The problem with the Christian God

[Andrew W]

The problem with the Christian God.

Since that alleged infamous day (according to the famous story) that Adam
and Eve got confused by the serpent in the Garden Of Eden and mistakenly
picked a fruit from a tree, the Christian version of God has shown very
little if any real caring or love towards humanity (except for some lip
service in the Christian Bible).
He has shown only callousness and harsh judgement. So callous that he would
even let everyone burn in a hell for all eternity just for not believing,
repenting and worshipping him, which is quite monstrous and silly when you
think about it.

In fact if God was a human parent, he would be by far the worst parent ever.
Even human parents go out of their way to save their children from the
slightest harm regardless of whether the child is good or bad, obedient or
disobedient. In fact even if the child decided they wanted to kill
themselves!
You see human parents actually love their children. The Christian god
doesn't. He's a liar!

Of course Christians will always jump to his defence and say that the
individuals didn't repent, or they chose not to be with him. But there are
some problems with this.
Firstly, what kind of parent would say to their child "you must choose
between me, or to be with my worst enemy in a tormenting fire"?
What kind of dumb and callous ultimatum is that to a defenceless and
dependant creation?
Its totally crazy when you think about it!

Secondly, why are there no other alternatives other than eternal punishment
in a fire? I mean really. Think about it. Isn't there anywhere else in
this huge universe that God could put those that don't want to dwell with
him directly other than in a fire? Lol. Sure there is. This planet has
already been one for a start.

But the other question is how can we decide whether to be with God or not if
we haven't even met him? 2000 years ago some people allegedly met God or
Christ, but today we know very little about him. And the Bible
doesn't make a very complete and flattering picture of God (unless of course
you only go by the lip service of God being loving etc). So how can we
decide? Preachers and the Pope are certainly no help!
And why is it necessary for us to be burned in a fire forever if we don't
decide, or if we don't like the version of God we're told by our parents or
the preacher? The entire thing is so silly and barbaric when you really
think about it. Its obviously an old scam that society never got rid of.
Maybe there is a God, but it certainly wouldn't as base and callous as the
old Christian version.


--
If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it
contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the
authority and base your reasoning on your own findings. ~Leonardo da Vinci

Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his
intelligence; he is just using his memory. ~Leonardo da Vinci

[Andrew W]

"Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message
news:Mm2Tr.31236$%Y2....@newsfe02.iad

> When parents have an errant child, yes they try to help the child help
> themselves. There comes a time when the cord must be cut if they
> truly love their child. Otherwise they enable the wrong that they do
> until it grows to a point where something so heinous happens that the
> law sticks them in jail for life or worse yet terminates their life.
> Is that Love? No, true love kicks them out, lets them hit rockbottom,
> and hopefully speedily, so that they will return to the family for
> help in straightening out. This time you can be fairly certain the
> kid wants to straighten it out.
>
> There is God and satan speaking to you. Satan is up to no good and
> will slyly pull you away from God, little by little until he has you
> under his control. Oh Yes, satan is here and all his minions. God is
> always trying to talk to you as well, but satan pushes his way
> through. If you chose the side of satan (or by default you do it) you
> are siding with the devil.
>
> Chose whom you wish to serve, there is no middle ground. You have
> shown you understand enough for judgment even at this moment.
>

What makes you think satan is speaking to me? Is it somehow evil to question
the Christian religion's beliefs?
But how can one choose satan if one hasn't even met him and doesn't know
him? And why would they have to?
Its a silly and pointless ultimatum to be forced to choose between two
unseen entities that we can't see or get to know.

And why would we be condemned to hell forever? What if we change and get
"straightened out" and want to come back to God? Why doesn't he let us back?
And why can't we just live on our own planet somewhere if we don't want to
live with God?
You haven't really answered much so far.
Can't you see that this all sounds really base and sus and can't be rational
reality?

[duke]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:03:33 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>The problem with the Christian God.

For starters: none.

>Since that alleged infamous day (according to the famous story) that Adam
>and Eve got confused by the serpent in the Garden Of Eden and mistakenly
>picked a fruit from a tree, the Christian version of God has shown very
>little if any real caring or love towards humanity (except for some lip
>service in the Christian Bible).

Wow, put your eye balls back in.

>He has shown only callousness and harsh judgement. So callous that he would
>even let everyone burn in a hell for all eternity just for not believing,
>repenting and worshipping him, which is quite monstrous and silly when you
>think about it.

>In fact if God was a human parent, he would be by far the worst parent ever.

He is THE role model for human parenthood.

AW, have you ever in your life tried to study or research your words before you
vomit them on the net?

The dukester, American - American
********************************************
A vote for obama is a vote for the end of
democracy in America as we know it. Let the
rolling thunder guide your decision at the
ballot box to put an end to Imperial Obama.
May God bless America.
********************************************

[duke]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 16:03:01 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>What makes you think satan is speaking to me?

The way you act.

[duke]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 09:56:55 -0700, Pete <b...@sod.cal> wrote:

>You are condemned forever because you trampled on the sacrifice of Jesus
>and His shed blood. The price He paid so that you could enjoy freedom and
>happiness.

You're never removed from following him. Eternal salvation depends on it.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:385q18pfj4138jvd3...@4ax.com

> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 16:03:01 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> What makes you think satan is speaking to me?
>
> The way you act.
>

Questioning old religious beliefs?
What exactly is the evil in that?

[Andrew W]

"Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message

news:vvcTr.17121$H23....@newsfe19.iad

> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 16:03:01 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
>
>> "Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message
>> news:Mm2Tr.31236$%Y2....@newsfe02.iad
>>>

>>> When parents have an errant child, yes they try to help the child
>>> help themselves. There comes a time when the cord must be cut if
>>> they truly love their child. Otherwise they enable the wrong that
>>> they do until it grows to a point where something so heinous
>>> happens that the law sticks them in jail for life or worse yet
>>> terminates their life. Is that Love? No, true love kicks them out,
>>> lets them hit rockbottom, and hopefully speedily, so that they will
>>> return to the family for help in straightening out. This time you
>>> can be fairly certain the kid wants to straighten it out.
>>>
>>> There is God and satan speaking to you. Satan is up to no good and
>>> will slyly pull you away from God, little by little until he has you
>>> under his control. Oh Yes, satan is here and all his minions. God is
>>> always trying to talk to you as well, but satan pushes his way
>>> through. If you chose the side of satan (or by default you do it)
>>> you are siding with the devil.
>>>
>>> Chose whom you wish to serve, there is no middle ground. You have
>>> shown you understand enough for judgment even at this moment.
>>>
>>
>> What makes you think satan is speaking to me? Is it somehow evil to
>> question the Christian religion's beliefs? But how can one choose
>> satan if one hasn't even met him and doesn't know him? And why would
>> they have to? Its a silly and pointless ultimatum to be forced to
>> choose between two unseen entities that we can't see or get to know.
>>

> What made you focus on Satan? I stated God and satan. It is not evil
> to question. Oh both are there, denying their existence is the unreal
> part. It is just like drugs talking to the user, it isn't the drug
> talking it is satan.
>

I don't deny either of those two concepts. And that's what they are,
dualistic concepts that are components of all of our conscious make up as
humans on this planet.
Christianity has personified them into single individuals and passed on
stories about them in ancient traditions.

>
>> And why would we be condemned to hell forever? What if we change and
>> get "straightened out" and want to come back to God? Why doesn't he
>> let us back? And why can't we just live on our own planet somewhere
>> if we don't want to live with God? You haven't really answered much
>> so far. Can't you see that this all sounds really base and sus and
>> can't be rational reality?
>

> You are condemned forever because you trampled on the sacrifice of
> Jesus and His shed blood. The price He paid so that you could enjoy
> freedom and happiness.
>

Why forever?
But don't you think the scape goat story of Jesus having to *pay* for a
wrong on our behalf is a bit silly, given that it takes away our
self-responsibility?
And why does blood need to come into the equation?
Its pretty clear that this is all ancient Hebrew animal slaughter/sacrifice
tradition and not spirituality at all.
How would shedding innocent blood resolve a problem? Clearly its just to
satisfy the wrath of an angry Hebrew god figure that's no more.
Doesn't it strike you as even slightly odd that a loving creator would need
animal or human blood to satisfy his anger like an angry mafia boss or
something?
And why would God get angry and frustrated over something that he himself
carefully planned and created?
I think its high time humanity started questioning these old religious
beliefs instead of just accepting them century after century.

>
> As to this being real? Been there, done that, found out it is real,
> totally real, really real. That spiritual is forever to life, to
> death. Now wishing I had decided this way much earlier. This is
> experience speaking.
>

We all have experiences that register to us as very real.
People belonging to cults including Islam say the very same things. They
also swear that their beliefs are totally 100% real.
Have you actually experienced a wrathful god wanting blood and payment? I
doubt it very much.
I'm not saying here there is no God, just not a angry and wrathful one who
callously abandons his creations forever without any chance of reprieve.
That was clearly just used to scare people straight, and in some cases it
worked, except for the truly evil who don't believe in it. Unfortunately
they're the ones who really needed it.

