Jim & Tammy Faye one generation later
- Thread starter Turok
- Start date
Our religion is better than their religion. Off with their heads! Throughout history people have even killed each other over slight variations within the same religion.
I wonder how many 100's of millions of people have died because of religious conflicts.
What does God have to do with religion anyway? Sounds more like control freaks more interested in their own well being, status, etc.
I wonder what God thinks about all that.
Quote from ProfLogic:
How to re-ignite a war . . . ask what God thinks . . .
Yeah, God talks to me and tells me what to do all the time.
Sort of like the devil made me do that bad thing, only this time the bad thing I did was good because God told me to do it.
"Oh great...another Wuffo who doesn't really know what the bible says."
The world is full of people who claim to know what the Bible says, but most of them aren't failed theists like you Turok.
You crack me up Turok, positioning yourself as one who knows what the Bible actually says...
Oh man, you are still good for a laugh...
The world is full of people who claim to know what the Bible says, but most of them aren't failed theists like you Turok.
You crack me up Turok, positioning yourself as one who knows what the Bible actually says...
Oh man, you are still good for a laugh...
neophyte321
Guest
God Damn, it gets tiring when people blame religion for war. This has got to be the biggest fallacy that continually gets perpetuated by the anti-religious.
WWI
WWII
Vitenam
Korea
The US Civil War
The Spanish-American War
Iraq I
Iraq II
The French Revolution
The American Revolution
The Greek, Roman, Persian, French, English empires.....
etc, etc ...
http://www.warscholar.com/Timeline.html
sheese.... religion has NO DOUBT worked to stop more warring than it has caused.
Besides religion what refrains men from slaughtering one-another?
Wars are always about power and resources, and rarely ever about religion.
nitwits and idiots, and these guys claim the religious are brainwahsed.
That's what I meant:
However, an individual's or group's "better" brand of religion can be used as a cover or excuse to commit crimes or advance their own self-interest or proclaim a holy war or they use the excuse that another person's religion is inferior so they must be conquered or exterminated. That's how they justify, rationalize their actions, saying they are righteous, etc.
I'm not anti-religion. I'm anti-bad behavior.
I grew up with the Hypocrite/Falwell/Swaggert/Bakker type of fundamentalist religion.
I smoked 'dope' at University a few times (did inhale) and my mother telephoned every relative and family acqaintance and said I was a junkie!
Not interested in religion.
I smoked 'dope' at University a few times (did inhale) and my mother telephoned every relative and family acqaintance and said I was a junkie!
Not interested in religion.
Sorry 'bout the delay responding JB3. Somehow I lost your last post to this thread in the shuffle. I just read it, and will now respond:
JB3
>I thought it was obvious but evidently it wasn't
>obvious to you. I'll explain it to you, slowwwwly.
It doesn't matter whether you make your error quickly or slowwwwly, itâs still an error.
JB3:
>You made the claim that Bakker son's version of Christianity
>was not the biblical version, then quoted (and concurred
>with) this,
>>I would like to know if the writers of this article ever sat
>>down and read the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of
>>Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the Gospel of John from
>>the first verse of Chapter 1 to the last verse of each book?
Yes, I did.
>The implied message was that if one has not read
>the entire Bible, "from the first verse of Chapter 1 to
>the last verse of each book," then one does not have
>a standing to say what Christianity is.
Well, you're almost correct -- though it's not a point I give a rat about, he *doesn't* say you have to read "the entire bible" (your words), but rather the entire listed Gospels -- But since it matters not a whiff, for the sake of this argument I'll stipulate your incorrect reading.
>But by the same logic, you don't have a say here
>too - I don't believe that you've read the Bible,
>"from the first verse of Chapter 1 to the last
>verse of each book," judging from your posts.
Why would you assume that? Are you one of those who thinks that there is only one possible interpretation of the scriptures and if I interpret it differently than you, it must be because I didn't read it? Iâd truly be interested in you showing me the posts where I convinced you that I havenât read the âgood bookâ.
Anyway, you must be thinking of someone else. I have read the *entire* bible. Yes, from "from the first verse of Chapter 1 to the last verse of each book." I have done this more times than I have fingers *and* toes.
There was a time when I believed in the biblical time of trouble. I believed that our Bibles would be taken from us during this time of last days tribulation. I sincerely believed that the way to God was through his word and that without our Bibles, the way to God was through the scriptures committed to memory. I have committed to memory more than 300 chapters (not verses, *chapters*) of both the old and the new testament plus thousands of individual verses. (yes, that would be close to 25 percent of the bible).
