christ and the church. There are indeed christian 'jews'.

I do hope you understand now. This is why I was loath to bring it up.

As for 'does yours' and then your long response... I was talking about the OT, not the TNK

Shonet:

you are indeed a scholar and I greatly appreciate your posts.

as most of us have figured out, arguing anything with facts with Jake1997 is merely casting pearls before swine - he will ignore any facts that don't jive with his version of Christianity. You will soon find you've been placed on his "ignore list" if it isn't already full. That is all the proof you need to know that there is a God and he/she is just and merciful.

It looks like the only thing left to teach you concerns the proper view of Gods Word today.

I know G-d's word and it ended at Chronicles for me thanks.

God promised a Messiah.

In a way. G-d promised a mosiach. The mosiach is NOT a G-d and not a form of G-d. Moses and others in the Tanakh were "messiahs" as messiah means anointed one.

Jesus Christ came and filled that promise.

Show me from that list what he fulfilled.

So now, any jew who is still following his own religion, is now a christian. A follower of Christ.

This is the stupidest thing. Surely you didn't mean that someone following their own religion is a Christian. Jews are not Christians unless they are apostate and following the ways of Christianity. I'm a Jew and certainly not a Christian. I do not follow Jesus or his teachings.

So then following that logic from a christian POV, which is unattainable to you it seems, the OT and NT belong to Christ

Um no. If Jesus lived, he was a Jew. He wasn't a "Christian." The Tanakh is Jewish and that bothers you. From the way you respond to me and the lack of knowledge, I would think you have never come across a Jew before.

and the church. There are indeed christian 'jews'.

Yes there are and they are apostate.

I do hope you understand now. This is why I was loath to bring it up.

What am I supposed to understand? I understand that you can't admit that the "OT" is Jewish. I understand that you can't answer the questions posed to you. I understand that you are a stereotypical fundamentalist.

As for 'does yours' and then your long response... I was talking about the OT, not the TNK

The OT IS the Tanakh. The Christians who put together the Christian Bible jumbled the books for whatever reason. Do you understand this?

Edsinger- Consider yourself rebuked... In the Begining was the Word

I will when you actually bring something even remotely resembling a valid rebuke of any of my posts, to the table. Engage in learning Singer and do some much needed research! These are words written in stone 1,000 years before anything you have to offer about the god which happens to be the very same mentioned in the following.

[These are] the words which the god Neb−er−tcher spake after he had come into being:−−"I am he who came into being in the form of the god Khepera, and I am the creator of that which came into being, that is to say, I am the creator of everything which came into being: now the things which I created, and which came forth out of my month after that I had come into being myself were exceedingly many. The sky (or heaven) had not come into being, the earth did not exist, and the children of the earth, and the creeping, things, had not been made at that time. I myself raised them up from out of Nu, from a state of helpless inertness…

Then Shu and Tefnut rejoiced from out of the inert watery mass wherein they I were,…

I was one by myself, for they had not been brought forth, and I had emitted from myself neither Shu nor Tefnut. I brought my own name into my mouth as a word of power, and I forthwith came into being under the form of things which are and under the form of Khepera. I came into being from out of primeval matter, and from the beginning I appeared under the form of the multitudinous things which exist; nothing whatsoever existed at that time in this earth, and it was I who made whatsoever was made...

Some are trying very hard to paint a picture of woman being equal to man. There is no escaping the fact that women were considered property and subservient to males, this continued well into the 20th century for western culture while still it is the norm for others . The first test of this is the fact that fathers gave their daughters in marriage. One cannot give what one does not own; the dowry that has been around for millennia is for the purchase of a woman. Excluding the blatant sexist language of the epistles which derives all interpretation from either the OT or the misogynistic ideals of its writers, and which was already exposed by me months ago and then again by Riley, we have the roots, some of which are:

The right to trade one’s property or; as is known today: Who gives this woman in marriage?

Gen. 3:16 …and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (from the mouth of the so-called creator. His word cannot be overruled, nor would he be issuing such to overturn later except in the eyes of man. There is no escaping this edict.)

Gen. 24 Abraham dispatches his servant to find a wife for Issac and having enticed Laban and Betheul to offer up Rebekkah they state: take her, and go. (the law of possession)

Gen. 29 Laban gives his daughter, Rachel to Moses, then sends in Leah to copulate with him.

Ex. 2 men are permitted to sell their daughters who, if not acceptable to their masters, may be redeemed but not under the same rights as male servants.

Lev.21:7 They shall not take a wife that is a whore…nor shall they take a woman put away from her husband; for he is holy unto his God. (There can be no whores without willing patrons, and the later holiness speaks for itself.)

Lev.21:13 And he shall take a wife in her virginity. (There is no like requirement here for the man, who even after availing himself of the so-called whore, still has the right to marry.)

Lev 21:14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane or an harlot, these shall he not take...

