Why are religious people more disgustingly stupid, barbaric, and evil?

[painted wolf]

Why are religious people more disgustingly stupid, barbaric, and evil?

Sorry.... my bad. I threw the curve. :wolf:

wa:do

 

[1robin]

It makes him a Catholic.

So? I could claim I am a member of the almighty polar bear club. It's only teaching is pacifism. If I then go start a war (even if I claim the almighty polar bear told me to) then my actions are actuallly a result of something besides my religion and say nothing about the almighty polar bear. If my actions are consistent with evolution which I claim to believe and I use evolution to justify my actions then my actions are a reflection of my evolutionary ideals.

 

[1robin]

But you can't know that.

I am sure he believed in it.

And the Catholic Church, certainly didnt oppose him

He only claimed this allegance because he wanted the power and wealth of the Catholic church. I am no fan of Catholicism but they did NOT help him and he then turned on the church with a vengence. Since his actions are inconsistent with the bible (actually the opposite) then his actions have nothing to do with the Catholic church.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

You should do some more research about the Catholic Church's PUBLIC (I discount the conspiracy theories) dealings with Hitler and the Nazi's... the most telling being the omissions (such as that only one Nazi was ever excommunicated, for something that had nothing to do with the war - merely his choice in marriage partner) and small things like that (such as Pope PiusXII sending Hitler a congratulatory note on surviving an assassination attempt claiming it as 'miraculous' rather a strong nod coming from the head of a significant religion) and that among the 34 articles of the treaty between the Vatican and Nazi Germany that 'Bishops would swear loyalty to the government and ensure the clergy toed the line (it was an article for the institutionalised adherence to government policy by the clergy) the others mainly being with regard to what the Roman Catholic Church was to receive in return for their willing support.

 

[1robin]

Chatting with you is perhaps one of the most futile exercises known.
He was not trained in what JESUS WAS SAYING.. not that he wasn't trained as a Hebrew.
He did not train WITH JESUS. he was not trained BY JESUS.
I am fully aware of this description of Saul's training. In a real sense it supports many of my positions. Unfortunately for you at this point of the conversation it completely does not support your assertion. it is in fact, non sequitur, as we were talking about Paul knowing what JESUS was teaching [for anyone bothering to still read this], not how 'educated' Paul was about Judaism. Jesus wasn't teaching Judaism. And when he first arrived Paul knew very little about what he was teaching.

I have went back and looked at your previous posts with other people. You actually think everyone but you is an idiot. You are one for the books. If pride goeth before the fall you have a cavern looming in your immediate future. Paul's traing in LAW made him the perfect person that would supervise the transition from the old covenent to the new. God and Christ knew that over a thousand years of tradition will not go quietly so they chose a person uniquely qualified and trusted by the traditional Jews to make it work. Do you actually think through any post you make or just read others and make the opposite claim.

His vision was a lie.
And his claim IS less valid, because the other apostles WERE THERE WITH JESUS. So their claims would be more valid.
Your arguments are naive at best. if HE wrote it then OF COURSE he would say everyone agreed with him - but I have made that point already.

Will you just claim anything you can't possibly know is the truth when the only people who actually do know say the opposite. Do you actually think this is a valid and worthwhile thing to bother doing. Those same apostles who were there with Jesus accepted his apostleship. This issue is so well known and consistent then you may cling to it to keep your ship of fools afloat if you want to, but I ain't interested.

Jesus was not God. Nor was he the Moschiach. But at that point we were discussing the new covenant - this supposed new covenant was ALREADY laid out previously by God; what Jesus preached was NOT it. I noted where it was.

Once again grasping at the wind. In researching this new covenant stuff even I was suprised how iron clad the argument I made is. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and whine then have at it.

Your concept does not stand up to history, as the overall fate of the Jews has gone up and down like all others. How do you explain this 'obvious' historical fluctuation in God's feeling about the Jews? Are thy occasionally suddenly believing in/following Jesus' new covenant and then falling again?
But really this citation is to cover for the rather heinous statement you made about the Jews.

