The desperation of imploding christianity

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
reply to post by The Djin

 

Then you are reading the bible differently to me mate.

The new testament is there to tell people the old offerrings and rules of the old testament is of no use anymore.

We have all been forgiven for our sins, so no need for any of the old ridiculous laws that you are referring to, to still be used.
VvV

Oh! I see clearly now. The NEW book takes the place of the OLD book. I see. So the other day I saw a "new translation" New Testament. Does that one mean the old one is no longer good, or true? Are the books of no use anymore then? This is the way organized religion works. Change it up for the masses whenever it suits you.

reply to post by autowrench


You're playing semantics. "New" Testament VS "Old" Testament means:

New "Covenant" VS Old "Covenant".

The "Old Covenant" is obsolete, God operates with us under the present (New) Covenant through Christ.

Re Vreem......

You wrote:

"To the OP. I find it rather ridiculous this constant attempt at attacking christianity."

I on my part find christianity's constant attempts of attacking mankind ridiculous. Especially when it implies some millions of dead.

You wrote: "So what if they are trying to spread some bibles, or want to read from the bible in a pub???"

No-one has susgested a law against it, just pointing out the absurdity. When 'preachers' of 'Das Kapital', 'Mein Kampf' or Mao's little red enter the scene, there'll hardly be any room for the drinkers, who probably came there in the first place to escape the standard brainwashing of life.

Maybe all the 'preachers' of various denominations and ideologies could have their missionary fanatism satisfied by pub-signs declaring "preaching allowed" or "preaching not allowed".

You wrote: "How will it affect you? This seems like a thread created in the vain hope of collecting some stars and flags. If you don't like it, just ignore it."

As can be seen from our uninformed and moronic level (demonstrated by disagreeing with such as you), all of us anti-elitists are so intellectually disabled, that we drool at the thought of stars, flags, banners and eventually 'being somebody', so we can invade other peoples' lives.

The ignoring option is open for you also.

You wrote: "You know people are constantly saying christians are doing bad things, but i have very seldom seen a christian guy post a thread in here trying to ridicule atheists or satanists. It is always the other way around."


You do some pretty selective reading then. But that's only to be expected. See nothing, hear nothing in case your eyes or ears start to bleed.

From a later post: "Yes, i find attacking any religion is ridiculous."

Back to square one.

You wrote:

"It is laughable how uninformed people love quoting the old testament as a source for all their information on christianity."

So we can skip the part about Eden and original sin also, so all the 'Jesus saves' preaching would be void. Or doesn't that fit into your pick-and-choose revised interpretations?

You wrote: "Then you had the wrong type of message protrayed to you."

And you ofcourse have the right message? An idea you share with 34.000 different 'right' christians.

Re Snusfanatic

You wrote:

"i wouldn't gloat about 'imploding christianity.'

its still the largest religion in the world will continue to grow in developing/excommunist countries and remain strong in places like latin america almost no matter what."

The operational word here is STILL.

You wrote:

".....that being said, what are the alternatives? besides atheism in previously christian territory (europe, et al) in most parts of the world, the implosion of christianity is going to mean the explosion of islam."

Are you implying: "Without us (christians)....chaos"?

Or are you just thinking christian black/white: Christianity/Islam. It probably comes as a surprise for you, but there ARE more existential maps (religion, politics, philosophy) outside your holy bubble than you and your arch-enemy. Some of them very functional, at least seen from the no-more-rivers-of-blood perspective.

Re NoturTypical

You wrote:

"You're playing semantics. "New" Testament VS "Old" Testament means:

New "Covenant" VS Old "Covenant".

The "Old Covenant" is obsolete, God operates with us under the present (New) Covenant through Christ."

On what authority is this true? The old scammer Paulus maybe? Or your undefined one-man religion?

In any case it's a pity, that invasive christianity in general hasn't carried this further than the abstract level. The old fire-and-brimstone seems to live well amongst prophets, preachers and patients on probation.

