DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PURE CHRISTIANITY AND JEHOVAS WITNESSES?

Kinda dubious math there, Boss--but i see your point, the end is nigh . . . i better get wasted and indulge in indiscrimate sexual perversity while there's still time . . . before the psalm singers take over . . . on the bright side, though, when all the bobble-thumpers have wafted up to heaven in the rapture, there'll be much shorter hours in Hell than the Hossanah Singers will have to put in--after all, there'll be so many more of us . . .

Ouch, now you're hurting me. But you're right: time to get drunk, gambling and fornicating while we still can.

Setanta,

I didn't say it didn't or wouldn't count. I just asked someone to tell me when the last time was.

I would add the murders and bombings of abortion clinics by pro-lifers who do so in the name of God to Set's list.

I think you can count that those bombings of abortion clinics were okayed by God about as much as the planes flying into the Twin Towers was.

My point is this, it doesn't seem to matter that there are true Christians that really follow Christ's teachings. The ones that are focused on are the ones considered fanatics and fundies.

But your question wasn't if they were okayed by God....It was when was the last time people were slaughtered in the name of God.

I think abortion clinic bombing qualify for that.

I guess I should have clarified that a bit. In the OT yes, God condoned and even ordered wars and killing.

He does not do that today. PEOPLE do that. Not God.

So, she told ya for a fact this was so?

Do you call your father, she Setanta? The Bible calls God the father. That is why I refer to Him as a He.

I read the Bible, Setanta. I'm not getting into an argument with you. I don't feel you and I have much to say to each other, do you? Please don't answer that. It wasn't meant as requesting a reply.

Yes, i am well aware of your propensity for snotty pot shots to which you think you can talk your way out of a rejoinder. The Bobble is authority for nothing more than the fantasies of those credulous enough to lend it any authority.

So, like, how do you know god is non-violent, did she tell ya that?

she's black.

Which is gonna make a lotta folks mighty uncomfortable some day . . .

I follow the New Testament. I have explained that many times. I have explained that once Christ came into the picture He became our intercessory.

You don't agree with me and that's fine. Make all the jokes and snide remarks you want. They are offensive to me. But, all I can do is tell you how I feel and believe.

And, Setanta, perhaps your signature lines just might be perceived as pot shots by some?

I wasn't making a pot by that don't you call your father a he. I was just saying that is how I view it.

Huh? so God ordering killing was all a thing of yesteryear and not today?

where does it say that God said, ok, i'm not going to order or condone anymore killings. from this point on, if any killings are condoned or ordered, it's man doing it, not me.

I don't remember Jesus saying that either, unless it's one of those interpretation things that all these other people got to do at some point, but never me personally. If I interpret something, I'm going against Gods word. If someone else interprets it, they're, well, interpretting it.

can you quote chapter and verse where it says that? I don't mind looking it up to verify it says that, if you can site it.

Not meaning to sound snotting, but my comment above makes me wonder.....How exactly is it established who gets to interpret the Bible?

I've been told my thoughts are wrong because that's not what the bible says, but if someone else talks about the bible, and it doesn't sound like I think it means, they're interpreting it.

Is it some kind of closed society of bible interpreters that get a special certificate in bible interpretation?

What gets you in the club?

The ACLU Cultist is a reference to silly thread in which we are enjoying ourselves based upon the hilarious paranoid delusions of a christian who contributes here--if that bothers you, tough.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda is a pot shot as far as you're concerned? How very silly . . . i don't believe i've read anything sillier in quite some time . . . it was written, you know, by a Christian of high repute in his own times . . .

That's Aclucultist, Set. It's already a word. You are on the leading edge of modern thought.

MA; About christians killing in the name of God: You could Google Rwandan Christians for a few modern references.

Religionists have a clever way of justifying their blood guilty excesses. They simply re-label their victims:
No longer people, they are:
Japs
Krauts
Kikes
Niggers
Infidels
Queers
Terrorists
Etc.

A friend of mine has an interesting WWII artifact; it is a German military belt buckle inscribed with the words "Gott Mit Uns." Undoubtedly worn by a German Lutheran or Catholic killed by an American Lutheran or Catholic.

Oh, and Thomas. The JWs, long before they called themselves JWs and long before the year 1914, identified that year as the end of the so-called Gentile Times. That it is a pivotal year in modern history is simply a coincidence, I'm sure.

Chai Tea,

The New Testament does not talk of going out and killing those against God. The New Testament speaks of love and peace.

Setanta, I was referring to the ACLU comment. I didn't say it bothered me, I just asked if it might be perceived as some as a pot shot? I really try to say exactly what I mean so you don't need to read anything into my words.

I know who the first signature line was quoting. I looked it up. I look up most of the signature lines if I don't know what they mean.

And I really don't care if you think it's silly. I don't care much for you either Setanta. I find you extremely rude and offensive. Sometimes, I feel like you go out of your way to be like that. But, that's just my opinion.

Revelations is love and peace?

It's Revelation. And the Book of Revelation is a book of Prophecy. But, I think you already knew that.

So, MOAN, i wonder if you can explain why anyone reasonable would consider a quote of William of Occam to be "a pot shot"--which is not an implication, it's what you wrote.

I removed the ACLU cultist reference, but certainly not in deference to you--you do nothing to deserve consideration. I did it because i took exception to the direction in which that thread had gone. I don't expect you to understand--it's not something covered in the Bobble . . .