[duke]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 07:52:50 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

wrote:

>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:385q18pfj4138jvd3...@4ax.com
>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 16:03:01 +1000, "Andrew W"
>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>>> What makes you think satan is speaking to me?
>> The way you act.

>Questioning old religious beliefs?
>What exactly is the evil in that?

1. Ignorance of what old beliefs say.
2. Thus living the wrong life style which you clearly demonstrate.
3. Rejection to the kingdom of God by your demonstrated lack of interest.

[duke]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 08:57:30 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

Really!! LIke loving one another as Jesus loves us.

>>> And why would we be condemned to hell forever? What if we change and
>>> get "straightened out" and want to come back to God? Why doesn't he
>>> let us back? And why can't we just live on our own planet somewhere
>>> if we don't want to live with God? You haven't really answered much
>>> so far. Can't you see that this all sounds really base and sus and
>>> can't be rational reality?
>>
>> You are condemned forever because you trampled on the sacrifice of
>> Jesus and His shed blood. The price He paid so that you could enjoy
>> freedom and happiness.

>Why forever?

Your forever is declared by you at the moment you die. It's your final
position. There is no more decision time available.

>But don't you think the scape goat story of Jesus having to *pay* for a
>wrong on our behalf is a bit silly, given that it takes away our
>self-responsibility?
>And why does blood need to come into the equation?
>Its pretty clear that this is all ancient Hebrew animal slaughter/sacrifice
>tradition and not spirituality at all.

The key is unquestioned obedience to God thus reflected in blood of the cross.

>How would shedding innocent blood resolve a problem? Clearly its just to
>satisfy the wrath of an angry Hebrew god figure that's no more.
>Doesn't it strike you as even slightly odd that a loving creator would need
>animal or human blood to satisfy his anger like an angry mafia boss or
>something?
>And why would God get angry and frustrated over something that he himself
>carefully planned and created?
>I think its high time humanity started questioning these old religious
>beliefs instead of just accepting them century after century.
>
>>
>> As to this being real? Been there, done that, found out it is real,
>> totally real, really real. That spiritual is forever to life, to
>> death. Now wishing I had decided this way much earlier. This is
>> experience speaking.

>We all have experiences that register to us as very real.
>People belonging to cults including Islam say the very same things. They
>also swear that their beliefs are totally 100% real.

Yes, they do, but not a word about loving one another as Jesus loves us, and he
died on the cross out of demonstrated obedience to God out of love for us.

>Have you actually experienced a wrathful god wanting blood and payment? I
>doubt it very much.
>I'm not saying here there is no God, just not a angry and wrathful one who
>callously abandons his creations forever without any chance of reprieve.
>That was clearly just used to scare people straight, and in some cases it
>worked, except for the truly evil who don't believe in it. Unfortunately
>they're the ones who really needed it.

[Andrew W]

"Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message

news:aViTr.68895$iI7....@newsfe03.iad

> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 08:57:30 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
>
>> "Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message
>> news:vvcTr.17121$H23....@newsfe19.iad
>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 16:03:01 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think satan is speaking to me? Is it somehow evil to
>>>> question the Christian religion's beliefs? But how can one choose
>>>> satan if one hasn't even met him and doesn't know him? And why
>>>> would they have to? Its a silly and pointless ultimatum to be
>>>> forced to choose between two unseen entities that we can't see or
>>>> get to know.
>>>>
>>> What made you focus on Satan? I stated God and satan. It is not evil
>>> to question. Oh both are there, denying their existence is the
>>> unreal part. It is just like drugs talking to the user, it isn't
>>> the drug talking it is satan.
>>>
>>
>> I don't deny either of those two concepts. And that's what they are,
>> dualistic concepts that are components of all of our conscious make
>> up as humans on this planet.
>> Christianity has personified them into single individuals and passed
>> on stories about them in ancient traditions.
>>
>

> Have you stopped to consider all the various religions of the world?
> That most all have devils or evil of some sort and a god of some
> sort?
>

Yes. I study religions.

>
Some religions that have been around longer than Christianity.
> And those one cannot blame for the concepts. The concepts appear to
> be ingrained into us, like a program. Some even worship evil because
> they enjoy the temporary pleasure and get addicted to it. It is also
> the path of least resistance so why not, hence hedonism and its
> attendant diseases and social problems.
>
> Then ask yourself, why is it that Christianity and or Judaism is the
> ones most chose to pick fights with or seek to destroy? It is like a
> magnet, why? I don't remember any atheist picking on Hinduism,
> Buddhism and the like. So what do all these religions and the
> protester of Christianity have in common?
>

Christianity etc. are picked on because they are the biggest and they preach
the most in society.
Buddhists etc. on the other hand keep to themselves and don't go around
telling everyone that they're sinners and will be burned unless they believe
and submit to Jesus who's dripping with blood on a cross.
You can understand how gross and annoying that can be can't you?

>>>
>>>> And why would we be condemned to hell forever? What if we change
>>>> and get "straightened out" and want to come back to God? Why
>>>> doesn't he let us back? And why can't we just live on our own
>>>> planet somewhere if we don't want to live with God? You haven't
>>>> really answered much so far. Can't you see that this all sounds
>>>> really base and sus and can't be rational reality?
>>>
>>> You are condemned forever because you trampled on the sacrifice of
>>> Jesus and His shed blood. The price He paid so that you could enjoy
>>> freedom and happiness.
>>>
>>
>> Why forever?
>

> Because a spirit once created cannot be destroyed. There might be a
> better explanation in Heaven but that is all I have for now.
>

But you've completely forgotten about choice. A person can choose a
different path at any point in this realm or the next.
No one can stand or would want to be in one place forever. Its
illogical. Eternal hell was just a scare tactic by the early Judeo religion.

>
>> But don't you think the scape goat story of Jesus having to *pay*
>> for a wrong on our behalf is a bit silly, given that it takes away
>> our self-responsibility?
>

> It has been well proven that we cannot do it ourselves.
>

Really? Where has it been proven? People are helping themselves
and changing and improving themselves all the time.

>
With the
> Mosaic Law and without it we cannot be perfect. So Jesus made it
> possible going backwards in time as well as forward. Self, seems such
> an unimportant thing but it butts heads with God. Self is what caused
> the downfall of Lucifer.
>

Self is what makes us individuals. Any 'god' that can't tolerate
individuality is a false tyrannical god who just wants to put beings under
its subjection.
There is much evidence that the Judeo-Christian god figure was such a being,
and that's why we should leave it behind in ancient history where it
belongs.
We have far better notions of God now.

>
>> And why does blood need to come into the equation?
>

> Without the shedding of blood there is no remission or cleansing of
> sin.
>

That was just an old Hebrew mantra based on their primitive animal sacrifice
traditions. It has no relevance in our modern society.
It was their belief and tradition. Its time to let it go because it makes no
rational sense at all.
I'm shocked and surprised that there are people in the 21st century still
beating that old drum.
Its becoming almost shameful.

>
Something well understood in the old days where sacrifices were
> common and still easily understood by bush people. example, I kill
> your son, now our families are at war, I must give you my son to
> repay my wrong and many variants on that. I'm not good at explaining
> that but I understand it.
>

A loving creator would have no need for this tit-for-tat stuff. Only humans
behave like that.

>
>> Its pretty clear that this is all ancient Hebrew animal
>> slaughter/sacrifice tradition and not spirituality at all.
>

> Actually if one understood Judaism one would see a thread of Gods Love
> flowing through it all.
>

You must have a strange definition of love.

>
Although God did not like sacrifices it was a
> necessity.
>

How so?

>
There was a specific sacrifice for sin, once a year
> prototyping that of Jesus. Those that did it were forgiven even then
> by faith, but it was necessary to do it annually.
>

What makes you think God would forgive a misdemeanour just because someone
callously kills one of his other creations? Think about it.

>
>> How would shedding innocent blood resolve a problem? Clearly its
>> just to satisfy the wrath of an angry Hebrew god figure that's no
>> more.
>

> If I kill your brother most people would want my blood, society
> especially. A dope dealer, destructor of human kind a child molester.
> Their blood is required of them. The only shedding of innocent blood
> was that of Jesus Christ. He was willing to be the sacrifice to
> appease the wrath of God against men and their willingness to sin.
>

What wrath of God? There's never been any evidence of it.
It was just an ancient belief.

>
At
> the last minutes He asked God the Father if He could take this cup
> from Him, hoping most likely that there might be another way. Yet He
> said, not my will but yours be done. Thus He went to the cross
> without complaining, whining or crying.
>

We really don't know what Christ actually said on the cross or why or the
context. Most of that is just story telling and illustration in the
scriptures.