I was repeatedly tested on my ability to write these scriptures from memory (including punctuation). From being taken out of school at the second grade level through my late teen years I attended school where the curriculum was based 100 percent on the King James Bible -- and I don't mean philosophically based, but *literally* based.
Every math problem was straight out of the scriptures (only very basic math was taught â not even as far as simple geometry), every spelling test was a list of words from the Bible. The only history taught was biblical. We spent 5 hours per day at school with the KJB (three of those memorizing and reciting) and an additional 2 at home.
To this day I can stand next to you and verbally launch into a perfect recital of the 119th psalm (the longest chapter in the bible) with fewer punctuation errors than a good typist would commit during transcription. (if you really want to hear something funny, listen to someone verbally reciting scripture while including punctuation â âBlessed are the undefiled in the way â comma â who walk in the law of the Lord â periodâ
JB3
>In other words, I wasn't saying that you don't
>have standing. You were saying that.
So sorry ⦠on this one you picked the wrong guy.
Now, do I believe this is what gives me standing to comment on issues of Religion? No. Here on ET, your opinion is just as valid as mine even though you likely have only a tiny percentage of the experience with the Bible as I.
JB
PS: wind up the the troll (not referencing you JB3)
JB3
>I thought it was obvious but evidently it wasn't
>obvious to you. I'll explain it to you, slowwwwly.
It doesn't matter whether you make your error quickly or slowwwwly, itâs still an error.
JB3:
>You made the claim that Bakker son's version of Christianity
>was not the biblical version, then quoted (and concurred
>with) this,
>>I would like to know if the writers of this article ever sat
>>down and read the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of
>>Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the Gospel of John from
>>the first verse of Chapter 1 to the last verse of each book?
Yes, I did.
>The implied message was that if one has not read
>the entire Bible, "from the first verse of Chapter 1 to
>the last verse of each book," then one does not have
>a standing to say what Christianity is.
Well, you're almost correct -- though it's not a point I give a rat about, he *doesn't* say you have to read "the entire bible" (your words), but rather the entire listed Gospels -- But since it matters not a whiff, for the sake of this argument I'll stipulate your incorrect reading.
>But by the same logic, you don't have a say here
>too - I don't believe that you've read the Bible,
>"from the first verse of Chapter 1 to the last
>verse of each book," judging from your posts.
Why would you assume that? Are you one of those who thinks that there is only one possible interpretation of the scriptures and if I interpret it differently than you, it must be because I didn't read it? Iâd truly be interested in you showing me the posts where I convinced you that I havenât read the âgood bookâ.
Anyway, you must be thinking of someone else. I have read the *entire* bible. Yes, from "from the first verse of Chapter 1 to the last verse of each book." I have done this more times than I have fingers *and* toes.
There was a time when I believed in the biblical time of trouble. I believed that our Bibles would be taken from us during this time of last days tribulation. I sincerely believed that the way to God was through his word and that without our Bibles, the way to God was through the scriptures committed to memory. I have committed to memory more than 300 chapters (not verses, *chapters*) of both the old and the new testament plus thousands of individual verses. (yes, that would be close to 25 percent of the bible).
I was repeatedly tested on my ability to write these scriptures from memory (including punctuation). From being taken out of school at the second grade level through my late teen years I attended school where the curriculum was based 100 percent on the King James Bible -- and I don't mean philosophically based, but *literally* based.
Every math problem was straight out of the scriptures (only very basic math was taught â not even as far as simple geometry), every spelling test was a list of words from the Bible. The only history taught was biblical. We spent 5 hours per day at school with the KJB (three of those memorizing and reciting) and an additional 2 at home.
To this day I can stand next to you and verbally launch into a perfect recital of the 119th psalm (the longest chapter in the bible) with fewer punctuation errors than a good typist would commit during transcription. (if you really want to hear something funny, listen to someone verbally reciting scripture while including punctuation â âBlessed are the undefiled in the way â comma â who walk in the law of the Lord â periodâ
JB3
>In other words, I wasn't saying that you don't
>have standing. You were saying that.
So sorry ⦠on this one you picked the wrong guy.
Now, do I believe this is what gives me standing to comment on issues of Religion? No. Here on ET, your opinion is just as valid as mine even though you likely have only a tiny percentage of the experience with the Bible as I.
JB
PS: wind up the the troll (not referencing you JB3)