The title of this post is going to be my only reference for discussion. Although I did read the entire thread, I have little to no comments regarding what they're doing. I will say this however, everyone....regardless of whatever agenda they're pushing, is desperate. Republicans are desperate. Democrats are desperate. Christians are desperate. Scientists are desperate. Everyone is desperately pushing for something right now. What's the big fuss about? Christians are desperate to spread the gospel. **NEWS FLASH** It has always been that way since the outbreak of Christianity.

reply to post by bogomil

The New Covenant (Hebrew: About this sound ברית חדשה, berit ḥadasha (help·info) ; Greek: διαθήκη καινή, diathēkē kainē) is a christian concept. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the mediator of a New Covenant. The mere term New Covenant is used both in the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament to refer to a Messianic Age.

New Covenant

I realize to the viewers this seems like an argumentum ad nauseum, but apparently some still don't realize Christians follow Jesus Christ.

Perhaps you should ask the question to followers of Judaism??

When 'preachers' of 'Das Kapital', 'Mein Kampf' or Mao's little red enter the scene, there'll hardly be any room for the drinkers, who probably came there in the first place to escape the standard brainwashing of life.

reply to post by bogomil


It is always good to have different views on the same subject.

Allright, here we go again. You are comparing the christian faith to dictators? Hitler, Mao etc. didn't spread the word, they pumped out evil communism, oppression and pushed for their own ideals. Nothing like christianity. I like how you choose to analyse my post, bit by bit, so i will comply and do the same.

Oh! I see clearly now. The NEW book takes the place of the OLD book. I see. So the other day I saw a "new translation" New Testament. Does that one mean the old one is no longer good, or true? Are the books of no use anymore then? This is the way organized religion works. Change it up for the masses whenever it suits you.

The new testament does not "take the place" of the old book. You are being argumentative, and know you are seeing this wrong. And it is not "changed up for the masses", this is how it has always been. It is exactly the other way around, people changing it up for their purposes, to discredit the book itself.

I on my part find christianity's constant attempts of attacking mankind ridiculous. Especially when it implies some millions of dead.

Yes you would. It is not christianity killing people, it is people killing people. Using christianity as a scapegoat again is just an easy way to justify whatever it is you believe in. I for one have never killed anyone, and never will, and i don't see christian guys running around killing people either. The christian faith certainly does have bad elements, especially in the olden days of the templars etc, but, how you follow the christian faith is your choice, and i choose the love and peace way. Again there is different interpretations.

You do some pretty selective reading then. But that's only to be expected. See nothing, hear nothing in case your eyes or ears start to bleed.

Same can be said for you mate. I read these threads because i am sick of people belitteling and ridiculing another mans beliefs. Would you like it if i ridiculed you because you believe eating only vegatables is the way forward? Its the same thing, mocking someone for their beliefs is wrong, you cannot impose or force your beliefs on another. Look, i don't like christians trying to force their beliefs on another, and i will not do that, but some people believe strongly in something, wich is better than believing in nothing.

And you ofcourse have the right message? An idea you share with 34.000 different 'right' christians.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit mate. Everyone, EVERYONE, has a different way of interpreting the bible. To just read the bible at face value is the wrong way. There is a much deeper message in there, than just the words you read and take it literally. It is not a set way of rules that you must follow to the letter, merely a guide speaking on a spiritual level

The operational word here is STILL.

Do you see something happenning that will change this? Can you predict the future? It seems you revel in the fact that christianity will fall, and then what?

On what authority is this true? The old scammer Paulus maybe? Or your undefined one-man religion?

See again, you read this bible as a book, literally, that is the wrong way to do this. Undefined, one man religion?
This is a religion of many, undefined, it is sort of, it is a guide for different interpretations. To just discard it, at face value, is a bit ignorant.

The old fire-and-brimstone seems to live well amongst prophets, preachers and patients on probation.

It has also seemed to live well amongst people like you, who like to use the old testament as a way of putting down the religion. Always quoting stuff out of the old testament to make it fit into whatever point it is you are trying to make. It is always out of context too.