I have forgotten just how wrong you were in this discussion. You are without doubt the most incorrect person drowning in futility I have ever met. Here is another one of thousands of truth bullets you can deflect with your shield of ignorance and bias.
3 Now these are the nations which the Lord left, to test Israel by them (that is, all who had not [a]experienced any of the wars of Canaan; 2 only in order that the generations of the sons of Israel might [b]be taught war, [c]those who had not [d]experienced it formerly). 3 These nations are: the five lords of the Philistines and all the Canaanites and the Sidonians and the Hivites who lived in Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal-hermon as far as [e]Lebo-hamath. 4 They were for [f] testing Israel, to find out if they would [g]obey the commandments of the Lord, which He had commanded their fathers [h]through Moses. 5 The sons of Israel lived among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; 6 and they took their daughters for themselves as wives, and gave their own daughters to their sons, and served their gods.
7 The sons of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and forgot the Lord their God and served the Baals and the [i]Asheroth. 8 Then the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, so that He sold them into the hands of Cushan-rishathaim king of [j]Mesopotamia; and the sons of Israel served Cushan-rishathaim eight years.
Judges 3 NASB - Idolatry Leads to Servitude - Now these - Bible Gateway
This is just one of the many times where this happened there isn't a more obvious issue in the bible than this one. Even the Jews will readily admit this. The fact that you can claim to know anything about religion and not know this is a symptom of something so extreme I have no word for it.

But he DIDN'T say it in all gospels. As I noted. This means you only cherry pick ONE gospel to prove your points, if it's convenient. No diversion is needed to show that you are wrong again, here.

Good lord, what is wrong with you? He doesn't have to say it in all Gospels. God decided to mention it in one and so that is how many that say it. This is pathetic. The others that don't say it are an argument from silence and guess what that is FALLACY. Many of the events are only recorded in one or two gospels because they were all written to emphasize different aspects of the events. Every one knows this.

What evidence is that? IN addition in that point of the conversation i was pointing out the asinine assertion you made that the thief was 'getting what he deserved', while there was Jesus right next to him getting the same thing; the legitimacy of being charged by the Romans was the issue and it is obvious Jesus' was falsely charged; so I asked the obvious rhetorical question about the thief.

The bible makes it plain to everyone that it claims Jesus was innocent and the thief guilty. Even the thief admits this and he is infinately more qualified to say so than you. This is like argueing is water wet with someone.

It occurs to me now after observing you that further conversations cannot produce more than token annoyance, because you wander far off topic as soon as your argument weakens.

I have had no need to resort to anything except pointing out what the bible says. Your points have been so unbelievably rediculous it needed no more than that. I love a good contentious issue and will readily admit it if they are, unfortunately you have decided to argue that up is down and down is up.

have you read the Bible? All four gospels tell a different story, even about the thief. I made a brief note of what gospel said what.
that's because you're oblivious.
lol, a Christian PhD.. does he have the PhD in Christianity?

Are you haveing a conversation with yourself here?

And I have not sinned. I do not commit the sins my religion has, which is something neither you nor your Phd pal can say.

You have so far been too scared to list what your "beliefs" are based on so I can only conclude nothing.

Is he treating you for your addictions?

Are you nuts?

As fundy Christians you are not capable of understanding that Jesus failed to qualify. At this point I see that you are not capable of understanding the complexity of my proposition.

There is no complexity in your propositions, they are simply wrong.

can you try improving your grammar and spelling, please?

The last desperate attempts at diversion and the answer is nope.

You said I did not quote you; here you admit I did. That quote does in fact justify my claim, as you are there, saying what I said you said
BUT NOT ALL OF IT IS. And THAT is what you said. You were WRONG. Deal. At this point it certainly appears you've not even looked at all of them.
No, I quoted an actual psych page or two on it; you called THEM false. And THEN, well lookie here: you deny saying it, then say it again. Delightful.
You are a dreadful liar when things go against you. I have shown you to be, several times now.

This deserves no response.

You have such a closed mind, lack of education and thread-bare virtues, blatant dishonesty, and poor writing habits that Im afraid responding to you will continue to only be slightly discomforting entertainment for some time to come. And nothing more, really.

Is that why you challenged me to a one on one discussion?
You are one strange bird.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I have went back and looked at your previous posts with other people. [garbage garbage] Paul's traing in LAW made him the perfect person that would supervise the transition from the old covenent to the new. God and Christ knew that over a thousand years of tradition will not go quietly so they chose a person uniquely qualified and trusted by the traditional Jews to make it work. Do you actually think through any post you make or just read others and make the opposite claim.

