Christians are becoming social pariahs in Britain, claims BBC presenter Jeremy Vine

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by undo

 

What about him stating that the the Spirit explicitly says that in the latter days the church would depart from sound doctrine and forbid priests from marrying and eating meat?

where's that verse? sorry, dain bramage only allows me so much room for data. i haven't read the epistles very often, in fact, it's been quite some time. new info kinda pushed old info out. i much prefer the gospels and the prophecies and texts that support the gospels and the prophecies.

It's somewhere in there. I don't remember which book though.

I personally think the epistles are just as important, because they give us glimpses into what the apostles knew and didn't know. I really don't think Paul was just a commentator. If so, the whole idea of the law not being as important as faith goes out the window and into the trash can.

Originally posted by 547000
It's somewhere in there. I don't remember which book though.

I personally think the epistles are just as important, because they give us glimpses into what the apostles knew and didn't know. I really don't think Paul was just a commentator. If so, the whole idea of the law not being as important as faith goes out the window and into the trash can.

i didn't say he was just a commentator. see this is why people had a hard time separating mosaic laws that were purely from moses, vs divine laws. what i said was i think some of the data in his letters was just his personal opinion and some was divinely inspired. the parts that were his personal opinions, have been taken as divine, when he even says "I" don't do this thing or that thing, which doesn't mean WE can't do this thing or that thing. it was HIS personal preference. we better stop this line of conversation or djinn is gonna come back to his thread and be unhappy with having to read thru doctrinal discussion. lol

I live in Britain and im not religious my self, nor do I know one person around my area who is religious.

I dont have any problems with religious people of any kind, each to their own I say, But one thing iv noticed here in britain is that the only people who come knocking on my door bothering me and trying to press their god onto me are christians and some times the odd jehovah witness.

I dont get muslims coming round trying to convert me, I dont get jews knocking on my door trying to talk me into joining their religion or any other religion, just christians and jehovah witness. And that what annoys me, I dont want people coming to my house and trying to brain wash me into giving money to their church. Infact I hate it. and that is what I dont like about christians.

Next time they knock and try give me leaflets about the bible, im going to give them a copy of zeitgeist

ONE MORE COMMENT:

Gen 1:26 And God 430 said 559 , Let us make 6213 man 120 in our image 6754, after our likeness 1823: and let them have dominion 7287 over the fish 1710 of the sea 3220, and over the fowl 5775 of the air 8064, and over the cattle 929, and over all the earth 776, and over every creeping thing 7431 that creepeth 7430 upon the earth 776.

that's the first reference to adam in the english (king james translation) bible.. the original word was adam not man. the english translators put man instead. i suspect this is because later beliefs about women being inferior to men, caused them to have trouble with the idea of women being created in the image of the gods, particulary since women were supposedly created from the rib of adam in later verses.

that has lead scholars to assume that it must be talking about a spiritual adam in the first reference. it could be that is the case, however, i don't know for certain because if women were not created until adam had been and women were not created in the image of the gods but from adam, something is missing. how can it be both? it's a logic puzzle.

also, note the numbers after certain words. those are the words that were in the original hebrew. if the words that suggest it's referring to a singular god, are not there once the numbered words are extracted from the texts, that means translators added the implication due to later viewpoints regarding women (it has a snowball effect, especially when it is backwards modified, so that it agrees with later material, it becomes a sort of maze. .

this is why i came to the conclusion that the second reference to the creation of adam and then eve, is in fact, showing that women were created from the atum, just like men were. the confusion over the rib scenario, is precisely because the translators had applied solely to eve, the responsibility for the fall narrative (there's a reason for this but i'll skip it for now since i'm fairly sure people in this thread are not thrilled with me right about now anyway). so how could eve be created in the image of God (notice, the word "man" only? some have suggested this is because the word is applied generically to all humans, which is the exact same point, something that doesn't seem to sink in. you get points a) and b), so let's finish the logic chain with c)!