>
He took all the abuse that
> man had to offer, then gave up the ghost (his spirit) and went to
> hell to complete that portion of His task. When God was satisfied and
> all his wrath gone,
>

Again, what wrath?

>
He rose Jesus from the dead. For 2000 years God
> has not acted out of anger for our wrong doing.
>

Why not? That's a bit odd don't you think?

>
He couldn't. Jesus
> paid for all our sin.
>

Jesus took away all of our self-responsibility? Why would he do such a
counter productive a thing?

>
However, in a few years that period of time is
> over. Jesus returns for those that have died before us, and those of
> us who are alive and pulls us out of the earth. Then the time of the
> Gentiles is over, the earth given over to satan for 7 years during
> which 3/5's or the remaining population will die by various means.
> Then Jesus returns to the earth.
>

And none of this strikes you as odd in the least?

>
>> Doesn't it strike you as even slightly odd that a loving creator
>> would need animal or human blood to satisfy his anger like an angry
>> mafia boss or something?
>

> At one time, perhaps.
>

But you allowed yourself to be conditioned to it all and then you eventually
accepted it. Right?

>
But that came with the Mosaic Law.
>

Yes. And that's where it should've remained. In the annuls of history.

>
Remember
> when one of Adams sons killed his brother, God marked him so no one
> would kill him and sent him off to live in his own area with his wife
> and children. It was only when the whole earth was evil and evil
> spirit infested that God had to destroy all and save a few. There
> were some very mighty men of God during that time, but it wasn't
> until the last died + a few years before He sent the flood. Even so
> God provided a way of escape, that boat could handle a lot of people,
> and they all knew who God was but they wanted to live their lives to
> the fullest (in sin) God has always provided a way of escape for the
> righteous.
>

I hope you realise that this was all mostly just an ancient story.

>
>> And why would God get angry and frustrated over something that he
>> himself carefully planned and created?
>

> He did not plan and create their ways.
>

But he knew what they would do, which would completely negate the need or
cause to become angry about it.

>
He created the Earth etc. Gave
> all the authority to Adam, who promptly gave it to satan. So in that
> sense Gods hands were tied
>

Impossible. God is responsible for all of creation. His hands can never be
tied.

>
and he needed to send someone to redeem
> the earth and everything in it. Hence Jesus.
>

Nothing would need to be redeemed for a truly loving and compassionate
Creator.
Only a very intolerant and snooty god would get so shirty over his own
creation's petty mistakes. Or a false god entity, which the ancient Judeo
god looked very much to be.
You only have to look at how different (in fact virtually opposite) the old
Judeo god and Jesus were in their attitudes. The first was very wrathful,
callous and war like, the other very friendly, peaceful, tolerant and
helpful. They were so different that they can't possibly be related.

>
We all have free will.
> To do good or bad, and even those who are redeemed have the choice of
> living life to the fullest via a pre-planned course or their own
> course. He, God, Knowing the nature of men could pretty much detect
> ahead of time what we are going to do, and some things he can plan on
> the larger scope, but on the smaller even He has to wait for us to
> play out our hand. Had He jumped the gun then everyone could blame
> him. You know how that would go.
>

Doesn't at all sound like the God of all creation to me. You should know
that there were a lot of impostors posing to be God back in those days
and many people got pulled in. In fact many of those went on to write the
scriptures! So be very careful what you believe.

>
>
>> I think its high time humanity started questioning these old
>> religious beliefs instead of just accepting them century after
>> century.
>>
>

> Yes, they should. Especially comparing religions against the only
> known standard we have and that being the Bible.
>

You want to question everything in the world except the Bible? That's a big
mistake.
That's just as bad as Muslims refusing to questioning the Quran.

>
Religionists suck
> big time, wanting control of your life, or money, or something.
> Keeping one in bondage, rites and rituals. Now some like that because
> they feel their future is in someone else's hands and all they have
> to do is play the game. They don't realize the onus is on them and
> religion cannot do anything for them. Now a church can teach, and
> they should, but we have to live the life.
>

Be careful, because you have already allowed a religion (Christianity) to
shape your mind and limit your thinking and human potentials.

>
Jesus will give us the
> tools and gifts, the ability to live in Joy and Love, etc as we chose
> to live in Him.
>

Not as long as you subscribe to a religion's beliefs he won't.

>
We can also taste of the powers in eternity, in this
> life. That God has for us. So Yes, I agree in the main, but it
> requires being open, fully open to accepting the truth no matter
> where it lies.
>

Would you be open minded enough to consider that many of the stories in the
Bible might not be exactly true and that the truth in some cases can be
found in other places?

>
The stuff one see's here pretty much sucks. There is
> few that love one another, most are contentious, You say white
> they'll say black, for no purpose and certainly not to understand
> either side of the story.
>
> I have heard of more than one person going out into the back country
> and letting it all out when they were really serious about knowing
> what it is that you were talking about. Seems they were usually the
> ones who turned the earth upside down when they learned for
> themselves what the truth really is.

>
>>>
>>> As to this being real? Been there, done that, found out it is real,
>>> totally real, really real. That spiritual is forever to life, to
>>> death. Now wishing I had decided this way much earlier. This is
>>> experience speaking.
>>>
>>
>> We all have experiences that register to us as very real.
>> People belonging to cults including Islam say the very same things.
>> They also swear that their beliefs are totally 100% real.
>> Have you actually experienced a wrathful god wanting blood and
>> payment? I doubt it very much.
>

> No, because He has no wrath ATM. I have had Him ask me why I was doing
> something the way I was when I knew better. I have had Him ask me if
> I was ready to follow Him over the years. But on the day to day walk
> the bible says draw near to Him and He will draw near to you.

>
>> I'm not saying here there is no God, just not a angry and wrathful
>> one who callously abandons his creations forever without any chance
>> of reprieve. That was clearly just used to scare people straight,
>> and in some cases it worked, except for the truly evil who don't
>> believe in it. Unfortunately they're the ones who really needed it.
>

> When one studies the word seriously they see God always forewarned of
> impending disasters if they were to be by Him. Regardless of whether
> they be Jews or not. Jonah, who despised the Ninevites (sp) was sent
> to them to forewarn them of total disaster if they did not change
> their ways. They did and they were saved for a couple hundred years
> but then reverted to their old ways and were destroyed. God saved
> specific people out of bad situations, complete nations and likewise
> destroyed those that would not listen. Even the great flood was no
> surprise.
>
> God did not abandon us, we abandon Him.
>

I don't agree. Thousands of people have prayed to him and he was nowhere to
be found.

>
There is no room in heaven for
> eternal evil. He provides us with a path that meets His desires and
> we are purified in such a way that we are then Justified by Him and
> get to live forever in luxury.
>
>
> --
> Peter
> A living Stone
> A Disciple of The Lord Jesus Christ
> Joh 13:34-35 KJV
> Join up now.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:kprs18ltl1b92avbu...@4ax.com

> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 07:52:50 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:385q18pfj4138jvd3...@4ax.com
>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 16:03:01 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>>> What makes you think satan is speaking to me?
>>> The way you act.
>
>> Questioning old religious beliefs?
>> What exactly is the evil in that?
>
> 1. Ignorance of what old beliefs say.
>

I haven't been ignoring them. I'm quite familiar with them.
I just question them, as every thinking person should.

>
> 2. Thus living the wrong life style which you clearly demonstrate.
>

You really want to live like people did 2000-4000 years ago?? Are you
serious?!

>
> 3. Rejection to the kingdom of God by your demonstrated lack of
> interest.
>

I'm very interested in the 'kingdom of God', but most of what Catholicism
teaches isn't it. Only the love part, which hardly ever even gets mentioned.
Of course you think it does, but then you don't know the meaning of the word
love, as with about 500 other words of the English language.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:kprs18ltl1b92avbu...@4ax.com

> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 07:52:50 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:385q18pfj4138jvd3...@4ax.com
>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 16:03:01 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>>> What makes you think satan is speaking to me?
>>> The way you act.
>
>> Questioning old religious beliefs?
>> What exactly is the evil in that?
>
> 1. Ignorance of what old beliefs say.
>

Old beliefs from an ancient society in the middle east don't apply to us.

>
> 2. Thus living the wrong life style which you clearly demonstrate.
>

What lifestyle do you think I'm living? I don't sleep around if that's what
you mean.
I live a very clean and moral lifestyle.

>
> 3. Rejection to the kingdom of God by your demonstrated lack of
> interest.
>
> The dukester, American - American
> ********************************************
> A vote for obama is a vote for the end of
> democracy in America as we know it. Let the
> rolling thunder guide your decision at the
> ballot box to put an end to Imperial Obama.
> May God bless America.
> ********************************************

[duke]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:15:45 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

wrote:

>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:kprs18ltl1b92avbu...@4ax.com
>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 07:52:50 +1000, "Andrew W"
>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:385q18pfj4138jvd3...@4ax.com
>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 16:03:01 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>>> What makes you think satan is speaking to me?
>>>> The way you act.
>>> Questioning old religious beliefs?
>>> What exactly is the evil in that?