Paul's training in law had nothing to do with his training under Jesus. His training in law does not make him an apostle. No matter how many fool times you repeat this, you failed at the point.

Will you just claim anything you can't possibly know is the truth when the only people who actually do know say the opposite. [garbage garbage] Those same apostles who were there with Jesus accepted his apostleship.

They did not accept him at first; eventually his odd behavior caused them to call a conclave. He won the debate there, because he was an educated Hellene, where they were uneducated[for the main part] laborers. Read the history of the Branch Davidians and see a parallel. It's all right there in church history, I don't need to be omniscient to make a conclusion.

In researching this new covenant stuff even I was suprised how iron clad the argument I made is.

Haha! You are totally deluded.

30 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; 31 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; forasmuch as they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, saith the LORD. 32 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people; 33 and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: 'Know the LORD'; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more. {S} 34 Thus saith the LORD

There's your New Covenant. Exactly as I stated. Your argument was garbage, not ironclad.

3 Now these are the nations which the Lord left, to test Israel by them (that is, all who had not [a]experienced any of the wars of Canaan; 2 only in order that the generations of the sons of Israel might [b]be taught war, [c]those who had not [d]experienced it formerly). 3 These nations are: the five lords of the Philistines and all the Canaanites and the Sidonians and the Hivites who lived in Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal-hermon as far as [e]Lebo-hamath. 4 They were for [f] testing Israel, to find out if they would [g]obey the commandments of the Lord, which He had commanded their fathers [h]through Moses. 5 The sons of Israel lived among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; 6 and they took their daughters for themselves as wives, and gave their own daughters to their sons, and served their gods.
7 The sons of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and forgot the Lord their God and served the Baals and the [i]Asheroth. 8 Then the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, so that He sold them into the hands of Cushan-rishathaim king of [j]Mesopotamia; and the sons of Israel served Cushan-rishathaim eight years.

At this point it is obvious that you are desperately Gish Galloping in order to hide that you cannot actually answer.
this huge post had NOTHING to do with my point, a correct point, that Israel's fate has gone up and down, and is in no way based on them being 'fallen from God's laws' as a people. That was your point; it was a wrong point. If they were fallen because they don't follow his commandments [your statement, though yours was much harsher], they would still be in bondage and etc. Whereas, they are essentially one of the world's great nuclear powers atm. Reality does not jibe with your delusion.
In fact, here's some more from Jeremaiah to further disprove you:

35 If these ordinances depart from before Me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me for ever.

Emphasis mine.
God says you're wrong.

He doesn't have to say it in all Gospels.

He does have to, to support your particular point though, and in fact, he does not. You were the one claiming the gospels, plural, said he repented. he did not repent in all, He repents in one. So this is not 'evidence' of his character as a bad Jew. it is not a confirmation that he is justly accused. You just keep on forgetting, completely, what we are even arguing about.

God decided to mention it in one and so that is how many that say it. This is pathetic. The others that don't say it are an argument from silence and guess what that is FALLACY. Many of the events are only recorded in one or two gospels because they were all written to emphasize different aspects of the events. Every one knows this.

This fact makes you wrong in your point though. It's also hysterical: you don't realize YOU are arguing from silence.. not me. lol!

The bible makes it plain to everyone that it claims Jesus was innocent and the thief guilty. Even the thief admits this

He doesn't. One gospel only says he does. In the others he mocks with the other. You keep changing your hyperbolic claims of accuracy. We know you porkie all the time. It's embarrassing to watch you.

and he is infinately more qualified to say so than you.

Nope. There is no such need for qualification, he's a mythical character.
It appears at this point that you simply want to randomly interject the line "and he is infinately more qualified to say so than you" [with the misspelling] to have anything to say which makes me appear to be wrong.. when you have no other defense.

I have had no need to resort to anything except pointing out what the bible says.

It's obvious in most cases thusfar you have no idea what it says.

You have so far been too scared to list what your "beliefs" are based on so I can only conclude nothing.

I already told you what they are, you porkie-teller, and told you to Google them. I have been claiming openly and loudly what they are since I got here. Your need to lie, continually, really says so much about your faith system, though. Not surprising, from an addict.