In closing i would like to say this: The old testament is there to set up the story and history of the religion. The new testament though, is where it is at. There is nothing you can do, that is wrong. Now please understand this right. Of course stealing, murdering etc is all wrong. But you have allready been forgiven for your sins. There is no need to following or fear the ways of the old testament. And quoting the old testament out of context is an easy way to try and discredit the faith.

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

On topic though: Mark 2:17 "When Jesus heard it, He saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

I take it that a saint like you doesn't have health insurance then ? Come on big boy please be honest and tell us you don't

I accuse you, rightly, of deliberate and intentional misunderstanding of what he said!
I echo his quotation, and no, I don't have health insurance! (As I live in New Zealand I don't need to.)
Vicky

Re Vreem

You wrote: "You are comparing the christian faith to dictators? Hitler, Mao etc. didn't spread the word, they pumped out evil communism, oppression and pushed for their own ideals. Nothing like christianity."

I don't see any difference between them and the christian fascistic fringe.


You wrote: "It is not christianity killing people, it is people killing people"

So it wasn't nazis, stalinists, maoist killing people either? It was just people killing people?


You wrote: "Using christianity as a scapegoat again is just an easy way to justify whatever it is you believe in."

I believe in liberal democratic society. I don't need any scapegoats for this.


You wrote: "I for one have never killed anyone, and never will, and i don't see christian guys running around killing people either."

There are many stalinists, nazis and maoists also, who never have killed anyone. What does that prove? As to those christians who actually DO kill, read back on the thread to find examples.


Your wrote: "The christian faith certainly does have bad elements, especially in the olden days of the templars"

In which way did the templars excel in christian (or any other) bad'ness, as compared to e.g. the crusades and the inquisition.

.
You wrote: "how you follow the christian faith is your choice, and i choose the love and peace way. Again there is different interpretations."

You do not SOUND very loving and peaceful in your posts, but exactly as grumpy and confrontational as I do (I'm not a hypocrite about it). If there behind this misleading facade of yours hide somethinger nicer, you are not included amongst those people-killing-people, who are not christians, but only people. So why do you seemingly defend those people-killing-people, the killing organised by official christianity, but the performers only being people. Just like you and me. Not that it really matters, but I never killed anyone either.

I wrote originally: "You do some pretty selective reading then. But that's only to be expected. See nothing, hear nothing in case your eyes or ears start to bleed."

And you answer thusly: " Same can be said for you mate."

Example, please.


You wrote: "Would you like it if i ridiculed you because you believe eating only vegatables is the way forward? Its the same thing, mocking someone for their beliefs is wrong, you cannot impose or force your beliefs on another."

I have actually been a vegetarian for the last app 45 years, but I keep it completely non-missionary, so there's little reason to mock. To my remembrance, it has never happened. Missionaries, though, ask for it.


You wrote: "Look, i don't like christians trying to force their beliefs on another, and i will not do that, but some people believe strongly in something, wich is better than believing in nothing."

So you are in reality siding with critics of invasive christians, but think it's better to be an extremist than nothing. I disagree. Extremists are the scum of earth.


You wrote: "Everyone, EVERYONE, has a different way of interpreting the bible"

And those who concentrate on the homicidal aspects go out and kill, those who feel it their duty to interfere in other peoples' lives become missionaries and the do-gooders do good. While the majority just goes to church as a kind of after-life insurance.


You wrote: "To just read the bible at face value is the wrong way. There is a much deeper message in there, than just the words you read and take it literally. It is not a set way of rules that you must follow to the letter, merely a guide speaking on a spiritual level"

You're just upgrading the inner-christian disagreements and fights to a higher level. There will still be a considerable amount of christians disagreeing with you on that new level.


You wrote: "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit mate."

True. But it's still better than advocating a manual in rape, genocide and slavery.



You wrote (about an imploding christianity): "Do you see something happenning that will change this? Can you predict the future?"

Dude. I studied social sciences 4-5 years at university (this is not an argument for general superiority), so I CAN read statistics. I have no pretentions of being a prophet.