>> 1. Ignorance of what old beliefs say.
>I haven't been ignoring them. I'm quite familiar with them.
>I just question them, as every thinking person should.

And your final answer is?

>> 2. Thus living the wrong life style which you clearly demonstrate.
>You really want to live like people did 2000-4000 years ago?? Are you
>serious?!

Well, your response could address anything from riding a horse sidesaddle to how
to start a fire. "Old" addresses 0-2000 years ago. Where do you center your
questioning.

>> 3. Rejection to the kingdom of God by your demonstrated lack of
>> interest.

>I'm very interested in the 'kingdom of God', but most of what Catholicism
>teaches isn't it.

Ok, so tell me about your objections.

> Only the love part, which hardly ever even gets mentioned.

It's 100% the Catholic position. In fact, only the Catholic position is "love
based".

>Of course you think it does, but then you don't know the meaning of the word
>love, as with about 500 other words of the English language.

But you do and not me? Interesting.

[duke]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 19:58:46 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

wrote:

>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:kprs18ltl1b92avbu...@4ax.com
>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 07:52:50 +1000, "Andrew W"
>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:385q18pfj4138jvd3...@4ax.com
>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 16:03:01 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>>> What makes you think satan is speaking to me?
>>>> The way you act.
>>
>>> Questioning old religious beliefs?
>>> What exactly is the evil in that?
>>
>> 1. Ignorance of what old beliefs say.
>Old beliefs from an ancient society in the middle east don't apply to us.

The old beliefs that apply are a) the existence of God, b) his guidance to his
chosen people on proper living and c) the prophecy of a coming messiah. Now
what's your objection to those?

>> 2. Thus living the wrong life style which you clearly demonstrate.

>What lifestyle do you think I'm living? I don't sleep around if that's what
>you mean.
>I live a very clean and moral lifestyle.

Great. Then you're living as a Christian lives.

>> 3. Rejection to the kingdom of God by your demonstrated lack of
>> interest.

Waiting.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:fgcv18le7ilh6qir4...@4ax.com

> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:15:45 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:kprs18ltl1b92avbu...@4ax.com
>>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 07:52:50 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:385q18pfj4138jvd3...@4ax.com
>>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 16:03:01 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> What makes you think satan is speaking to me?
>>>>> The way you act.
>>>> Questioning old religious beliefs?
>>>> What exactly is the evil in that?
>
>>> 1. Ignorance of what old beliefs say.
>> I haven't been ignoring them. I'm quite familiar with them.
>> I just question them, as every thinking person should.
>
> And your final answer is?
>

All religions contain false information, including Christianity/Catholicism.
We must all think for ourselves and not allow authority figures to think for
us.

>
>>> 2. Thus living the wrong life style which you clearly demonstrate.
>> You really want to live like people did 2000-4000 years ago?? Are
>> you serious?!
>
> Well, your response could address anything from riding a horse
> sidesaddle to how to start a fire. "Old" addresses 0-2000 years ago.
> Where do you center your questioning.
>

Style of morality and beliefs about God obviously.
Those are what religious societies concern themselves with.

>
>>> 3. Rejection to the kingdom of God by your demonstrated lack of
>>> interest.
>
>> I'm very interested in the 'kingdom of God', but most of what
>> Catholicism teaches isn't it.
>
> Ok, so tell me about your objections.
>

I have numerous times already.
Catholicism teaches that God is angry with our mistakes and will abandon us
in hell forever if we choose not to repent and dwell with the Catholic
version of him, which is obviously stupid.
He also allegedly hates people having sex outside of marriage which in most
cases leads to no harm. Divorce. Even really silly things like masturbation
etc.
Also Catholicism is obsessed with the Pope being God's vicar, which God
should have no use for and which leads to power accumulation and corruption.

>
>> Only the love part, which hardly ever even gets mentioned.
>
> It's 100% the Catholic position. In fact, only the Catholic position
> is "love based".
>

Where does Catholicism mention love?
Catholicism is more about telling people what to do and what not to do to
try to please God.
If you cannot perceive that about your own religion then you have major
issues.

>
>> Of course you think it does, but then you don't know the meaning of
>> the word love, as with about 500 other words of the English language.
>
> But you do and not me? Interesting.
>

Apparently you imagine that you know more about everything than everyone you
argue with.
That's Catholic arrogance.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:rpcv18pkorhlfn83v...@4ax.com

> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 19:58:46 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:kprs18ltl1b92avbu...@4ax.com
>>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 07:52:50 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:385q18pfj4138jvd3...@4ax.com
>>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 16:03:01 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> What makes you think satan is speaking to me?
>>>>> The way you act.
>>>
>>>> Questioning old religious beliefs?
>>>> What exactly is the evil in that?
>>>
>>> 1. Ignorance of what old beliefs say.
>> Old beliefs from an ancient society in the middle east don't apply
>> to us.
>
> The old beliefs that apply are a) the existence of God, b) his
> guidance to his chosen people on proper living and c) the prophecy of
> a coming messiah. Now what's your objection to those?
>

a) The existence of God is not really relevant until you can properly and
truthfully describe what that 'God' is and what it wants, and
Christianity/Catholicism can't.
b) God doesn't choose one people over another, and he doesn't dictate how we
must live because we have free choice to learn and determine that for
ourselves and that's the best way we will learn.
c) A 'messiah' takes away our self responsibility by saving us from
ourselves using an irrational and barbaric blood sacrifice on a cross.
The articles you gave above are long obsolete and were the belief of a no
longer living group of people in another land.

>
>>> 2. Thus living the wrong life style which you clearly demonstrate.
>
>> What lifestyle do you think I'm living? I don't sleep around if
>> that's what you mean.
>> I live a very clean and moral lifestyle.
>
> Great. Then you're living as a Christian lives.
>

And I didn't need the Catholic church and its Pope dictating to me to do it
like some people do.

[duke]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:45:08 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

wrote:

>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:fgcv18le7ilh6qir4...@4ax.com
>> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:15:45 +1000, "Andrew W"
>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:kprs18ltl1b92avbu...@4ax.com
>>>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 07:52:50 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:385q18pfj4138jvd3...@4ax.com
>>>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 16:03:01 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>>>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> What makes you think satan is speaking to me?
>>>>>> The way you act.
>>>>> Questioning old religious beliefs?
>>>>> What exactly is the evil in that?
>>
>>>> 1. Ignorance of what old beliefs say.
>>> I haven't been ignoring them. I'm quite familiar with them.
>>> I just question them, as every thinking person should.

>> And your final answer is?

>All religions contain false information, including Christianity/Catholicism.
>We must all think for ourselves and not allow authority figures to think for
>us.

So tell me something false.

>>>> 2. Thus living the wrong life style which you clearly demonstrate.
>>> You really want to live like people did 2000-4000 years ago?? Are
>>> you serious?!

>> Well, your response could address anything from riding a horse
>> sidesaddle to how to start a fire. "Old" addresses 0-2000 years ago.
>> Where do you center your questioning.

>Style of morality and beliefs about God obviously.
>Those are what religious societies concern themselves with.

What varying beliefs are there? Can you name some?

>>>> 3. Rejection to the kingdom of God by your demonstrated lack of
>>>> interest.

>>> I'm very interested in the 'kingdom of God', but most of what
>>> Catholicism teaches isn't it.
>> Ok, so tell me about your objections.

>I have numerous times already.

Ok, now we have something to talk about.

>Catholicism teaches that God is angry with our mistakes and will abandon us
>in hell forever if we choose not to repent and dwell with the Catholic
>version of him, which is obviously stupid.

That is totally wrong. Catholicism, which is the Christian version given by
jesus, is 100% into love for one another.

>He also allegedly hates people having sex outside of marriage which in most
>cases leads to no harm. Divorce. Even really silly things like masturbation
>etc.

God put 1/2 the procreation equation in man and 1/2 in woman. The purpose of
sex is to mix the 2 parts of the equation to make a baby via mutually shaped
organs during an intensive act of love. To play around with God's ways is evil
by blocking the natural function with condom or pill, or worst yet to murder the
product.

>Also Catholicism is obsessed with the Pope being God's vicar, which God
>should have no use for and which leads to power accumulation and corruption.

God clearly put Peter in charge and told him to go forward to teach and baptize
all nations forever.

You lose 0 for 3.

>>> Only the love part, which hardly ever even gets mentioned.
>> It's 100% the Catholic position. In fact, only the Catholic position
>> is "love based".
>Where does Catholicism mention love?

In ever utterance of the words of Jesus.

But somehow I think you have screwing on the mind.

Rest of garbage snipped.