The last desperate attempts at diversion and the answer is nope.

Well, I know a special-ed fourth grader who composes and spells better than you. Since this is a written medium, dealing in English, please try and learn how to write in it.

This deserves no response.

Your dishonestly has been self-evident across many posts, but it's nice to show it to others often; it will remind them that dealing with you means delving into futility.

Is that why you challenged me to a one on one discussion?

I did so to drag your error-filled garbage out of the general threads and into a pen where it can be less damaging.

 

[1robin]

Paul's training in law had nothing to do with his training under Jesus. His training in law does not make him an apostle.

I never said his traing in law made him an apostle, Jesus chose him as one even if you don't like the idea. His training in the Law made him more capable of addressing issues concerning the law than virtually any one else. His reliance on the holy spirit equipped him to speak to issues regarding Christ. "But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11-12)
There is nothing you can say that changes this fact.

They did not accept him at first; eventually his odd behavior caused them to call a conclave. He won the debate there, because he was an educated Hellene, where they were uneducated[for the main part] laborers. Read the history of the Branch Davidians and see a parallel. It's all right there in church history, I don't need to be omniscient to make a conclusion.

It would help if you were correct before you made a conclusion.
Acts 9:26-29 - And when Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and did not believe that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. And he declared to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. So he was with them at Jerusalem, coming in and going out.

Their original reluctance was based on nothing but unfamiliarity. Their exceptance was very quickly given once they actually had information to decide upon.

Haha! You are totally deluded.

Since me and God seem to be deluded in the same way, I will take it.
This is like convincing someone it's cold at the north pole and being accused of delusion.
The old covenant assigned Levites to be priests. In the new covenant, Jesus Christ is our high priest — and the fact that Jesus was not a Levite, yet is now a priest, gives further evidence that the old covenant has been set aside (Heb. 7:12). Because he is our perfect high priest, we are encouraged to "draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience" (Heb. 10:22). (For a more detailed study of Hebrews 10, click here.)
Jesus and the New Covenant | Grace Communion International

There's your New Covenant. Exactly as I stated. Your argument was garbage, not ironclad.

You posted a scripture that clearly states a new covenant relaced the old to prove that the old covenant is still in effect. Amazing. Since it is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about lets look at what a very knowledgeable scholar says.
If we take God for our Father, and join the church of the first-born, we shall want nothing that is good for us. These predictions doubtless refer also to a future gathering of the Israelites from all quarters of the globe. And they figuratively describe the conversion of sinners to Christ, and the plain and safe way in which they are led.
Jeremiah 31 - Matthew Henry’s Commentary - Bible Commentary
Since a new covenant is ratified in blood and that blood was shed at calvary then thats when the covenant began.

that Israel's fate has gone up and down, and is in no way based on them being 'fallen from God's laws' as a people. That was your point; it was a wrong point. If they were fallen because they don't follow his commandments God says you're wrong.

Here is the actual claim that began your torrent of nonsence: "Funny but the Jews around you don't think it has no meaning; and since they were the ones to whom God gave the laws, they are the ones who know better than you." First I said that the Law alone cannot save anyone. No one (except Christ) has ever perfectly kept the Law so how can it save anyone.
New Living Translation (©2007)
If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth.
As far as the Jews haveing the law, Paul knew more about the law than 99% of the Jews and wrote more on faith and grace than anyone.

and you added "Wow, so you think the suffering of the Jews is because they ignore God's laws. Holy **** son, you are all over the map of profane."

In Psalm 78:10-11, 40-42, 56-57, the psalmist mentions that Ephraim (meaning Israel at large)

did not keep the covenant of God; they refused to walk in His law, and forgot His works and His wonders that He had shown them. . . . How often they provoked Him in the wilderness, and grieved Him in the desert! Yes, again and again they tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel. They did not remember His power. . . . Yet they tested and provoked the Most High God, and did not keep His testimonies, but turned back and acted unfaithfully like their fathers.​

​

II Kings 17:7-8 speaks of the sins of the Kingdom of Israel, up north:

For so it was that the children of Israel had sinned against the LORD their God, who had brought them up out of the land of Egypt, . . . and they had feared other gods, and had walked in the statutes of the nations whom the LORD had cast out from before the children of Israel.​

​

Is it possible for you to be any more wrong?