You wrote: "It seems you revel in the fact that christianity will fall, and then what?"

I will revel, when ALL christians accept liberal society, without claiming privileges and without aspirations of theocratic politics.


You wrote: "See again, you read this bible as a book, literally, that is the wrong way to do this."

Again, many christians would disagree with you. And then I don't 'read' the bible to find guidance in my life. I read it to understand why it turn so many people into bloodthirsty maniacs; or slightly better just zombis.


You wrote: "This is a religion of many, undefined, it is sort of, it is a guide for different interpretations. To just discard it, at face value, is a bit ignorant."

I don't find it the least ignorant to discard 'the face value' manifested in invasive brutality, brainwashing etc. As for the rest, I just find it stupid, but it's none of my business, if people privately or in groups of consenting adults adhere to it.


You wrote: "The old testament is there to set up the story and history of the religion. The new testament though, is where it is at. There is nothing you can do, that is wrong. Now please understand this right. Of course stealing, murdering etc is all wrong. But you have allready been forgiven for your sins. There is no need to following or fear the ways of the old testament. And quoting the old testament out of context is an easy way to try and discredit the faith."

Brush up your theology (and even if logic is anathema, do use just a pinch). Where did the THEOLOGICALLY defined 'sin' come from? Yes, Genesis. Take that away, and what's the need and use of NT?


For the rest you have ascribed quotes to me, which are not mine. So I'll let their authors answer, if you sort out the confusion, and address the proper persons.

Re NoturTypical

You wrote:

"I realize to the viewers this seems like an argumentum ad nauseum, but apparently some still don't realize Christians follow Jesus Christ."

Without exaggerating the intelligence of the group of critics of the christian fascist-fringe, I do believe, I can speak for everybody here: "We got it at first try".

It's kind of like calling followers of Buddha buddhists, followers of Marx marxists etc., so even in the unenlightened outside-the-holy-bubble, there are precedents for this kind of complex philosophy, helping non-christians through the maze.

Some of us have even, aften many a year of speculations and sneak-peeks in books on theology, arrived at the next level of sophistery and scholastics. Slowly, in secret cabals and by torturing innocent christians (ofcourse only in a playful inquisitive mood and they died martyrs, so what), we, the representatives of dark forces fighting against light, the killing-of-people-for-their-own-sake and repetitive and stale propaganda clichées, have finally arrived at the question:

"Which one of the Jesus(es) is referred to?"

When the special ecumenical council called together for answering this, somewhere around 2025 can give a tentative answer, there will be a follower up:

"Are you sure, that he really WAS a 'christ' ALSO?"

I'm aware, that already now one of the bibles will be drawn into this, as 'proof', but this will further complicate matters, as verification of the truth and excellence of said bible also must be demonstrated.

After a lot of this convolution, we will eventually be forced to take it all on NoturTypical's word; something I'm strongly disinclined to do myself.

Originally posted by bogomil
Re NoturTypical


Without exaggerating the intelligence of the group of critics of the christian fascist-fringe, I do believe, I can speak for everybody here: "We got it at first try".

Apparently not. Actions speak louder than words. Especially when you continually bring up non-moral law passages from the Old Testament as an indictment of Christianity. I'll say it again:

Christians follow Jesus Christ.

It's kind of like calling followers of Buddha buddhists, followers of Marx marxists etc., so even in the unenlightened outside-the-holy-bubble, there are precedents for this kind of complex philosophy, helping non-christians through the maze.

You've demonstrated astounding ignorance to generally everything you say about Christianity, can't forsee you offering anything more than straw man arguments and cherry-picked fuzzy ideas and recycled propaganda sound bites to those folks.

Some of us have even, aften many a year of speculations and sneak-peeks in books on theology, arrived at the next level of sophistery and scholastics. Slowly, in secret cabals and by torturing innocent christians (ofcourse only in a playful inquisitive mood and they died martyrs, so what), we, the representatives of dark forces fighting against light, the killing-of-people-for-their-own-sake and repetitive and stale propaganda clichées, have finally arrived at the question:

Absurd tripe inserted to masquerade your posts as those coming from some uber-intellectual.