[duke]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:57:02 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

That was constantly done over the last 6000 years. 0 for 1

>b) God doesn't choose one people over another, and he doesn't dictate how we
>must live because we have free choice to learn and determine that for
>ourselves and that's the best way we will learn.

God said "I do not run a democracy". 0 for 2.

>c) A 'messiah' takes away our self responsibility by saving us from
>ourselves using an irrational and barbaric blood sacrifice on a cross.

A messiah is a warrior king. 0 for 3.

>The articles you gave above are long obsolete and were the belief of a no
>longer living group of people in another land.

0 for 4.

>>>> 2. Thus living the wrong life style which you clearly demonstrate.
>>> What lifestyle do you think I'm living? I don't sleep around if
>>> that's what you mean.
>>> I live a very clean and moral lifestyle.
>> Great. Then you're living as a Christian lives.

>And I didn't need the Catholic church and its Pope dictating to me to do it
>like some people do.

The Pope and the RCC guide and help us to follow the teachings of Jesus.

0 for 5.

You are one ignorant boy re Christianity.

[duke]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:06:13 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>> Have you stopped to consider all the various religions of the world?
>> That most all have devils or evil of some sort and a god of some
>> sort?

>Yes. I study religions.

You never studied Christianity.

>>>>> And why would we be condemned to hell forever? What if we change
>>>>> and get "straightened out" and want to come back to God? Why
>>>>> doesn't he let us back? And why can't we just live on our own
>>>>> planet somewhere if we don't want to live with God? You haven't
>>>>> really answered much so far. Can't you see that this all sounds
>>>>> really base and sus and can't be rational reality?
>>>> You are condemned forever because you trampled on the sacrifice of
>>>> Jesus and His shed blood. The price He paid so that you could enjoy
>>>> freedom and happiness.

>>> Why forever?
>
>> Because a spirit once created cannot be destroyed. There might be a
>> better explanation in Heaven but that is all I have for now.

>But you've completely forgotten about choice. A person can choose a
>different path at any point in this realm or the next.
>No one can stand or would want to be in one place forever. Its
>illogical. Eternal hell was just a scare tactic by the early Judeo religion.

I'm going with Jesus on that one.

>>> But don't you think the scape goat story of Jesus having to *pay*
>>> for a wrong on our behalf is a bit silly, given that it takes away
>>> our self-responsibility?
>> It has been well proven that we cannot do it ourselves.

>Really? Where has it been proven? People are helping themselves
>and changing and improving themselves all the time.

pete's ignorant of the truth.

What arrogant crap.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:2j1028tro4guh5i26...@4ax.com

> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:45:08 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:fgcv18le7ilh6qir4...@4ax.com
>>> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:15:45 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 1. Ignorance of what old beliefs say.
>>>> I haven't been ignoring them. I'm quite familiar with them.
>>>> I just question them, as every thinking person should.
>
>>> And your final answer is?
>
>> All religions contain false information, including
>> Christianity/Catholicism. We must all think for ourselves and not
>> allow authority figures to think for us.
>
> So tell me something false.
>

A jealous and vengeful god.
Eternal hell.
God wanting only obedience.
The Pope being God's deputy.
The Bible being words straight from God's mouth.
The RCC being 100% honest and godly.

>
>>>>> 2. Thus living the wrong life style which you clearly
>>>>> demonstrate.
>>>> You really want to live like people did 2000-4000 years ago?? Are
>>>> you serious?!
>
>>> Well, your response could address anything from riding a horse
>>> sidesaddle to how to start a fire. "Old" addresses 0-2000 years
>>> ago. Where do you center your questioning.
>
>> Style of morality and beliefs about God obviously.
>> Those are what religious societies concern themselves with.
>
> What varying beliefs are there? Can you name some?
>

Some religions claim God is angry at our mistakes, some don't.

You seem to be new to all this.

>
>>>>> 3. Rejection to the kingdom of God by your demonstrated lack of
>>>>> interest.
>
>>>> I'm very interested in the 'kingdom of God', but most of what
>>>> Catholicism teaches isn't it.
>>> Ok, so tell me about your objections.
>
>> I have numerous times already.
>
> Ok, now we have something to talk about.
>
>> Catholicism teaches that God is angry with our mistakes and will
>> abandon us in hell forever if we choose not to repent and dwell with
>> the Catholic version of him, which is obviously stupid.
>
> That is totally wrong. Catholicism, which is the Christian version
> given by jesus, is 100% into love for one another.
>

That's Christianity. That's the Bible.
You continually fail to recite anything that the RCC says about love.
If 'love for one another' is the only thing that's important (which I agree)
then why do you even need the RCC at all?

>
>> He also allegedly hates people having sex outside of marriage which
>> in most cases leads to no harm. Divorce. Even really silly things
>> like masturbation etc.
>
> God put 1/2 the procreation equation in man and 1/2 in woman. The
> purpose of sex is to mix the 2 parts of the equation to make a baby
> via mutually shaped organs during an intensive act of love. To play
> around with God's ways is evil by blocking the natural function with
> condom or pill, or worst yet to murder the product.
>

Its not evil! How can love and joy (which is what we will have in heaven)
ever be evil? Think man. Don't you know control when you see it? Are you
that blind and gullible?
Sex also has other functions than just reproduction like to share happiness,
joy and intimacy.
But the thing is millennia ago the population was very low and that's why
the society leaders and later the Catholic church focussed so much on
reproduction (including even saving sperm !).
But once a civilisation has reached its optimum level, reproduction is no
longer so necessary. Surely you can see that.
The RCC has filled its flock's heads with old superstitious fear based
tripe, much of which even *it* no longer truly believes.
It belongs in the dark superstitious past.

>
>> Also Catholicism is obsessed with the Pope being God's vicar, which
>> God should have no use for and which leads to power accumulation and
>> corruption.
>
> God clearly put Peter in charge and told him to go forward to teach
> and baptize all nations forever.
>
> You lose 0 for 3.
>

God did no such thing. That's a naive fantasy. It is far from clear that
that dialogue was exactly as described. It is all in the interpretation and
context. You are taking it purely at face value.
Didn't you even know that religions interpret things to favour their own
desired beliefs? That's the way its always been with religions. The RCC have
taken that one little verse in the very strictest context and just run with
it to give themselves power. Surely you can see that.
You can't trust anyone in this world. We all must find things out for
ourselves.
And of course I'm not asking you to trust me. I'm saying you must find out
for yourself. That's true self-responsibility.

>
>>>> Only the love part, which hardly ever even gets mentioned.
>>> It's 100% the Catholic position. In fact, only the Catholic
>>> position is "love based".
>> Where does Catholicism mention love?
>
> In ever utterance of the words of Jesus.
>

Quote some dialogue of the Pope or be quiet.

>
> But somehow I think you have screwing on the mind.
>

No. Freedom from patriarchal religious and governmental control.
You seem to really have it in for life's free pleasures. In this world of
stress a person can go mad without some escape and natural joy.
Its all natural. It seems the RCC hates things natural and wants to control
them, and you support that?
Do you know that most of the Popes used to screw around? Yes they certainly
did! And many exorbitantly!

>
> Rest of garbage snipped.
>

Preference for old outdated religious superstitious garbage noted.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:m72028d8n25fa27qh...@4ax.com

> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:57:02 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:rpcv18pkorhlfn83v...@4ax.com
>>> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 19:58:46 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Questioning old religious beliefs?
>>>>>> What exactly is the evil in that?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Ignorance of what old beliefs say.
>>>> Old beliefs from an ancient society in the middle east don't apply
>>>> to us.
>>>
>>> The old beliefs that apply are a) the existence of God, b) his
>>> guidance to his chosen people on proper living and c) the prophecy
>>> of a coming messiah. Now what's your objection to those?
>>>
>>
>> a) The existence of God is not really relevant until you can
>> properly and truthfully describe what that 'God' is and what it
>> wants, and Christianity/Catholicism can't.
>
> That was constantly done over the last 6000 years. 0 for 1
>

Only to the satisfaction of simple slave minded folk like you.

>
>> b) God doesn't choose one people over another, and he doesn't
>> dictate how we must live because we have free choice to learn and
>> determine that for ourselves and that's the best way we will learn.
>
> God said "I do not run a democracy". 0 for 2.
>

Then its a dictatorship. Thanks for clarifying that.

Incidentally it was not God who said anything like that. Except maybe a
false 'god' of which there were many millennia ago, both human and
non-material.

>
>> c) A 'messiah' takes away our self responsibility by saving us from
>> ourselves using an irrational and barbaric blood sacrifice on a
>> cross.
>
> A messiah is a warrior king. 0 for 3.
>

Jesus was about peace. That makes you and your church antichrists.
Your mind is still stuck in the past. 'Warrior king' was just an ancient
military saying by the Semites who believed in militarism ages ago. They
were extremely patriarchal and fearful of attack by neighbouring nations.
They wanted and dreamed of getting protection from the ultimate warrior.
Remember that.