35 If these ordinances depart from before Me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me for ever.

Emphasis mine.
God says you're wrong.

If you had actually read the previous verse you would notice it's natural law he is reffering to. That is just dishonest.
New International Version (©1984)
This is what the LORD says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar--the LORD Almighty is his name:
31:36 Those ordinances - The ordinances of nature, which are God's establishments for the working of natural causes in their order.

He does have to, to support your particular point though, and in fact, he does not. You were the one claiming the gospels, plural, said he repented. he did not repent in all, He repents in one. So this is not 'evidence' of his character as a bad Jew. it is not a confirmation that he is justly accused. You just keep on forgetting, completely, what we are even arguing about.

You have neither the right nor a reason to demand God almighty record a fact more than once.

This fact makes you wrong in your point though. It's also hysterical: you don't realize YOU are arguing from silence.. not me. lol!

Since I am the only only one that can point to a verse that says what I claim then it is instead you who are argueing from silence. Your delusional.

He doesn't. One gospel only says he does. In the others he mocks with the other. You keep changing your hyperbolic claims of accuracy. We know you porkie all the time. It's embarrassing to watch you.

You are so ignorant of the scriptures that you do understand that it is well known that you are refering to two seperate events, and somewhat less well known maybe two different groups. Do some research.

Nope. There is no such need for qualification, he's a mythical character.
It appears at this point that you simply want to randomly interject the line "and he is infinately more qualified to say so than you" [with the misspelling] to have anything to say which makes me appear to be wrong.. when you have no other defense.

I am starting to think your a mythical character from the land of narccisistan You realize that asserting something doesn't make it true. Not even in your world but I sure you won't let that stop you.

It's obvious in most cases thusfar you have no idea what it says.

Me and virtually the entire scholarly and theological community are wrong and your right of course.

I already told you what they are, you porkie-teller, and told you to Google them. I have been claiming openly and loudly what they are since I got here. Your need to lie, continually, really says so much about your faith system, though. Not surprising, from an addict.

Your religion only exists in your head and I see you proved my point and again cowardly refused to provide sources. I searched the internet and can't find a scrap of info for a modern organised religion of Odin. It is apparently not significant enough even for criticism.

Well, I know a special-ed fourth grader who composes and spells better than you. Since this is a written medium, dealing in English, please try and learn how to write in it.

I believe you are that fourth grader.

Your dishonestly has been self-evident across many posts, but it's nice to show it to others often; it will remind them that dealing with you means delving into futility.

Was that actually worth typeing. If you don't pick up your game and quit relying on sarcasm I am going to do what many others have done and just ignore you.

 

[FakeOrReal]

Probably because they want to feel special...

Personally, do you guys think the entity described in the bible as malignant is real? I mean the bible is messed up because it doesn't always tell you when this actually happened and this didn't, symbolic or not, neopagans, satanists (who don't believe in the Satan from the bible (lol?) Magic, demons, possessions, I mean SOOO MUCHH STUFFF do any of you think some is real and is there logical/substantial proof for some?

Pagans and witches, they're popular sort of, and are involved in "magic" right? But is there proof of it? How about India and Chakra? I mean ZOMG so many theories!! GAH

thx

 

[Me Myself]

He only claimed this allegance because he wanted the power and wealth of the Catholic church.

I didn´t know you were Hittler´s therapist!

Historians and biographers most be crazy looking for you! Quick! Quick! Go to them!

Since his actions are inconsistent with the bible (actually the opposite) then his actions have nothing to do with the Catholic church.

I agree the church didn´t make him do them, and I am not saying it is responsable for him. I am merely saying that "Hitler was X and Stalin Y and they did the worst to humanity in the last 200 years, so X and Y can only be wrong" is a stupid statement. Because if it were true, then catholicism would also need to be wrong. You could also say for example that Hitler came to power by democratic system. Does this means democracy is wrong?

It´s just a very faulty narrow and incomplete statement.

 

[1robin]

I didn´t know you were Hittler´s therapist!

Historians and biographers most be crazy looking for you! Quick! Quick! Go to them!