I chuckle...

"Which one of the Jesus(es) is referred to?"

The historical one.

When the special ecumenical council called together for answering this, somewhere around 2025 can give a tentative answer, there will be a follower up:

"Are you sure, that he really WAS a 'christ' ALSO?"

Christ means "anointed One",..

and "yes".

I'm aware, that already now one of the bibles will be drawn into this, as 'proof', but this will further complicate matters, as verification of the truth and excellence of said bible also must be demonstrated.

Now why would I bring any quotes from Jesus into a debate about what Christians should do?

I mean, that's just sillishness isn't it????

After a lot of this convolution, we will eventually be forced to take it all on NoturTypical's word; something I'm strongly disinclined to do myself.

Who is the "we" you're talking about? Who voted you their spokesman?

Being a tad presumptuous are you? You speak for yourself, and from what's been displayed around these parts you're not even very good at that. you love to use the rare exceptions and try to present them as the dominant rule, you refuse to address someone's actual position or claims and launch a rant against the position you attribute to them that you yourself postulated, and you refuse to dignify pertinent information others present to the table.

Discussing anything with you is like trying to herd cats covered in Vasoline.

But, not to be so negative, I'll offer one bright spot for you to take comfort in...

you'll always have your anti-Christian circle jerk sidekicks to award your posts stars if they have anything negative to say about Christ or Christians and no matter what anyone tells you outside of internetwebland, that means something.

Really, it does.

Re NoturTypical:

Departing from the barrage of words we send to each other, I'll approach the subject of communication briefly.

It's my distinct impression, that your communication-platform is that specific holy bubble, you have created from one of the bibles.

It's homeground, decides the rules, functions as prosecutor for me and defense for you, it's the referee and it's the final jury (in the good old days it was also executor). You refuse to communicate outside it (your choice), but expect every opponent to come inside, according to the rules I just put out.

When opponents decline to your one-man epistemology, doctrines, bad semantics, deflectionary tactics and lack of logic, we are, still according to YOUR self-appointed rules, pronounced ignorant or similar, and you believe yourself as having 'proved' or demonstrated something.

From outside the bubble you appear to be sending an endless stream of subjective and meaningless propaganda out.

That was the closest I can get, so you hopefully will understand of the need for a common communication platform (unles you ofcourse choose one-way oration as your preferred method).

Somewhat more down-to-earth information concerning my person:

I have apart from my academic background also 2½ craftsman's educations and 25 years of ecological farming behind me. I have lived a half-amish like life since 1974 (without the religion), ofcourse with a lot of manual involvement in life as a result. I can hardly be described as an egghead, as you try to.

You wrote:

"Now why would I bring any quotes from Jesus into a debate about what Christians should do?"

You are ofcourse right (but you usually do it anyway). For us outside the holy bubbles, inter-christian quibblings, leading to schism after schism, are of minor importance. Most of us are more interested in the impact fascist christianity has on society. What doctrinal excuses extremist christians use for killing or harassing people is of far, far less importance, than the killing or harassment itself.

And finally back to the dung-throwing mundane world:

I'm addressing the fascist-fringe of christianity directly. I have no need of using your favourite expression 'strawmen' or the-exceptions-defining-a-majority. For me fascist extremists are fascist extremists, and can clearly be defined as such apart from the common adherer of any ideology.

And ofcourse the ritual question:

"Which Jesus"

Yours, the quakers', the valentinians', the catholic one, . I will await your usual answer: "The real one" with impatience and a hope of finally understanding either the mysteries of existence or the mysterious ways of the extremist christian mind.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I realize to the viewers this seems like an argumentum ad nauseum, but apparently some still don't realize Christians follow Jesus Christ.

The one that is also one and the same being yahwhe right ?
Any of these your guy ?