>
>> The articles you gave above are long obsolete and were the belief of
>> a no longer living group of people in another land.
>
> 0 for 4.
>

Your beliefs amount to virtually zero in our present time.
The only thing holding your beliefs together is your dedication to
patriarchy, arrogance, self-righteousness and simple mindedness.

>
>>>>> 2. Thus living the wrong life style which you clearly
>>>>> demonstrate.
>>>> What lifestyle do you think I'm living? I don't sleep around if
>>>> that's what you mean.
>>>> I live a very clean and moral lifestyle.
>>> Great. Then you're living as a Christian lives.
>
>> And I didn't need the Catholic church and its Pope dictating to me
>> to do it like some people do.
>
> The Pope and the RCC guide and help us to follow the teachings of
> Jesus.
>

False. You are so gullible and stubborn. That can only be from fear of
alleged consequences - ones that the RCC pretty much made up or twisted!

>
> 0 for 5.
>
> You are one ignorant boy re Christianity.
>

The truth is far more important than Christianity ever was.
You are clinging to a religion. I'm not.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:dd202896co7pn7hjv...@4ax.com

> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:06:13 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>> Have you stopped to consider all the various religions of the world?
>>> That most all have devils or evil of some sort and a god of some
>>> sort?
>
>> Yes. I study religions.
>
> You never studied Christianity.
>

Excuse me? You're the one who refuses to study anything. And it shows by me
having to continually explain simple concepts to you over and over!

>
>>>> Why forever?
>>
>>> Because a spirit once created cannot be destroyed. There might be a
>>> better explanation in Heaven but that is all I have for now.
>
>> But you've completely forgotten about choice. A person can choose a
>> different path at any point in this realm or the next.
>> No one can stand or would want to be in one place forever. Its
>> illogical. Eternal hell was just a scare tactic by the early Judeo
>> religion.
>
> I'm going with Jesus on that one.
>

Jesus is long gone and replaced by a bunch of arrogant patriarchal men.

>
>>>> But don't you think the scape goat story of Jesus having to *pay*
>>>> for a wrong on our behalf is a bit silly, given that it takes away
>>>> our self-responsibility?
>>> It has been well proven that we cannot do it ourselves.
>
>> Really? Where has it been proven? People are helping themselves
>> and changing and improving themselves all the time.
>
> pete's ignorant of the truth.
>

So are you!

>
> What arrogant crap.
>

You're the king of arrogance duke. You learned it from your church.

[duke]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:57:10 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

wrote:

>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:2j1028tro4guh5i26...@4ax.com
>> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:45:08 +1000, "Andrew W"
>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:fgcv18le7ilh6qir4...@4ax.com
>>>> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:15:45 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Ignorance of what old beliefs say.
>>>>> I haven't been ignoring them. I'm quite familiar with them.
>>>>> I just question them, as every thinking person should.
>>
>>>> And your final answer is?
>>
>>> All religions contain false information, including
>>> Christianity/Catholicism. We must all think for ourselves and not
>>> allow authority figures to think for us.
>>
>> So tell me something false.
>>
>
>A jealous and vengeful god.

He's all loving.

>Eternal hell.

A person decision.

>God wanting only obedience.

Take your pick - you or God. No interference.

>The Pope being God's deputy.

He is by definition.

>The Bible being words straight from God's mouth.

It's is not.

>The RCC being 100% honest and godly.

Led by the Holy Spirit so guaranteed.

>
>>>>>> 2. Thus living the wrong life style which you clearly
>>>>>> demonstrate.
>>>>> You really want to live like people did 2000-4000 years ago?? Are
>>>>> you serious?!
>>
>>>> Well, your response could address anything from riding a horse
>>>> sidesaddle to how to start a fire. "Old" addresses 0-2000 years
>>>> ago. Where do you center your questioning.
>>
>>> Style of morality and beliefs about God obviously.
>>> Those are what religious societies concern themselves with.
>>
>> What varying beliefs are there? Can you name some?

>Some religions claim God is angry at our mistakes, some don't.

Christians don't. I can't speak for muslims.

>You seem to be new to all this.

We well see what you don't know.

>>>>>> 3. Rejection to the kingdom of God by your demonstrated lack of
>>>>>> interest.
>>
>>>>> I'm very interested in the 'kingdom of God', but most of what
>>>>> Catholicism teaches isn't it.
>>>> Ok, so tell me about your objections.
>>
>>> I have numerous times already.
>>
>> Ok, now we have something to talk about.

Well, I guess not.

>>> Catholicism teaches that God is angry with our mistakes and will
>>> abandon us in hell forever if we choose not to repent and dwell with
>>> the Catholic version of him, which is obviously stupid.
>
>> That is totally wrong. Catholicism, which is the Christian version
>> given by jesus, is 100% into love for one another.

>That's Christianity. That's the Bible.

I know, and Catholicism if 100% into scripture.

>You continually fail to recite anything that the RCC says about love.
>If 'love for one another' is the only thing that's important (which I agree)
>then why do you even need the RCC at all?

To guide and help us by order of God.

>>> He also allegedly hates people having sex outside of marriage which
>>> in most cases leads to no harm. Divorce. Even really silly things
>>> like masturbation etc.

>> God put 1/2 the procreation equation in man and 1/2 in woman. The
>> purpose of sex is to mix the 2 parts of the equation to make a baby
>> via mutually shaped organs during an intensive act of love. To play
>> around with God's ways is evil by blocking the natural function with
>> condom or pill, or worst yet to murder the product.

>Its not evil! How can love and joy (which is what we will have in heaven)
>ever be evil? Think man. Don't you know control when you see it? Are you
>that blind and gullible?

There is no sex or making love in heaven. All of God's children are already
present.

>Sex also has other functions than just reproduction like to share happiness,
>joy and intimacy.

Driven to acts of the flesh.

>But the thing is millennia ago the population was very low and that's why
>the society leaders and later the Catholic church focussed so much on
>reproduction (including even saving sperm !).
>But once a civilisation has reached its optimum level, reproduction is no
>longer so necessary. Surely you can see that.
>The RCC has filled its flock's heads with old superstitious fear based
>tripe, much of which even *it* no longer truly believes.
>It belongs in the dark superstitious past.

>>> Also Catholicism is obsessed with the Pope being God's vicar, which
>>> God should have no use for and which leads to power accumulation and
>>> corruption.
>>
>> God clearly put Peter in charge and told him to go forward to teach
>> and baptize all nations forever.
>>
>> You lose 0 for 3.

>God did no such thing. That's a naive fantasy. It is far from clear that
>that dialogue was exactly as described. It is all in the interpretation and
>context. You are taking it purely at face value.

It's hard to ignore those exact words.

>Didn't you even know that religions interpret things

A direct quotation. NO interpretation necessary.

> to favour their own
>desired beliefs? That's the way its always been with religions. The RCC have
>taken that one little verse in the very strictest context and just run with
>it to give themselves power. Surely you can see that.
>You can't trust anyone in this world. We all must find things out for
>ourselves.
>And of course I'm not asking you to trust me. I'm saying you must find out
>for yourself. That's true self-responsibility.

I'm already infinitely more knowledgeable than you.

>>>>> Only the love part, which hardly ever even gets mentioned.
>>>> It's 100% the Catholic position. In fact, only the Catholic
>>>> position is "love based".
>>> Where does Catholicism mention love?
>> In ever utterance of the words of Jesus.
>Quote some dialogue of the Pope or be quiet.

Everything he says.

>> But somehow I think you have screwing on the mind.

>No. Freedom from patriarchal religious and governmental control.
>You seem to really have it in for life's free pleasures. In this world of
>stress a person can go mad without some escape and natural joy.
>Its all natural. It seems the RCC hates things natural and wants to control
>them, and you support that?
>Do you know that most of the Popes used to screw around? Yes they certainly
>did! And many exorbitantly!

Yeah, with your head.

>> Rest of garbage snipped.
>Preference for old outdated religious superstitious garbage noted.

[duke]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 09:41:52 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

wrote:

>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:m72028d8n25fa27qh...@4ax.com
>> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:57:02 +1000, "Andrew W"
>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:rpcv18pkorhlfn83v...@4ax.com
>>>> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 19:58:46 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Questioning old religious beliefs?
>>>>>>> What exactly is the evil in that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Ignorance of what old beliefs say.
>>>>> Old beliefs from an ancient society in the middle east don't apply
>>>>> to us.
>>>>
>>>> The old beliefs that apply are a) the existence of God, b) his
>>>> guidance to his chosen people on proper living and c) the prophecy
>>>> of a coming messiah. Now what's your objection to those?
>>>>
>>>
>>> a) The existence of God is not really relevant until you can
>>> properly and truthfully describe what that 'God' is and what it
>>> wants, and Christianity/Catholicism can't.
>>
>> That was constantly done over the last 6000 years. 0 for 1

>Only to the satisfaction of simple slave minded folk like you.