Nu. 5 Unfaithful wives are cursed, the other guilty party, is not even mentioned.

Ju. 14 & 15 Samson orders his parents to get a certain woman for him, but decides to take her himself without their aid. Her father subsequently gave her to someone else.

1 Sam David dispatches his servants to retrieve Abigail a new widow, for his own.

II Sam David spies yet again another married woman, Bath-sheba, summons her, defiles her, sends her husband off to his death in war, then marries her.




As Riley previously pointed out, we have the ignorance on the fertility of women which is further testimony to their inferior position:

Lev.12:2 If a woman having conceived and born a man child; then shall she be unclean seven days…
4:and she shall then continue in the blood of her purification three and thirty days…
5: But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks; …and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

There is not even the slightest sense of equality here. Worse, the mere fact that she gave birth to either sex was deemed a sin, where she was required to present an animal as a sin offering for atonement. (6-7)

Truthisoutthere- All the other Gods who have come and failed their people century after century by being false prophets have been proven time and time again that there God is Dead, They did not have the answers for eternal salvation

There is no reason to believe that the religions, and I emphasize the plural, will not meet the same fate. You believe no more strongly than the fanatics of the past.

Originally posted by jake1997Here is the info to go along with my last post about what happened between satan and man in the Garden of Eden

Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Isa 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Purposeful and classic misinterpretation of the text with the intention to further false doctrine. You either have adopted this stance as put forward by others or are as incapable of understanding the verses.

This Refers to the Babylonian king of the Chaldeen empire, that which Abe was purported to have hailed. Refer 14:4.

And here is the second such misrepresentation:

Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. …

through v17. Refer 28:2, this is directed to the “prince of Tyre” a land well known to that fallacious priest; Paul of Tarsus.

Read the appropriate texts before and after for the context within which they really should be understood. Instead, what I see is a repetition of the interpretations of others. Satan exists only in the eyes of Christians burdened by imposed fear.

swibt (long name!)

If you compare these to Revelation you would normally be able to see the meaning.

Look at your logic. The king of Babylon was in heaven? The king of Tyre had pipes coming out of his body. They fell from heaven?

Im not interested in going any further in this with you however. In rereading your response to this I see an accusation of 'purposful' misinterpretation. To me that says you wish more to debate, then get to the truth. If this assessment is wrong, I apologize. I have made my decision tho. Thanks


---------

On the linear approach, looking for Jesus starts at Genesis


I will make a new thread, it will be in BTS. I will post OT scripture that Jesus filled.



[edit on 28-5-2005 by jake1997]

Originally posted by riley
What matters is historically the 'power of chistianity' as been a force for both good and evil [sexism, slavery, crusades, inquisitions etc. etc.].. power corrupts.. and when there is only a handful of men at the head of religious organisations [especially with political connections].. it requires more faith in humanity than god that they'll do the 'right thing' as they can always 'misinterprit' the bible [or other doctrine] to do the wrong.

If you know God, then you know if what the 'handful of men' are doing is good or evil. If they're in-line with God, then they produce good. If they are not, they produce evil. That's precisely why we need to talk to Him and have the Word in our own hands. I think you've justified the Protestant Reformation in your words. I'm sure Catholic and Protestant both appreciate having this kind of access to God and the Book to read on their own. What's important is what's going on right now, not letting history dictate our lives.

Pray, train, study,
God bless.


[edit on 28-5-2005 by saint4God]

What matters is historically the 'power of chistianity' as been a force for both good and evil . . .

The exception to this 'rule' of history is that, there were not any actual christians involved in the acts of evil. Its an oxymoron.

Originally posted by jake1997If you compare these to Revelation you would normally be able to see the meaning.

Look at your logic. The king of Babylon was in heaven? The king of Tyre had pipes coming out of his body. They fell from heaven?

Im not interested in going any further in this with you however. In rereading your response to this I see an accusation of 'purposful' misinterpretation. To me that says you wish more to debate, then get to the truth. If this assessment is wrong, I apologize. I have made my decision tho. Thanks

It pays to have a good memory, resolve and credibility. Say what you mean and mean what you say, to wit: posted on 5/23/05 at 01:28 AM Post Number: 1403924 (post id: 1425817); The Anti-Christian conspiracy,

Jake1997- Maybe there is a post between yours and mine that I cannot see because its from someone on the ignore list.

Followed by; posted on 5/28/05 at 01:33 AM Post Number: 1416136 (post id: 1438029

Originally posted by jake1997
swibt (long name!)

I have absoluletly no respect for the weakness of others, Jake, especially wafflers, since those two qualities; weakness and waffling supports a decidely dishonest bent, and even less regard for the feelings of those shrouding themselves in same.

If you compare these to Revelation you would normally be able to see the meaning.

