Which Religion is the One True Religion?

neologist wrote:

But I refer you to your post HERE What's that about?

It's called wry humor . . . if you need an explanation, it won't make sense to you anyway. I was born in New York, so knowing you were born in Joisy simply elicits pity from me.

Quote:

BTW, I'd rather be trashed by you than almost anyone else on the forum. I appreciate your no BS style.

Flattery, and a buck and half, will get you a bus ride across town.

0 Replies

AHH, New Yawk. I remember all the trips to Spring Valley where the drinking age was more in line with our youthful stupidity. Why we weren't among those killed in those Friday night migrations, I'll never know.

But just to be more specific, the destructon of Babylon the Great refers to the destruction of the hoodwinkers. The hoodwinkees are a different lot. Zechariah wrote about a future confrontation in chapter 13:4-6.

PS: Frank, did you hear what he said?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Welcome to the forum, gospelmancan2. I'm sure you will find a cornucopia of opinions. Enjoy!

Thanks much. I really hope that at the end of the day we can all respect each other no matter what we stand for. I have joined other forums to leave later because of personal attacks and mindless BS by the few on the many.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

No, 00 Agent Kid, that is not what it says, as SN95 correctly pointed out, that is how you choose to interpret it. If it said precisely what you claimed it had, you would not need to provide explanations of the symbolism you claim lies therein.

SN95 makes a good point about religious beliefs which pre-date christianity. In particular, the Aryan tribes of the Medes and Farsi/Persians had such a belief system, in the form of Zoarastrianism. The Hebrews were exposed to this belief system during the Babylonian captivity. While i do not know the credentials and therefore cannot endorse as expert Dr. M. D. Magee, listed as the author, this site gives a rudimentary explanation of the introduction of those belief sets into the middle east. (Now, i just hope no one comes along and demonstrates that this web site is a facist front.)

Upon a closer examination, this seems to be a full-blown, bull-goose looney christian site. Oh well . . . i do suggest a study of Zoarastrianism for those who wish to explore the origins of many of "the world's great religions."

This is a prime example of taking something out of context, if you would spend the time to read and understand the entire bible, you would see that it fits perfectly as to what 00 agent kid said.

gospelmancan2 wrote:

Thanks much. I really hope that at the end of the day we can all respect each other no matter what we stand for. I have joined other forums to leave later because of personal attacks and mindless BS by the few on the many.

Don't count on getting too much sympathy for being a Christian... there are many people on here who despise Christians...

0 Replies

booman2 wrote:

This ought to get your blood to boiling 00,
.....I have read in several places, that in various Art museums in Europe. there are paintings showing Maddona and Christ, as black.

It does not bother me at all. All human beings have the same skin color. The only difference is the amount of melanin (pigment) in our bodies. In any case, what does skin color have to do with anything in this discussion?

0 Replies

Thunder_runner, if you wish to cherish such illusions, you help yourself, but don't quote me in the process. As you have had the poor judgment to do so, i will respond that i do indeed despise that particular type of self-deluded christian who attempts to shove said delusions down the throats of others as you have ever proven to be here.

Don't quote me again unless you have specific remarks to adduce about what i have written. Your horseshit about having taken that passage out of context without demonstrating that this is the case makes it just that--horseshit.

0 Replies

First of all, I should probably warn you that I'm going to quote you. Please don't crucify me for doing so, for I am not in a particularly "Stone me for my beliefs!" mood, I apologize.

Quote:

Thunder_runner, if you wish to cherish such illusions, you help yourself, but don't quote me in the process.

Sorry, but in an intelligent discussion one of the best ways to respond is to quote exactly what you are responding to. If you don't want your statements to generate response, then say them to yourself when you're alone in your home. Otherwise, it is not a very good debate tactic to respond without noting what you are responding. To lash out in an attempt to stifle such activity in the midst of a discussion is quote moronic. Or, if I may use your own crude term, a complete load of horse****.

Quote:

As you have had the poor judgment to do so, i will respond that i do indeed despise that particular type of self-deluded christian who attempts to shove said delusions down the throats of others as you have ever proven to be here.

If what thunder_runner is doing is shoving down his "delusions" down your throat, then I must say that your comments in your above post is analogious to shoving an entire truckload (perhaps loaded with horse****?) of your "delusions" into his face and forcing him to swallow.

This is a discussion thread. If you don't want to discuss it, then don't. You are not obligated to adhere to the beliefs presented, for that is all that they are being done-- being presented. Don't assume just because they are in constrast to your own opinions that they are offensive.

Quote:

Don't quote me again unless you have specific remarks to adduce about what i have written.

So now the legitimacy of a response is measured by its details? Puh-leez. More horse**** on your part.

Quote:

Your horseshit about having taken that passage out of context without demonstrating that this is the case makes it just that--horseshit.

Perhaps he would be willing to explain how you took things out of context if you didn't lash out at the first sign that you might be wrong. You're obviously blinded by your own self-righteousness from what I see-- and with your post above as evidence "demonstrating that," I'm sure that coming to that conclusion doesn't include any amount of horse****. Smile

0 Replies

gospelmancan2 wrote:

neologist wrote:
Welcome to the forum, gospelmancan2. I'm sure you will find a cornucopia of opinions. Enjoy!
Thanks much. I really hope that at the end of the day we can all respect each other no matter what we stand for. I have joined other forums to leave later because of personal attacks and mindless BS by the few on the many.