You don't even know what the bible says, or why.

>>> b) God doesn't choose one people over another, and he doesn't
>>> dictate how we must live because we have free choice to learn and
>>> determine that for ourselves and that's the best way we will learn.
>>
>> God said "I do not run a democracy". 0 for 2.
>Then its a dictatorship. Thanks for clarifying that.

No, a dictatorship punishes you for taking an opposing view. In Christianity,
you get left behind just as you expressed a desire for..

>Incidentally it was not God who said anything like that. Except maybe a
>false 'god' of which there were many millennia ago, both human and
>non-material.

Incidentally, you're pure nuts.

>>> c) A 'messiah' takes away our self responsibility by saving us from
>>> ourselves using an irrational and barbaric blood sacrifice on a
>>> cross.
>> A messiah is a warrior king. 0 for 3.

>Jesus was about peace. That makes you and your church antichrists.

I know. I told you that. An antichrist denies God in the flesh.

>Your mind is still stuck in the past. 'Warrior king' was just an ancient
>military saying by the Semites who believed in militarism ages ago. They
>were extremely patriarchal and fearful of attack by neighbouring nations.
>They wanted and dreamed of getting protection from the ultimate warrior.
>Remember that.

Anohter demonstration of a nutty ignorance.

>>> The articles you gave above are long obsolete and were the belief of
>>> a no longer living group of people in another land.
>>
>> 0 for 4.

>Your beliefs amount to virtually zero in our present time.

blah, blah, blah. Quit wasting my time.

>>>>>> 2. Thus living the wrong life style which you clearly
>>>>>> demonstrate.
>>>>> What lifestyle do you think I'm living? I don't sleep around if
>>>>> that's what you mean.
>>>>> I live a very clean and moral lifestyle.
>>>> Great. Then you're living as a Christian lives.
>>
>>> And I didn't need the Catholic church and its Pope dictating to me
>>> to do it like some people do.
>>
>> The Pope and the RCC guide and help us to follow the teachings of
>> Jesus.

>False. You are so gullible and stubborn. That can only be from fear of
>alleged consequences - ones that the RCC pretty much made up or twisted!

Absolute truth.

>> 0 for 5.
>> You are one ignorant boy re Christianity.

>The truth is far more important than Christianity ever was.
>You are clinging to a religion. I'm not.

You are clueless to truth. Just admit it and go away.

[duke]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 11:47:52 -0700, Pete <b...@sod.cal> wrote:

>Duke, this is beyond the pale.
>When you purposely interfere and attempt to poison the well you have gone
>beyond, far beyond the norms of dislike or even hatred.

I'm revealing the word of Jesus to you. You are fully ignorant of scripture.

>I know that like Fool, you can dog me around and attempt to poison
>everything that is the nature of the Usenet and trolls.
>I see no reason to continue any conversation with you on any level.

Yeah, you can't handle the truth revealed by scripture.

>Do not bother replying for any reason, if you do it will be a wasted effort
>on your part. It will not be read.
>Toodles

I'll correct you in front of others.

[duke]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 09:48:49 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

wrote:

>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:dd202896co7pn7hjv...@4ax.com
>> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:06:13 +1000, "Andrew W"
>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>> Have you stopped to consider all the various religions of the world?
>>>> That most all have devils or evil of some sort and a god of some
>>>> sort?
>>
>>> Yes. I study religions.
>> You never studied Christianity.

>Excuse me? You're the one who refuses to study anything. And it shows by me
>having to continually explain simple concepts to you over and over!

Pick an issue and let's go. I'm ready.

>>>>> Why forever?
>
>>>> Because a spirit once created cannot be destroyed. There might be a
>>>> better explanation in Heaven but that is all I have for now.
>>
>>> But you've completely forgotten about choice. A person can choose a
>>> different path at any point in this realm or the next.
>>> No one can stand or would want to be in one place forever. Its
>>> illogical. Eternal hell was just a scare tactic by the early Judeo
>>> religion.
>> I'm going with Jesus on that one.
>Jesus is long gone and replaced by a bunch of arrogant patriarchal men.

He sent the Holy Spirit in his place.

>>>>> But don't you think the scape goat story of Jesus having to *pay*
>>>>> for a wrong on our behalf is a bit silly, given that it takes away
>>>>> our self-responsibility?
>>>> It has been well proven that we cannot do it ourselves.
>>
>>> Really? Where has it been proven? People are helping themselves
>>> and changing and improving themselves all the time.

>> pete's ignorant of the truth.
>So are you!

God guides us. He leads us. We must choose to walk

>
>>
>> What arrogant crap.
>>
>
>You're the king of arrogance duke. You learned it from your church.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:t1s2285en6049bld5...@4ax.com

> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:57:10 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:2j1028tro4guh5i26...@4ax.com
>>> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:45:08 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:fgcv18le7ilh6qir4...@4ax.com
>>>>> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:15:45 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> So tell me something false.
>>>
>>
>> A jealous and vengeful god.
>
> He's all loving.
>

Says who?

>
>> Eternal hell.
>
> A person decision.
>

A person's decision decides what is reality?

>
>> God wanting only obedience.
>
> Take your pick - you or God. No interference.
>

Free choice means that we have to determine what happens in *our* life, not
a 'god'.

>
>> The Pope being God's deputy.
>
> He is by definition.
>

Who's definition?
Answer: The church's.

>
>> The Bible being words straight from God's mouth.
>
> It's is not.
>

Yet you always say it is.
One of your favourite sayings is "God spoke, man wrote". Remember?

>
>> The RCC being 100% honest and godly.
>
> Led by the Holy Spirit so guaranteed.
>

What guarantee? Where did you get this idea of a guarantee?
Its only in your mind.
If the church was led by the Holy Spirit then it wouldn't have said and done
all those dodgy and evil things throughout the centuries.
Unless of course it is led by dark spirits. And I think that is the case.
In fact many, including even clergy have said that they believe the church
has been taken over by the dark.

>>>
>>>> Style of morality and beliefs about God obviously.
>>>> Those are what religious societies concern themselves with.
>>>
>>> What varying beliefs are there? Can you name some?
>
>> Some religions claim God is angry at our mistakes, some don't.
>
> Christians don't. I can't speak for muslims.
>

If God wasn't angry then -
1/ Adam and Eve wouldn't have been thrown out of the garden.
2/ Christ wouldn't have needed to die.
3/ There would be no condemnation to hell.

>
>> You seem to be new to all this.
>
> We well see what you don't know.
>

I do know.
*You* don't know. You just parrot whatever your church utters.

>
>>>> Catholicism teaches that God is angry with our mistakes and will
>>>> abandon us in hell forever if we choose not to repent and dwell
>>>> with the Catholic version of him, which is obviously stupid.
>>
>>> That is totally wrong. Catholicism, which is the Christian version
>>> given by jesus, is 100% into love for one another.
>
>> That's Christianity. That's the Bible.
>
> I know, and Catholicism if 100% into scripture.
>

That should read - Catholicism is 100% into interpreting scripture its own
way.

>
>> You continually fail to recite anything that the RCC says about love.
>> If 'love for one another' is the only thing that's important (which
>> I agree) then why do you even need the RCC at all?
>
> To guide and help us by order of God.
>

You keep repeating in post after post that 'love one another' is the
important thing.
If we just have to do that then no further guidance is required.
So why follow the church's rules, restrictions and rituals?
Do you like being controlled and told what to do? I think you do.

>
>>> God put 1/2 the procreation equation in man and 1/2 in woman. The
>>> purpose of sex is to mix the 2 parts of the equation to make a baby
>>> via mutually shaped organs during an intensive act of love. To play
>>> around with God's ways is evil by blocking the natural function with
>>> condom or pill, or worst yet to murder the product.
>
>> Its not evil! How can love and joy (which is what we will have in
>> heaven) ever be evil? Think man. Don't you know control when you
>> see it? Are you that blind and gullible?
>
> There is no sex or making love in heaven.
>

How do you know?
What heaven is about is eternal joy. We can experience some joy on earth to
relieve some of our stresses. Plus it teaches us love, caring and sharing.

>
All of God's children are already present.
>

Huh? I think you must be referring to reproduction.
Again, reproduction is not the only function of sex. Its only the physical
survival function. That's all.

>
>> Sex also has other functions than just reproduction like to share
>> happiness, joy and intimacy.
>
> Driven to acts of the flesh.
>

"Acts of the flesh", lol!
You are such a dork duke.

>
>> But the thing is millennia ago the population was very low and
>> that's why the society leaders and later the Catholic church
>> focussed so much on reproduction (including even saving sperm !).
>> But once a civilisation has reached its optimum level, reproduction
>> is no longer so necessary. Surely you can see that.
>> The RCC has filled its flock's heads with old superstitious fear
>> based tripe, much of which even *it* no longer truly believes.
>> It belongs in the dark superstitious past.
>

I bet you ignored the above facts.