How rediculous. I am an amateur historian and have read many books on Hitler himself. Plus I have researched his statements about what he used to justify his ideology. His only real connection to Catholacism was what he gained by the association. His lifestyle was a complete contradiction to Catholacism and so was only superficial.

I agree the church didn´t make him do them, and I am not saying it is responsable for him. I am merely saying that "Hitler was X and Stalin Y and they did the worst to humanity in the last 200 years, so X and Y can only be wrong" is a stupid statement. Because if it were true, then catholicism would also need to be wrong. You could also say for example that Hitler came to power by democratic system. Does this means democracy is wrong?

It´s just a very faulty narrow and incomplete statement.

This is complete nonsence. Hitler himself wrote and said that evolutionary principles justified his atrocities. It isn't hard to see that the man who believed in the superiority of the Arian race got those ideas from a book titled "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." that had recently become popular. And not from Catholicism's all men are created equal. I am no fan of catholicism and IMO it is wrong but in a way that didn't help Hitler. Both Hitler's and Stalin's actions were justified and consistent with non-theistic evolution. I never said that makes evolution wrong. It just means it has some very devestating implications. My main point was religion did not justify Hitler's actions even IF he claimed they did. That Democracy stuff doesn't make any sence either. Democracy is a method of representation and says nothing about race or ethics.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I never said his traing in law made him an apostle,

And yet him being or not being an apostle was what brought you to mention this non sequitur; again, you've forgotten what we were talking about.

Jesus chose him as one even if you don't like the idea.

No he didn't; Jesus was already dead.

His training in the Law made him more capable of addressing issues concerning the law than virtually any one else. His reliance on the holy spirit equipped him to speak to issues regarding Christ. "But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11-12)
There is nothing you can say that changes this fact... Their original reluctance was based on nothing but unfamiliarity. Their exceptance was very quickly given once they actually had information to decide upon.

Except there is no fact here. This is a small piece of the actual church 'history'; what was the purpose of the conclave in Jerusalem, then?

Since me and God seem to be deluded in the same way, I will take it.

That's rich

The old covenant assigned Levites to be priests. In the new covenant, Jesus Christ is our high priest —

Except I quoted you the actual new covenant as God laid out and Jesus was not in it.

You posted a scripture that clearly states a new covenant relaced the old to prove that the old covenant is still in effect. Amazing...
Since a new covenant is ratified in blood and that blood was shed at calvary then thats when the covenant began.

What is amazing is that the new covenant was spelled out and as I noted, perhaps several times now, it does not match anything to do with Jesus, and it did not require blood to be spilled to go into effect.

Here is the actual claim that began your torrent of nonsence: "Funny but the Jews around you don't think it has no meaning; and since they were the ones to whom God gave the laws, they are the ones who know better than you." First I said that the Law alone cannot save anyone. No one (except Christ) has ever perfectly kept the Law so how can it save anyone.

What you said was that it had no meaning. Hence the phrasing of my sentence.

You have neither the right nor a reason to demand God almighty record a fact more than once.

That's just a ridiculous response; I guess you had nothing of value to actually add, so I'll count my point as won in that spot. You claimed something the bible does not support.

Since I am the only only one that can point to a verse that says what I claim then it is instead you who are argueing from silence. Your delusional.

No, you claimed multiple citings, where none exist. It's possible you presumed all 4 gospels said the thief was penetant, but didn't realie that only one does, and in the others his attitude differs. Well - even though I actually stated what they said about it.

You are so ignorant of the scriptures that you do understand that it is well known that you are refering to two seperate events, and somewhat less well known maybe two different groups. Do some research.

lol, really? Two separate crucifixion scenes, I guess you read the Director's cut of the Bible, with Michael Bay?

I am starting to think your a mythical character from the land of narccisistan You realize that asserting something doesn't make it true. Not even in your world but I sure you won't let that stop you.

Actually scripture makes what I say true

Your religion only exists in your head and I see you proved my point and again cowardly refused to provide sources. I searched the internet and can't find a scrap of info for a modern organised religion of Odin. It is apparently not significant enough even for criticism.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tra....,cf.osb&fp=8ce42a58f3360c52&biw=1280&bih=837
Your capacity to lie is just incredible, as much as it is embarrassing to watch.