I hear Gumby just celerbrated his 50th birthday. He hasn't aged a bit. I don't think you should be concerned if some of the posts get personal. You have to look at he big picture. Oftentimes a post will be a manifestation of some problem in a member's personal life that we have no way of knowing: chapped lips, paper cuts, hemorrhoids. You know the story. For some, it's fleas. Yep; I wouldna believed it; but it's true.

0 Replies

The point, which you apparently missed, is that Thunder_runner quoted me, but only responded to what i wrote elliptically with a denial, and that based upon his statement from authority. Contending that i have "lashed out" is simply a characterization which you choose to use, it is not based upon any of the clues to a person's state of mind which are available in face to face conversation. What i have written does not authorize any assumption about my emotional temperament, because you can't possibly know anything on the subject. My remarks about what Thunder_runner attempts to shove down people's throats is based upon a long familiarity with that member's posts--especially in a thread on evolution, which was, typically, posted to the spirituality and religion forum. So many of the fanatically religious come here to discuss science, by starting threads in the religion forum. Thunder_runner just loves those threads. His MO is the allusion to scripture, followed by a statement from authority as to precisely what god means in said passage. This is, of course facilitated by the unfailingly obscure and ambiguous character of the passages he chooses to cite. A greater familiarity with T_R's "contributions" to these fora, and the tone of rising hysteria and invective which T_R employs when contradicted might have enlightened you as the habit he has of attempting to "shove down our throats" his belief system. I called for a specific response from him with regard to any post of mine which he quotes because his method here is quite in keeping with past experience. He will quote an extensive post (he often quotes posts much longer and more detailed than mine was here), only to respond with vague scriptural allusions, alleged to mean whatever he contends they mean, and quite often with an angry denunciation of the person who has posted that to which he objects. I served him here as he has served so many others (and usually not me) elsewhere in these fora. He can become just as strident and offensive toward those of religious conviction with whom he does not agree as he does with those who dispute his dicta point by point. My contention, in regard to the passage of scripture which 00 Agent Kid had posted, was that the passage could only mean what he claimed it meaned by inference, and that the meaning he claimed for it was not clear on the face of it, the evidence for that being the compulsion he was under to explain the symbolism of the passage in order to demonstrate his original claim with regard to its meaning. In short, 00 Agent Kid said that the passage stated something outright, but then was obliged to introduce symbolic meanings to sustain the claim--a clear contradiction.

So enter Thunder_Runner, with his umpteenth appeal to no other authority than his own word, and a blunt, i'm right and all of you are wrong response to my post. The entire issue of who is right and who is wrong about a passage of obscurely worded and ambiguous scripture is meaningless to me, so saying that i am wrong does not arouse my ire. Saying as much without attempting to demonstrate the case, however, does elicit my contempt. In the case of Thunder_Runner, based upon his rap sheet in these fora, it will elicit a very decided contempt, indeed.

The dog in my avatar photo has no fleas, and is in fact the recipient of first-class medical care at great expense, not a penny of which is begrudged.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The dog in my avatar photo has no fleas, and is in fact the recipient of first-class medical care at great expense, not a penny of which is begrudged.

Now what is that supposed to mean?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

You know the story. For some, it's fleas. Yep; I wouldna believed it; but it's true.

Now what is that supposed to mean?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Now what is that supposed to mean?

I think it means you're not so much of a curmudgeon after all.

0 Replies

I have never mudgeoned a cur in all my days. In fact, i eschew the use of the term cur, as the contempt it implies ignores the lowly condition of the dog to which it applies having arisen through human abuse.

0 Replies

Have a pepsi, Setanta!

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/pepsi.gif

The thread is much too intense. It's only religion, you know.

0 Replies

I prefer Co'cola, but your generous offer is appreciated for the spirit in which it is made. I find the thread to be quite entertaining, actually.

0 Replies

I never meant to "shove things down throats". I am just trying to defend the faith that is my life as best as I can.

Quote:

Don't quote me again unless you have specific remarks to adduce about what i have written. Your horseshit about having taken that passage out of context without demonstrating that this is the case makes it just that--horseshit.

I was just making a general statement that you will not achieve any understanding of the Bible if you fail to understand it in a whole. If you went into the Bible with a better understanding, you would be able to understand 00 agent kid's remark. At least it would make sense.

Quote:

with his umpteenth appeal to no other authority than his own word, and a blunt, i'm right and all of you are wrong response to my post.

Have you ever proved me wrong?

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Don't count on getting too much sympathy for being a Christian... there are many people on here who despise Christians...

Isn't it funny how so many people (not just this forum but generally) are threatened by something they claim is false. Sounds like a serious case of insecurity to me. My Christianity wouldn't be worth much if I were as insecure as some unbelievers seem. (I can hear the quote buttons clicking on that one. lol)
I don't count on much sympathy. After all they crucified Jesus and stoned Stephen didn't they?

0 Replies

Ah yes, martyrdom beckons the masochistic christian, does it not?

0 Replies

Quote:

Isn't it funny how so many people (not just this forum but generally) are threatened by something they claim is false. Sounds like a serious case of insecurity to me.

That is funny...that's like being afraid of someone's imaginary friend. Smile

0 Replies

Imaginery friend, how very à propos . . .

0 Replies

Which Religion is the One True Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know