Jesus ben Phiabi,
Jesus ben Sec
Jesus ben Damneus
Jesus ben Gamaliel
Jesus ben Sirach
Jesus ben Pandira
Jesus ben Ananias.
Jesus ben Saphat
Jesus ben Gamala
Jesus ben Thebuth
Jesus ben Stada

But then with so many Jesuses could there not have been a Jesus of Nazareth? The problem for this notion is that absolutely nothing at all corroborates the sacred biography and yet this 'greatest story' is peppered with numerous anachronisms, contradictions and absurdities.
For example, at the time that Joseph and the pregnant Mary are said to have gone off to Bethlehem for a supposed Roman census, Galilee (unlike Judaea) was not a Roman province and therefore ma and pa would have had no reason to make the journey. Even if Galilee had been imperial territory, history knows of no ‘universal census’ ordered by Augustus (nor any other emperor) – and Roman taxes were based on property ownership not on a head count.

Then again, we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century. Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built It is mentioned not at all in the Old Testament nor by Josephus, who waged war across the length and breadth of Galilee (a territory about the size of Greater London) and yet Josephus records the names of dozens of other towns. In fact most of the ‘Jesus-action’ takes place in towns of equally doubtful provenance, in hamlets so small only partisan Christians know of their existence (yet well attested pagan cities, with extant ruins, failed to make the Jesus itinerary).

What should alert us to wholesale fakery here is that practically all the events of Jesus’s supposed life appear in the lives of mythical figures of far more ancient origin. Whether we speak of miraculous birth, prodigious youth, miracles or wondrous healings – all such 'signs' had been ascribed to other gods, centuries before any Jewish holy man strolled about. Jesus’s supposed utterances and wisdom statements are equally common place, being variously drawn from Jewish scripture, neo-Platonic philosophy or commentaries made by Stoic and Cynic sages . Courtesy of Kenneth Humphreys

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

"When Jesus heard it, He saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick:"

I accuse you, rightly, of deliberate and intentional misunderstanding of what he said!
I echo his quotation, and no, I don't have health insurance! (As I live in New Zealand I don't need to.)
Vicky

Are you implying that when you are sick you go to a doctor ? If so why ? Jesus is quite clear that you will be healed -

Mark 11:24 Jesus promises: Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

In Matthew 18:19 Jesus says it again: Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

In John chapter 14, verses 12 through 14, Jesus tells us just how easy prayer can be:

"

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.

Indeed, if you don't need health insurance in NZ because you have some sort of National Health fair enough, but why oh why US christians pay into medical insurance is is downright insane when all they have to do is pray to one of the jesus' .

reply to post by The Djin


Simply absurd.

You're saying something similar to "Christians shouldn't have jobs because God should pay their bills." Which is quite absurd indeed. God puts things within our grasp, He doesn't simply give it to us. He will give us the job that will be able to pay for our health insurance, our vehicular needs, our educational needs. He will bless us with the appropriate measures in order to achieve what we desire if our will is in line with His.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

Simply absurd. You're saying something similar to "Christians shouldn't have jobs because God should pay their bills." Which is quite absurd indeed.

I never mentioned jobs whither you choose to imagine a similarity is up to you, obviously if you do then it is your reasoning that takes you there. Perhaps it would be prudent for you to apply your reasoning and follow it through.

God puts things within our grasp, He doesn't simply give it to us.

Did your god personally tell you this ? Did you read it somewhere ? Did someone else tell you this because it had been revealed to them by your god but not to you ? Did you just make it up ?

He will give us the job that will be able to pay for our health insurance,

I have access to the same "revealed" information as you ie the bibles, the god in question yawhe/ jesus makes it quite clear as I previously have posted that all you need to do is pray.

Clearly you don't believe him or you wouldn't need health insurance regardless how you would need to fund it.

He will bless us with the appropriate measures in order to achieve what we desire if our will is in line with His.

Again, we are both able to read the unambiguous promise he made, there is no mention of our "will being inline", this is something for whatever reason you have chosen to add. Clearly either you don't believe what the passages say or you tried and it didn't work so you now try and rationalize this by making excuses like the passage is ambiguous.

Lets us look again shall we ?