 

[Azazelthedazzle]

because ignorance is a virtue and knowledge the 8th and most deadly sin

Knowledge? Heaven forbid such a thing be permitted within the churches! That would mean people actually getting a grasp of what kind of thing theyre getting involved in, and what kind of worthless weak god they are actually bowing down to!

 

[1robin]

And yet his being or not being an apostle was what brought you to mention this non sequitur; again, you've forgotten what we were talking about.

I brought up the fact that Christ commissioned his apostleship and you have no sufficient reason to question it. You are the one that linked the two. You suggested he wasn't a trained professional apostle (whatever that is) I pointed out he had more relevant training than any of them, not that that made him an apostle. The decision of Christ is the only requirement for apostleship.

No he didn't; Jesus was already dead.

That is why he met the resurrected Christ. He knows more about the subject than anyone and infinitely more than you, and he claimed it was Christ and his entire life after that is consistent with that claim.

Except there is no fact here. This is a small piece of the actual church 'history'; what was the purpose of the conclave in Jerusalem, then?

If it is a piece of church history then it is fact. If it only existed as tradition it might or might not be.
But how did Paul first meet Peter and what was the purpose of this meeting? We only have Paul’s account of this, found in Galatians 1:18. According to his recollection his first encounter with Peter happened in Jerusalem, three years after his dramatic conversion. Paul emphasizes the time factor because he is establishing that he "did not even receive it [the Gospel] from a human person, nor was I taught, but through revelation of Jesus Messiah" (Galatians 1:12). His first contact with the apostles of Jesus and Peter in particular occurred three years after the Damascus Road revelation of Jesus as risen Lord to Paul. The point is that Paul’s understanding of the Gospel comes directly from Jesus, as the apostles’ full understanding of that same Gospel came directly from post-resurrection encounters with the risen Lord. When the three leading Jerusalem apostles "add nothing" to Paul’s grasp of the Gospel (Galatians 2:6), they agreed that Paul too "was entrusted with the Gospel" (Galatians 2:7). Paul says that his initial interaction with Peter came upon his own initiative. He "went up to Jerusalem to inquire (historēsai) of Cephas" "(Galatians 1:17) and visited with him for fourteen days. What exactly happened during those exchanges is confined to our interpretation of this verb historēsai, variously interpreted as "visit" (NRSV), "get acquainted with" (NIV), "get to know" (NLT). Paul’s use of this word indicates that his visit was more than a social call. But can we be any more specific?97. The Purpose of Paul
As you can see your view is a fringe position about Peters experience and there was nothing ominous about their meeting. There is much more at this site if care anything about knowing the subject.

That's rich

Giddy up!!!

Except I quoted you the actual new covenant as God laid out and Jesus was not in it.

I have given you more than enough scripture and the position I have stated is obvious and virtually universal. There seems to be no way for truth to penetrate your wall of bias and so I will not waste anymore time trying to show you that water is wet.

What is amazing is that the new covenant was spelled out and as I noted, perhaps several times now, it does not match anything to do with Jesus, and it did not require blood to be spilled to go into effect.

Here is an entire paper that details why you are completely and utterly wrong by none other than Charles Spurgeon.
http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols25-27/chs1567.pdf

What you said was that it had no meaning. Hence the phrasing of my sentence.

I don't think it is possible for a human being to be as wrong as you are and not know it. For the love, the bible is divided into the old (covenant) and New Testament (covenant). There is no more universally agreed on issue in Christianity.

That's just a ridiculous response; I guess you had nothing of value to actually add, so I'll count my point as won in that spot. You claimed something the bible does not support.

You might as well consider it won for you have claimed the same thing for even far worse reasons consistently. The truth is that it is an absolute fact that you have no valid reason whatsoever to demand that God do anything at all that is not promised in revelation.

No, you claimed multiple citings, where none exist. It's possible you presumed all 4 gospels said the thief was penetant, but didn't realie that only one does, and in the others his attitude differs. Well - even though I actually stated what they said about it.

When I said Gospels I meant it as a label not a description. It is contained in the gospels but not necessarily more than one but within the group. I will have to give you a pass on this one. I think this was an honest missunderstanding.

