Which Religion is the One True Religion?

They will besiege you in each of your communities, until the great, unscalable walls you trust in come tumbling down all over your land. They will so besiege you in every community throughout the land which the LORD, your God, has given you,
53
that in the distress of the siege to which your enemy subjects you, you will eat the fruit of your womb, the flesh of your own sons and daughters whom the LORD, your God, has given you.
54
The most refined and fastidious man among you will begrudge his brother and his beloved wife and his surviving children,
55
any share in the flesh of his children that he himself is using for food when nothing else is left him in the straits of the siege to which your enemy will subject you in all your communities.
56
The most refined and delicate woman among you, so delicate and refined that she would not venture to set the sole of her foot on the ground, will begrudge her beloved husband and her son and daughter
57
the afterbirth that issues from her womb and the infant she brings forth when she secretly uses them for food for want of anything else, in the straits of the siege to which your enemy will subject you in your communities.
58
"If you are not careful to observe every word of the law which is written in this book, and to revere the glorious and awesome name of the LORD, your God,
59
he will smite you and your descendants with severe and constant blows, malignant and lasting maladies.
60

cicerone imposter wrote:

"No, ALL angels had/have free will. Satan and a number of angels rebelled against God. These angels cannot be redeemed like man. They were created perfect and with full knowledge of God."
Why didn't god create man perfect like the angels?

Man was created perfect. You've been given the answer over and over again. You just don't believe it.

Frank that is nonsense...

But thanks for bringing it to my attention so I can knock it down...

You have taken the verse out of context this is 100 percent of the reason why people find so many contradictions in the Bible...

They take scriptures out of context...

It is the above verses which you did not quote which says that if God's people do not follow his commandments that God would "curse" them and they would resort to this great evil.

This was by no means a "commandment" of God...

Anyway and you show me where in the Bible it directs Christians to eat human flesh?

Well...actually...there is a passage in the Bible which seems to allow followers of the god Jesus worshipped to eat the flesh of fellow humans. In fact, is seems to allow then to eat the flesh of relatives. Take a look at Deuteronomy 28:52ff.

Also the word Cannibal comes from the Bible...

Correctly translated it means "priests of baal"... who were detested by God and his faithful followers...

No point on that one Frank... good try though.

Again Frank, God reveals the decadence of society as a form of deterrence...

15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:

This indicates that cannibalism was considered a curse and not a commandment of the true God...

RexRed wrote:

I used the word "Persians" in a general way to avoid the word Arab out of consideration. Yet it was Christians under Charlemagne that drove the "Arabs" out of Europe and much more... So I don't really know your point Set..

The "Arabs" were not driven out of Europe. It seems that you refer to the battle of Tours. Charles Martel (Charles the Hammer) routed Muslims who had crossed the mountains from Andalusia (the Iberian penninsula) near Tours in 732 CE. Charlemagne was born in 742 CE. Martel's victory did not drive the Muslims from Europe. They took and held Andalusia, what is now southern Spain, for more than seven hundred years. My point ought to have been obvious. You attempt to underpin feeble arguments by appeals to that of which you know nothing.

Quote:

Also there has been cannibalism in many wars of the past... big deal...

It's a big deal when you try to make the crusaders out to be knights in shining armor.

Quote:

That is no reflection on Christians or the Bible. It was either eat the enemy or not live to fight another day... is that so hard to fathom?

This is patently untrue. We have a record of the event because Frankish monks who accompanied the soldiers wrote an account. One of the points they made was that the crusaders did not need to eat their captives.

Quote:

There was cannibalism in the first and second world wars too? So what?

You have some evidence for that silliness?

Quote:

I don't need to google nothing in that particular regard? Canned food was not invented until Napoleons time...

Which means that you suggest that prior to 1795 armies could not campaign because they lacked canned food? If you had ever bothered to educate yourself, you might have read the Gallic Wars by Iulius Caesar, in which he is very particular to point out how he secured a supply of grain before each campaign. Again, you do nothing but point up your ignorance.

Quote:

I am interested in knowing more about the crusades and if you can enlighten us in that subject with out jabbing Christians then let's hear it...

I wasn't jabbing christians, i was pointing out the silliness of your statement suggesting heroic christians saved us from the bad old Persians, who, once again, were not involved in the Crusades. The best recent short work on the crusades is The Crusades through Arab Eyes, Amin Maloof. He is a Lebanese christian, so you needn't fear that your mind will be polluted in the reading.

Quote:

Anyway and you show me where in the Bible it directs Christians to eat human flesh?

I've made no such contention. This is, however, evidence of your inability to consider subjects without constant resort to post hoc fallacies.

Quote:

Do you know where the word cannibal comes from Set?

Yes--which is not germane to a discussion of whether or not brave christians (Ahhhahahahahahahahahaha) saved us from the swords of the Persians (hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha).