so the second creation reference, where eve is made from adam's rib, is a further elucidation about the creation/cloning of human beings from the atum gods. now i'm not saying men were not created at the same time. all i'm saying is, the text is telling you about eve because it is about to regale you with the fall narrative and the fall narrative places the responsibility on eve, initially, because eve was about to reproduce new humans, sexually, a modification made to her DNA. and as a result, it had to be even further modified, so that she wouldn't reproduce people who lived forever and multiplied out of control. can't have both. would be population explosion and consume the entire universe rather quickly, universally speaking.

reply to post by Gorman91

Not true. Dozens upon dozens had tried the same as he. Indeed some are listed in the Bible. What made him so different? He wasn't the first to say things like what he did. The only logical conclusion is he was the first to bring proof with his claims.

Duh and where is the proof ?

So a claim in a book that man turned water into wine is not only true because the book says it happened but somehow this makes the man a god ? This same booked as you says other men did similar magik tricks and as the characters in the book say they weren't the real deal that is proof that the water into wine guy is the real deal ,


So based on your reasoning to qualify as being a god the creator of the universe one needs to demonstrate these attributes -

Alleged by the unknown characters that are alleged to have existed some 2000 years ago that the characters witnessed a man turned water into wine. Turned a couple of fish into lots of fish, walked on water healed some sick people and raised the allegedly dead .

The whole episode needs to witnessed but not first (and not required to be remembered) by more than a handful of unknown people.

The god man also needs also to have been been claimed to be born of a virgin

That's all it takes to make a god people.

Hang on I think I've found god

NAME Sathya Sai Baba

TITLE GOD

BORN Of a virgin

SKILLS Performs miracles everyday, Teaches love and understanding to all people, heals the sick and raises the dead. Has founded countless hospitals and universities, provides water and food for millions in need.

(The all important ) "FIRST HAND RELIABLE ALIVE WITNESSES"

6 MILLION !!! over 1 Million turned up for his birthday !!!!

Why my friend are you not on your knees to Sai Baba as he not only fits your specification to the letter but more so.

6 MILLION FIRST HAND RELIABLE WITNESSES !!!

Wasn't this thread about Christians becoming social pariah's in the UK?


I didn't realise it was about whether God exists or not and which bible verse is authentic and what word was the original name for God?


Shouldn't we be discussing whether religion has a place in a modern society or whether Christians have a point in the way they feel or whether other religions feel this way?

Ya know.... something related to the OP?

reply to post by ThePeopleParty


Well, this would be how you interpret scripture again. It says basically to share the gospel. There is even a parable about how a servant who is given gold and does nothing with it would be punished. So, you're pretty much supposed to try to share the gospel. On the other hand, give freely, but those who won't take it, leave and let God deal with them.

reply to post by blupblup


Well, I find it unfair about how much flake you draw for being Christian. If people behaved the same way with Muslims or Jews or any other religious group, they would be called racists. Yet it's a-okay to mock and insult Christians the way it's done.

reply to post by blupblup

Shouldn't we be discussing whether religion has a place in a modern society or whether Christians have a point in the way they feel or whether other religions feel this way?

Agreed, I'll start again

Xtians are making a rod for their own backs by attempting to choose to think upon me and my children they are becoming a minority because people are better educated and are no longer forced by law to extend special privilege to bronze age superstition, except in special case like of education and child rape etc.

reply to post by 547000

Well, I find it unfair about how much flake you draw for being Christian. If people behaved the same way with Muslims or Jews or any other religious group, they would be called racists. Yet it's a-okay to mock and insult Christians the way it's done.

I can assure you I will mock,knock and if pushed slap all these types of people equally when they try and shove their delusions down my throat.

Their race is irrelevant .

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by blupblup

 

Shouldn't we be discussing whether religion has a place in a modern society or whether Christians have a point in the way they feel or whether other religions feel this way?

Agreed, I'll start again

Xtians are making a rod for their own backs by attempting to choose to think upon me and my children they are becoming a minority because people are better educated and are no longer forced by law to extend special privilege to bronze age superstition, except in special case like of education and child rape etc.