You are so ignorant of the scriptures that you do understand that it is well known that you are refering to two seperate events, and somewhat less well known maybe two different groups. Do some research.

lol, really? Two separate crucifixion scenes, I guess you read the Director's cut of the Bible, with Michael Bay?

Will you produce the statement I made about seperate crucifixions. Do you have to warp what I say into a form that you are able to find fault with? I said two events within the same crucifixion. They even use two different words to describe the others with Christ. This has led some (not me) to conclude there might have been more than two criminals crucified with Christ. It is an interesting theory that's all. When you claim in your response that I actually believe this theory please refer to this post.

I am starting to think your a mythical character from the land of narccisistan You realize that asserting something doesn't make it true. Not even in your world but I sure you won't let that stop you.

Actually scripture makes what I say true

Who's scripture? It would be impossible for you to make a more complete break with biblical theology than your recent points have been.

I searched the internet and can't find a scrap of info for a modern organised religion of Odin. It is apparently not significant enough even for criticism.
https://www.google.com/search?q=tra....,cf.osb&fp=8ce42a58f3360c52&biw=1280&bih=837

https://www.google.com/search?q=tran...w=1280&bih=837
Your capacity to lie is just incredible, as much as it is embarrassing to watch.
I will wade through the rest of the muck soon

What I have said was in no way a lie, but I will admit innacurate. I did as I said search for your "religion" at least twice but could not find a scrap of anything on it, of course I did not use the terms Odinism or Odinic whatever they mean. Oh and consider my statements about your reluctance that even though were patially true withdrawn. You see how that honor and ethics things works I have been telling you about to no avail. From what I have found so far it appears that my religion ate your religion. Of course I am joking but it seems all the Odins converted. Are there any practiceing Odins these days or are you the last of the Odinhicans?

 

[Orias]

Knowledge? Heaven forbid such a thing be permitted within the churches! That would mean people actually getting a grasp of what kind of thing theyre getting involved in, and what kind of worthless weak god they are actually bowing down to!

Assuming you could even call what they worship a God.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Knowledge? Heaven forbid such a thing be permitted within the churches! That would mean people actually getting a grasp of what kind of thing they're getting involved in, and what kind of worthless weak god they are actually bowing down to!

There is knowledge, and then there is 'accurate knowledge'.

What the churches often teach is Not the 1st-century teachings of Jesus but teach clergy traditions or customs outside of Scripture taught as Scripture.

That does not make God weak, but makes the clergy corrupted.
Satan is the 'god' of this world of badness. [ 2nd Cor. 4 v 4]
That makes the 'clergy god' the worthless god.

The clergy seat themselves in the 'temple' [houses of worship] as if they are God when in reality they are anti-God.
-2nd Thessalonians 2 vs 2-8; Acts 20 vs 29,30

 

[1robin]

Assuming you could even call what they worship a God.

Apparently assertions substitute for facts in Satanism. The God of the bible created and will destroy the fallen angel that satanists worship.

 

[Sunstone]

Apparently assertions substitute for facts in Satanism. The God of the bible created and will destroy the fallen angel that satanists worship.

An ironic juxtaposition of two sentences.

 

[Orias]

Apparently assertions substitute for facts in Satanism. The God of the bible created and will destroy the fallen angel that satanists worship.

Your God would do nothing of the kind, its far too merciful.

And you act as if assertions cannot be facts, assuming that I do indeed worship anything.

Get your facts right.

 

[1robin]

Your God would do nothing of the kind, its far too merciful.

And you act as if assertions cannot be facts, assuming that I do indeed worship anything.

Get your facts right.

What God are you reffering to? The God of the bible's vengence and justice is as terrible and absolute as his love is infinate. He even says he will destroy satan in the end. The assertion alone is insuffecient to establish it's claim as a fact and therefore impotent. Quote where I said assertions can't be facts. I will give you that, believe in, would have been better word choice than worship however the point still stands.

 

[1robin]

An ironic juxtaposition of two sentences.

That is an interesting observation. For a satanist to have faith he must rely on revelation no more valid than mine for God. We both accept revelation as truth and so within the context of our accepted truths it was a true statement but a relative one. I would not have said the same thing to a non satanist that does not have the same basis for faith that I do. Your point is well taken but inapplicable in my context.