Quote:

Also...
Beyond the legends of Charlemagne lies a biography worthy of the tales. To the medieval mind, only King Arthur vied with Charlemagne as the finest example of what a Christian king could be. Kind, yet fiercely defensive of his family and Empire, there is much to admire. His exploits spawned both histories and romances, like all good legends it stood firmly rooted in history. The biography offered here was published in Will Durant's History of Civilization, but a small part of an encyclopedic historical survey. I include it here in the KCT resources because it might prove useful and inspiration to those seeking a basic introduction to this most famous of medieval kings.

http://www.chronique.com/Library/MedHistory/charlemagne.htm

Einhard and Nottker are the only two contemporary sources for a life of Charlemagne. Einhard was trained as a cleric in Charlemagne's court. Nottker was born just before Charlemagne's death, and his story is full of flying Bishops and other nonsense, the most nonsensical parts being the self-abasement of Charlemagne before the Bishops. The evidence is very good that Charlemagne had no interest in being a "Holy Roman Emperor," and that he sharply resented the effort to make him a "christian soldier" in the employ of the Bishops. I've read Einhard and Nottker, and quite a lot of other history of the period. When you've done the same, and not just run off to the first christian-authorized web reference you could find for Charlemagne, i'll be happy to discuss the subject with you.

None of which will be pertinent, however, as Charlemagne never participated in any crusades, and he didn't drive the "Arabs" from Europe.

RexRed wrote:

Frank that is nonsense...

No...it is not nonsense.

Quote:

But thanks for bringing it to my attention so I can knock it down...

You have taken the verse out of context this is 100 percent of the reason why people find so many contradictions in the Bible...

They take scriptures out of context...

It is the above verses which you did not quote which says that if God's people do not follow his commandments that God would "curse" them and they would resort to this great evil.

This was by no means a "commandment" of God...

You are right that this is part of a great deal of slop in the Bible about the many, many, many curses the god of the Bible would lay against anyone who didn't toe the line (so much for free will!)...

...but that does not make it inappropriate...

...and I actually worded my response in a way that furthers the appropriateness of the passage.

You wrote:

Quote:

Anyway and you show me where in the Bible it directs Christians to eat human flesh?

I responded:

Quote:

Well...actually...there is a passage in the Bible which seems to allow followers of the god Jesus worshipped to eat the flesh of fellow humans. In fact, is seems to allow then to eat the flesh of relatives. Take a look at Deuteronomy 28:52ff.

Then I cited the passage which does that.

Quote:

Also the word Cannibal comes from the Bible...

Correctly translated it means "priests of baal"... who were detested by God and his faithful followers...

Ahhh...yet another of the many, many sects with other gods that your god detested. I think about that often when I am being lectured by Christians about being more tolerant and respectful toward other people's "beliefs."

One of these days, I will cite some of the passages showing just how respectful and tolerant the god of the Bible is for other people's beliefs....when they conflict with the god's demands.

Not a very pretty picture at all...I assure you.

Quote:

No point on that one Frank... good try though.

Again Frank, God reveals the decadence of society as a form of deterrence...

I made a point...and you are helping me make another right here, Rex.

What you call the "decadence of society"...others call "someone else's beliefs". And as I mentioned, anyone lecturing anyone else on tolerance and respect for other's beliefs...certainly should read about the god of the Bible...and how that god suggests humans deal with people who have opposing beliefs.

Quote:

15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:

Right. And I wonder what will happen to all the people who do not stone homosexuals for their abominable behavior. Do you think they will be subjected to all these curses.

Quote:

This indicates that cannibalism was considered a curse and not a commandment of the true God...

Actually this indicates that the god is intolerant and not repectful of other people's beliefs...but why quibble.

I guess I cannot fault you Set for clarifying my inaccuracies...

Thank-you

As you can see my knowledge of the crusades and the invasion of Europe by foreign forces (be what they may) are not very studied...

Again I do not want to offend anyone by an inappropriate use of words...

I would be happy to learn this subject so I am not so ill informed...

again thanks...

See Frank, I concede when I do "not" KNOW...

Yet, I will not believe negative things about my Christian brothers of the past until I am certain... I do not believe them infallible but I give extra care in discovering the reasons why they have deviated from the Bibles "holy" instruction in righteousness.

Example:
To conclude that Americans soldiers were ruthless sex deviates based on a few reports at Abu Ghraib prison would tarnish an otherwise valiant sacrifice of life.

Frank you have schizophrenia.

...you are doing knight moves when logic moves in straight lines...

real life wrote:

Too bad you couldn't answer my earlier question about these so called "studies" of prayer.

The study you had cited states that Jews, Muslims , Buddhists and Christians were all involved.

I asked if the instructions for prayer found in the New and Old Testaments were followed during this study.