In Matthew 17:20 : For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

Matthew 21:21: I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

Mark 11:24: Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

In Matthew 18 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

Ok, these are quite clear and easy follow instructions there is only one requirement and that is a small amount of faith.

Did you follow the instructions as directed ?

If it didn't work for you then there can only be 2 possibilities as to why it didn't -

1 You didn't follow the instructions correctly

2 It is a lie to begin with.

Please don't insult my intelligence by making the claim that because these instructions didn't work for you that there must be some conditions attached that are not mentioned because If there were conditions attached then they would right there in the passages.

The truth of this borne out by christians on a regular basis here's an example -

A dear old lady near me had lost her beloved cat, after several days of worry she bumped into a friend who happened to attended the local church. The friend asked the old dear why she didn't just ask jesus/yaweh for help ,and so the old lady did. She followed the above instructions and asked yaweh/jesus to bring here cat back and believed that he would, then she went home.
Lo and behold ! when the old lady got home there was her cat waiting for her on the doorstep !

See my friend, if this old non christian woman can do it so can you ! You're obviously not following the instructions correctly, stop making excuses and making out jesus /yawhe to be a liar, it is you that is causing the problem you don't have faith.

Originally posted by The Djin

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

"When Jesus heard it, He saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick:"

I accuse you, rightly, of deliberate and intentional misunderstanding of what he said!
I echo his quotation, and no, I don't have health insurance! (As I live in New Zealand I don't need to.)
Vicky

Are you implying that when you are sick you go to a doctor ? If so why ? Jesus is quite clear that you will be healed -

Mark 11:24 Jesus promises: Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

In Matthew 18:19 Jesus says it again: Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

In John chapter 14, verses 12 through 14, Jesus tells us just how easy prayer can be:

"

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.

Indeed, if you don't need health insurance in NZ because you have some sort of National Health fair enough, but why oh why US christians pay into medical insurance is is downright insane when all they have to do is pray to one of the jesus' .

Of course we have National Health! (Your ignorance doesn't extend only to theological issues then!)

You're deliberately misinterpreting the Scriptures you quote, of course. Prayer exists for when it is needed, and when modern medicine can deal with a health issue, then that's the thing to do - go to a doctor!
But prayer is not a game - nor is it a machine - put in X input and get Y result. God is not a slot machine. Your are an angry-atheist, but whether you're on of Jewish, Agnostic, Atheist or Apathetic family origin, you can't have escaped learning that. (Especially if you come of a Jewish family..)
I used to be very naive, and I assumed that organised internet atheists simply needed enlightening - that when they actually had their questions answered, they would say "Oh, I had misunderstood, thanks for straightening that out!"
Now I know why they/you waste 2/3 of your spare time abusing Christians (why not Jews, Buddhists etc? Of course going on an American site means you get the to-you edifiying spectacle of seeing American Christians attacking Muslims, two for the price of one.)
You do it for the lolz... because it excites you and makes you feel like a big, important man. (Angry organised internet atheists are very rarely women - and the few women who sign up are treated as if they're just groupies. I signed up to Sir Herr Lord Dawkins' site and observed that.)
I admire the persistance and tolerance of people like Vreem, but I have been attacked too viciously and crazily to fall for it again myself.
Vicky

reply to post by Vicky32

Of course we have National Health! (Your ignorance doesn't extend only to theological issues then!) You're deliberately misinterpreting the Scriptures you quote, of course.

Ahem, I have posted the scriptures in question and you now decide that it I that has "misinterpreted them" ?? This is a somewhat arrogant position to put yourself in my dear, are you implying that -

A) The above quoted and allegedly divinely revealed scriptures do not actually mean what they say ?

B) You are the authority on what they actually mean ?

C) If not you then who ?

So let me get what you are implying here straight,

The bibles were written by men but "inspired" by the yahwhe/jesus god, the bible say that your jesus/yawhe god allegedly said -

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" and when you read this verse you do not assume it means exactly what it says ?
So who exactly do you ask what it means my dear Vicky ? Do you go to your pastor to see if your god revealed to him something he did not reveal to you ?