If I compare what Jake? And you presume falsely that I would compare anything to Revelation, for I consider that writing to be nothing but the wishful dream of a bigger fool than the authors of the other 65 books of The Bible. You obviously have not discerned that much about me yet in all of our exchanges, despite my attestation to same on many occasions. Pay attention, Jake, patience with the lesser endowed is not one of my virtues.

Look at your logic. The king of Babylon was in heaven? The king of Tyre had pipes coming out of his body. They fell from heaven?

My logic is superior thank you. But let us review yours…firstly, there is no proof that any king was in heaven, but to the text, it clearly states that these two were the the kings of Babylon and Tyre. Now you may wish to envision some red-fleshed, horned and trident tailed ugly wart as the enemy here so as to soothe your intense desire to believe in the fabricated Satan that haunts your life, the text is clear relative to Is.14… Babylon is nothing but a kingdom at odds with Judea. Likewise was Tyre. You might, and I emphasize might, if you paid more attention to reading the narrative prior to these texts than the interpretations others have to offer on just these verses, understand the meaning of that narrative.

It is obvious to me that fanatical Christians will go to any lengths to mold the verses to fit whatever backward interpretation they wish it to fit. Why not just state that Satan is the guiding hand behind every nation which offends your god, call that nation Babylon and therefore anoint this demon as being more powerful than he. That is after all how your whining comes across. Satan is your favourite scapegoat to explain away everything in the twisted theology known as Christianity.

Im not interested in going any further in this with you however. In rereading your response to this I see an accusation of 'purposful' misinterpretation. To me that says you wish more to debate, then get to the truth. If this assessment is wrong, I apologize. I have made my decision tho. Thanks

You took a peek in the mirror and recognized yourself but your insolence and unwillingness to advance your knowledge just did not allow you to acknowledge that the image peering back at you was you, so you decided to invoke the classic psychological stance and hope it stuck. Not on me my friend.

On the linear approach, looking for Jesus starts at Genesis

Well that is proof, isn’t it? Try harder and hope your target is gullible, because I am not. Not only is Jesus mentioned nowhere in the OT, those books themselves are representative of the Egyptian pagan Gods, so you have a lot of work ahead of you if you think you can even convince me that your criminal ‘messiah’ even has a true genealogy pre Herod

I will make a new thread, it will be in BTS. I will post OT scripture that Jesus filled.

Create it wherever you wish, and you can post all of the NT scripture to your hearts content. There is nothing to prove they are in fact truth, but since you think so, that makes the philosophy of the likes of Hitler and every degenerate who has ever lived even more credible than your Jesus whose only writing it seems, was trodden over. He was really drawing circles in the sand in all likelihood. My guess, a plan of attack.


[edit on 5/29/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

Im glad you turned the light on yourself.

If I compare what Jake? And you presume falsely that I would compare anything to Revelation, for I consider that writing to be nothing but the wishful dream

If you dont read the material, you are not qualified to discuss it.

Deny Ignorance is the site motto. You are denied.

Originally posted by junglejake
When people are saying that Christians having the Ten Commandments in the public square or sharing their faith is forcing their beliefs upon them, they're pretty much admitting Christianity is the Truth.

...

So cover up the truth, but to what end? This question I leave to y'all, because I'm not sure. Why start a concerted effort to remove a message of peace and love from society through law and propoganda?

The 10 Commandments are a message of peace and love? How deluded can you possibly be. They are a list of items for which the death penalty was imposed.

Where's the peace and love in stoning people to death for failing to rest on the sabbath?

Besides, which 10 Commandments do you propose? There's more than one.

Why do those who propose plastering the world with Exodus 20, not also promote Exodus 21, which is a continuation of the commands god supposedly gave directly to Moses.

Perhaps it's because Exodus 21 is filled with wonderful words of peace and love such as this:

Exodus 21

2If you buy a Hebrew slave, he must remain your slave for six years. But in the seventh year you must set him free, without cost to him. 3If he was single at the time you bought him, he alone must be set free. But if he was married at the time, both he and his wife must be given their freedom. 4If you give him a wife, and they have children, only the man himself must be set free; his wife and children remain the property of his owner.

20Death is the punishment for beating to death any of your slaves. 21However, if the slave lives a few days after the beating, you are not to be punished. After all, you have already lost the services of that slave who was your property.


How about a movement to post Exodus 21 everywhere too, at taxpayer expense no less!

Originally posted by jake1997
Im glad you turned the light on yourself. If you dont read the material, you are not qualified to discuss it.

I am going to ask the question of you again, Jake, since the above attempt at answering same is utterly lacking in substance, style and quality:

If I compare what Jake? And you presume falsely that I would compare anything to Revelation, for I consider that writing to be nothing but the wishful dream

Deny Ignorance is the site motto. You are denied.

Lord, I should feel reprimanded I suppose, but how can I possibly when all I see is you fleeing?