NEWS FLASH:

i'm still a human being. lol
seriously, if you were any more prejudice, i'd just call you mr. p.

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by blupblup

 

Well, I find it unfair about how much flake you draw for being Christian. If people behaved the same way with Muslims or Jews or any other religious group, they would be called racists.

I guess you don't watch the news then.... you know, where Muslims are called terrorists and hateful all day everyday.... Muslims are vilified in a way that would make Hitler embarrassed.

Jews are constantly attacked too....

All religions get grief.... only Christians are now getting their fair share, and after having an easy ride for so long, it's come as quite a shock to them.

reply to post by The Djin

Originally posted by The Djin
Agreed, I'll start again

Xtians are making a rod for their own backs by attempting to choose to think upon me and my children they are becoming a minority because people are better educated and are no longer forced by law to extend special privilege to bronze age superstition, except in special case like of education and child rape etc.

Exactly... couldn't agree with you more

reply to post by undo



And xtians are not prejudice ??

Do you really want me to once again provide evidence that most defintately are but you will counter with the usual -
"Ah, but they are not trues xtians, or Ah they interpret scripture wrong, or Ah they don't represent the majority , or Ah sometimes really good people do really bad things because of religion but not xtianity or Ah Look at all the charity work " ?

example of how to deal with your dilemma:

-point out your opinion as regards the person's views, and how you find your position to be more likely. be nice about it.

-offer the person a fair and equal opportunity to respond and consider what they've said in their defense, without referring to your belief that their IQ or insanity isn't worthy of you in the first place..

-don't expect them to believe you are interested in anything they have to say, or think (or even if they will ever believe you or want to believe you) if you can't put the effort into it the conversation. it is, afterall, a conversation.

-if you don't want to converse about it with people who disagree with you, be sure to put that in your op so people who disagree with you will be less likely to join your topic

-don't assume that might makes right. group consensus is never an absolute indicator of accuracy, as galileo proved to the rest of the planet. most people you talk to are smart enough to know that so whipping out the "smart people know you guys are idiots," example is not going to work.

-use legitimate criticisms. be honest and fair about it. exaggerations will not make your case.

-don't suggest that only someone else's viewpoint is irritating or disliked, when you have no idea how your viewpoint may irritate or be disliked by someone else (and no one idea how many may dislike it, either). et.al, don't assume you're the only person in the room having trouble understanding why other people don't believe everything you do.

-

-

reply to post by 547000

Well, I find it unfair about how much flake you draw for being Christian.

Try being an atheist in the USA, then you'll really know what flak is all about matey boy.

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by ThePeopleParty

 

Well, this would be how you interpret scripture again. It says basically to share the gospel. There is even a parable about how a servant who is given gold and does nothing with it would be punished. So, you're pretty much supposed to try to share the gospel. On the other hand, give freely, but those who won't take it, leave and let God deal with them.

yes but everybody in the uk has heard it by now, what if there was some way of opting out of having to listen to it again?

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by undo

 

And xtians are not prejudice ??

Do you really want me to once again provide evidence that most defintately are but you will counter with the usual -
"Ah, but they are not trues xtians, or Ah they interpret scripture wrong, or Ah they don't represent the majority , or Ah sometimes really good people do really bad things because of religion but not xtianity or Ah Look at all the charity work " ?

do you know what my name is? have you lived my life?
then how do you know i'm guilty of what someone else does? ya know, i've said this before, countless times and it gets ignored and swept under the rug: but the single most prejudiced against group of people on this planet are women. period. end of story. that does not mean i start blaming all men for what happens to women and has happened to women, the world over for thousands of freakin' years. nor does it mean i blame all women. i blame the person doing the deed. we are individuals, are we not?

reply to post by undo

point out your opinion as regards the person's views, and how you find your position to be more likely. be nice about it. -offer the person a fair and equal opportunity to respond and consider what they've said in their defense, without referring to your belief that their IQ or insanity isn't worthy of you in the first place..

Did you miss the bit where only once a woman has to say no ??????

Undo you really are so brainwashed you just don't get it don you ?