Clearly if what you are implying, that the bibles need someone other than the reader to interpret what each verse actually means as they cannot be trusted at face value then this implies 2 things -

1) Your yahweh/jesus god is an absolutely appalling communicator as he had a book written to get a message to the reader but failed to deliver the message as the reader automatically need an interpreter to explain what it means.

2) If but one passage in the bibles requires an interpretation, then not one single passage can be trusted. The authors of the bibles are anonymous and not available to clarify anything their god allegedly" inspired" them to write as not a single person on this planet can prove that their own interpretation of what they chose not to take at face value has come from any authority let alone been revealed to them.




Who says so ? Did your pastor tell you this ? Did your god tell you this ? Did you hear it on TV ?

What does the bible "which your entire knowledge of( yahweh/ jesus is based upon) have to say about it ? Who do you trust first what someone else says or what the author of the bibles say what your god says ?

So, in relation to health your yahweh/jesus clearly says -

Matthew 21:21: I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

That's right he clearly says "I tell you the truth " and "Whatever you ask".

But you Vicky are saying that this verse cannot be true, because you claim -

Prayer exists for when it is needed, and when modern medicine can deal with a health issue, then that's the thing to do - go to a doctor!

Now read it again, where did jesus/yawhe say that "whatever" excludes your health and that you should go to a man (who may happen to be a muslim or a satanist) first and if that doesn't work then hask him to sort it out ?

But prayer is not a game - nor is it a machine - put in X input and get Y result. God is not a slot machine.

So who exactly made you the authority on the mechanics of prayer ? Why do you find it necassary to make this up as you go along when alll one has to do is read what jesus/yahweh has said on the matter ?

Your are an angry-atheist, but whether you're on of Jewish, Agnostic, Atheist or Apathetic family origin, you can't have escaped learning that. (Especially if you come of a Jewish family..)

I am an atheist period. There are no flavors to atheism my dear as sure as bald is not a hair colour, and I' no more angry than you are deluded.

I used to be very naive

,


From the perspective of you reasoning in relation to what is written by "inspired" men in your bibles it would appear that you still are.

and I assumed that organised internet atheists

I can assure you there,s nothing organised about me

simply needed enlightening - that when they actually had their questions answered, they would say "Oh, I had misunderstood, thanks for straightening that out!"

You are somewhat arrogant to assert anyone is seeking enlightenment from you, no one is asking you to explain what the bibles mean, sorry to deflate your ego.

Now I know why they/you waste 2/3 of your spare time abusing Christians (why not Jews, Buddhists etc?

You are now entering into the stage of throwing your toys in the dirt, which is quite typical of xtians that are floundering helplessly when logic and reason eludes them in debate.

I can assure you I'm not wasting my time defending reason from delusional superstitions of any flavor, and as far as the amount of time I allocate to this goes, clearly once again your arrogance and ego get the better of you. The man in the sky must be so proud of strategy to defend him vicky.

You do it for the lolz... because it excites you and makes you feel like a big, important man. (Angry organised internet atheists are very rarely women - and the few women who sign up are treated as if they're just groupies.

How quickly you forget that the man is the head of the woman vicky.

I signed up to Sir Herr Lord Dawkins' site and observed that.) I admire the persistance and tolerance of people like Vreem, but I have been attacked too viciously and crazily to fall for it again myself.

If you are going to come to the table at all Vicky, bring with you nothing but reason and maturity to engage in debate that requires a modicum of logic and evidence.

Your kind have had over 200 years of stomping around shoving unevidenced delusional superstition down everyone elses' throats, but now your required to present your case for critical analysis using reason and logic you act like a child.

There again was it not jesus that instructed you to be like a child? You appear to have teken that vers on face value no ?

reply to post by Vicky32


I have to inform you that ATS was started in england,not the U.S.
The op has made it his mission in life to bash christianity.He doesn't
bash islam because he is not stupid.It is easier to bash christians
because we are suppose to turn the other cheek.