You did not answer because to do so would expose these sham "studies" for what they are.

It is obvious that NO common instructions on how or what to pray were given or followed.

What was defined as "prayer" by the study's organizers? There was NO definition.

Then tell us, Timber, how does one profess to conduct a study with no common definition of terms, no way or effort to find IF what is being studied from one participant to the next even remotely resembles each other?

If anyone presented to you a "study" purporting to be of the scientific variety, of say, aspirin--- would you not make sure that what was referred to as "aspirin" and given to one subject was the same as what is referred to as "aspirin" and given to or withheld from other participants?

These sham "studies" of prayer are a joke, and you of all people should know it. You embarrass yourself greatly by calling this kind of nonsense "evidence" and "scientifically valid proof".

Don't even try the dodge "It wasn't proper Christian prayer".
You mount a criticism while in ignorance of that which you criticize. Read the studies themselves, not the religionist commentaries relevant to them, and you'll find your assumption unwarranted. Apart from that, it is immensely amusing to observe the nonsensical spin used by religionists in their frantic attempts to deny the evidence gathered indicates what the evidence gathered indicates. There simply is no objective, independent, rational, scientific, academic, supportable case to be made for the religionist proposition.

Now, on to another mirth-maker - many of those hewing to the already convincingly debunked Theory of Christianity have of late in this discussion averred that man and angels were created "Perfect" - now, in that "Perfect" entails "Without flaw", and that according to the Abrahamic mythopaeia, some angels "fell from grace" by their own voluntary actions, and the proto-mythical Adam and Eve voluntarily sinned, thus in both instances, evidencing flaw and failure, there is a real problem with that "Perfect" creation deal. "Free will" explains it away? Poppycock - if perfection is perfection, it is without flaw, and thereby insucceptable to failure on account of flaw.

Can't have it both ways - perfection is an absolute. Either the putative angels and the putative Adam and Eve were not perfect, or the stories attendent upon their respective falls are pure, and wholly illogical, non-sequiturial, inconsistent mythology; either way, the entire background concept cancels itself.

Unless, of course, "God acts in mysterious ways" - which is itself nothing short of the ultimate dodge - an absurdity in support of a construct of absurdities.

"Prayer - A reverent petition made to a deity or other object of worship."

real life refuses to accept the common definition for prayer. Whether you are christian, buddhist, muslim or jew, prayer is prayer to a deity (different god - if you will). The meaning remains the same for all.

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Prayer - A reverent petition made to a deity or other object of worship."

real life refuses to accept the common definition for prayer. Whether you are christian, buddhist, muslim or jew, prayer is prayer to a deity (different god - if you will). The meaning remains the same for all.

CI,
Prayer is not just a petition. It can also be for thankfullness and adoration. There is no petition with this.

Of course one must have hope.

Faith is based upon hope.

Intrepid wrote:

Of course one must have hope.

Why? IMO hope is a word for children. They "wish" (another magical, childish word) for something, and "hope" that it happens.

Confidence, expectation, assurance. Those are words for adults.

Quote:

Faith is based upon hope.

That seems rather self-evident!

Frank,
There you go again, trying to equate Godly things with mere men.

The reason that Jesus recommended praying privately was so that the prayer would pray with a open and humble heart and not pray boastfully so everybody else could hear them.

Prayer may be fear for you, but not for me.

Hope? Of course one must have hope.

Faith is based upon hope.

You can read this in Hebrews 11:1

You can read a lot of things in Hebrews...but that does not make them so

Intrepid wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Prayer - A reverent petition made to a deity or other object of worship."

real life refuses to accept the common definition for prayer. Whether you are christian, buddhist, muslim or jew, prayer is prayer to a deity (different god - if you will). The meaning remains the same for all.

CI,
Prayer is not just a petition. It can also be for thankfullness and adoration. There is no petition with this.

Whether the prayer is a "petition" or a "thank you" or "adoration"...

...it is a much overdone thing.

Prayers of thanks...done over and over and over again...stink.

Imagine doing someone a big favor...and thereafter, every time the person meets you...he says "Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you." When ever he talks to you, he reminds you that he thanked you last night and he thanked you the night before that...and he thanked you the night before that.

How long would it take for you to be sickened?

And if you you knew of someone to whom this was happening...and you knew he/she was not sickened by it....what would you think of this person.


Prayers of adoration remind me of the comments the man on the street in Baghdad were making about Saddam Hussein just before we invaded. To hear the man on the street talk, Saddam was god almighty. Wonderful, "our father" was often invoked, loving, kind, giving, etc.

Prayers of adoration are pitiful...particularly when performed in public.

Perhaps that is why Jesus advised against prayers in public.

As for prayers of petition....well, the less said about them, the better.


Prayer is hoping...for the most part.

And prayer is fear...for the remainder.