>
>>>> Also Catholicism is obsessed with the Pope being God's vicar, which
>>>> God should have no use for and which leads to power accumulation
>>>> and corruption.
>>>
>>> God clearly put Peter in charge and told him to go forward to teach
>>> and baptize all nations forever.
>>>
>>> You lose 0 for 3.
>
>> God did no such thing. That's a naive fantasy. It is far from clear
>> that that dialogue was exactly as described. It is all in the
>> interpretation and context. You are taking it purely at face value.
>
> It's hard to ignore those exact words.
>

Its the real meaning and context that was crucially important, and we don't
know what that was.

>
>> Didn't you even know that religions interpret things
>
> A direct quotation. NO interpretation necessary.
>

Lol.
Nothing in the scriptures is a direct quotation dummy.
We can't know what was said because nothing was written down at the time.
Much of the Bible is story telling. Every intelligent person knows that
except dopes like you.

>
>> to favour their own
>> desired beliefs? That's the way its always been with religions. The
>> RCC have taken that one little verse in the very strictest context
>> and just run with it to give themselves power. Surely you can see
>> that.
>> You can't trust anyone in this world. We all must find things out for
>> ourselves.
>> And of course I'm not asking you to trust me. I'm saying you must
>> find out for yourself. That's true self-responsibility.
>
> I'm already infinitely more knowledgeable than you.
>

Bahahaha!
You're a certifiable moron duke.
Sometimes you even deny what you yourself wrote.

>
>>>>>> Only the love part, which hardly ever even gets mentioned.
>>>>> It's 100% the Catholic position. In fact, only the Catholic
>>>>> position is "love based".
>>>> Where does Catholicism mention love?
>>> In ever utterance of the words of Jesus.
>> Quote some dialogue of the Pope or be quiet.
>
> Everything he says.
>

Bahahaha!
Another lame moronic copout.
You're so full of it duke!
Find out what the word love means first.

>
>>> But somehow I think you have screwing on the mind.
>
>> No. Freedom from patriarchal religious and governmental control.
>> You seem to really have it in for life's free pleasures. In this
>> world of stress a person can go mad without some escape and natural
>> joy.
>> Its all natural. It seems the RCC hates things natural and wants to
>> control them, and you support that?
>> Do you know that most of the Popes used to screw around? Yes they
>> certainly did! And many exorbitantly!
>
> Yeah, with your head.
>

Lol.
Your head is what's totally screwed duke!
And the Popes did screw around. Everyone who knows anything about the RCC
knows that, except you. You are totally ignorant and gullible.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:7gs228dq1fel02af8...@4ax.com

> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 09:41:52 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:m72028d8n25fa27qh...@4ax.com
>>> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:57:02 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> a) The existence of God is not really relevant until you can
>>>> properly and truthfully describe what that 'God' is and what it
>>>> wants, and Christianity/Catholicism can't.
>>>
>>> That was constantly done over the last 6000 years. 0 for 1
>
>> Only to the satisfaction of simple slave minded folk like you.
>
> You don't even know what the bible says, or why.
>

Yes I do. Half the time its *you* who doesn't know what's in the Bible.
Things are quoted to you and you deny them!
The problem is you've allowed your head to be filled with church crap, and
you love it!
You need to be psychiatrically assessed.

>
>>>> b) God doesn't choose one people over another, and he doesn't
>>>> dictate how we must live because we have free choice to learn and
>>>> determine that for ourselves and that's the best way we will learn.
>>>
>>> God said "I do not run a democracy". 0 for 2.
>> Then its a dictatorship. Thanks for clarifying that.
>
> No, a dictatorship punishes you for taking an opposing view. In
> Christianity, you get left behind just as you expressed a desire for..
>

According to the Bible and 90% of Christianity, hell is a place of
punishment duke.
But a loving God wouldn't even leave anyone behind, just like a parent would
never leave their child behind, even if the child wanted to.
The Christian god figure is anything but loving. It is only loving according
to its worshippers, just like Allah is loving according to Muslims.
Worshipful opinion is not reality.

>
>> Incidentally it was not God who said anything like that. Except
>> maybe a false 'god' of which there were many millennia ago, both
>> human and non-material.
>
> Incidentally, you're pure nuts.
>

Satan is just one of the false gods duke.
It has influence on all religions, especially the major ones like the RCC.

>
>>>> c) A 'messiah' takes away our self responsibility by saving us from
>>>> ourselves using an irrational and barbaric blood sacrifice on a
>>>> cross.
>>> A messiah is a warrior king. 0 for 3.
>
>> Jesus was about peace. That makes you and your church antichrists.
>
> I know. I told you that. An antichrist denies God in the flesh.
>

An antichrist also makes wars. So Jesus cannot be a warrior.

>
>> Your mind is still stuck in the past. 'Warrior king' was just an
>> ancient military saying by the Semites who believed in militarism
>> ages ago. They were extremely patriarchal and fearful of attack by
>> neighbouring nations. They wanted and dreamed of getting protection
>> from the ultimate warrior. Remember that.
>
> Anohter demonstration of a nutty ignorance.
>

You continually deny ancient facts.
You are the ignorant one duke.

>
>>>> The articles you gave above are long obsolete and were the belief
>>>> of a no longer living group of people in another land.
>>>
>>> 0 for 4.
>
>> Your beliefs amount to virtually zero in our present time.
>
> blah, blah, blah. Quit wasting my time.
>

Your time? You have nothing better to do every day except sit here invading
newsgroup threads with your old RCC crap and inanities.
Get a life.

>>>
>>>> And I didn't need the Catholic church and its Pope dictating to me
>>>> to do it like some people do.
>>>
>>> The Pope and the RCC guide and help us to follow the teachings of
>>> Jesus.
>
>> False. You are so gullible and stubborn. That can only be from fear
>> of alleged consequences - ones that the RCC pretty much made up or
>> twisted!
>
> Absolute truth.
>

I'm glad you agree finally.

>
>>> 0 for 5.
>>> You are one ignorant boy re Christianity.
>
>> The truth is far more important than Christianity ever was.
>> You are clinging to a religion. I'm not.
>
> You are clueless to truth. Just admit it and go away.
>

You don't even know the meaning of several English words, let alone what's
true.

[Andrew W]

"Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message

news:%DhUr.9483$BI5....@newsfe09.iad
>
> You don't have a lot of questions mostly arguments.
>

My questions are designed to get you and others thinking.
Are you against doing that? Is your religion?

>
> The easiest way to resolve what you are arguing about is to get
> yourself a copy of the bible.
>

I already have. But how is that going to get you and other Christians
thinking and questioning the falsities in your Bible and religion?
You have to resolve them in your own mind. But I have a feeling that like
95% of Christians you are not even aware of them (and don't want to know
them).

>
Something like the NKJV, and start at
> the beginning and read it through. It would be far easier and less
> time then jumping around all over the place.
>

The Bible doesn't explain hardly anything. It just tells things including
stories.

>
> I would recommend before you read to ask the God of the Bible to
> reveal Himself to you before each session.
>

I already did but nothing happened. You see I used to be a Christian.
The God of the Bible is just a personification of a Creator concept. There
is no evidence that there's an actual person like us anywhere.
Jesus was a person, but he also referred to God the Father as a concept, not
a person.

>
If you read it straight
> through you will start to see patterns developing. Also, if something
> just seems to strange of far out, stop and ask Him for the info.
>

I did and the answer was that I should study everything and find out the
truth.
And the truth after more than ten years of study turned out to be that
Christianity and the Bible have gotten most things wrong about God because
of what ancient people wanted to believe. And the people were given the free
will to believe that.
Well the scriptures consequently contain all their ancient superstition and
fear based beliefs. They don't necessarily represent fact or reality.
That's the way it is. Take it or leave it. Ask any biblical scholar.

>
> Sorry, but that is the best I can do for now.
>

That's ok. I guess you did your best with your lack of knowledge.

[Andrew W]

"Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message

news:3KjUr.3630$l63....@newsfe20.iad

> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 11:27:31 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
>
>> "Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message
>> news:%DhUr.9483$BI5....@newsfe09.iad
>>>
>>> You don't have a lot of questions mostly arguments.
>>>
>>
>> My questions are designed to get you and others thinking.
>> Are you against doing that? Is your religion?
>>
>

> You said it was initially for your benefit. That you were searching.
> I am not searching other than for more of God in me. I have no reason
> to search elsewhere. I have found the answers for my living life. As
> to religion it is that of the NT to help the widows, orphans and such.
>

We all have to search for the truth in everything. We all benefit from
greater truths in life and beyond.
I see many religious people just accept everything their religion or book
tells them without question.
That's extremely unwise. Have you done that by any chance?

>>>
>>> The easiest way to resolve what you are arguing about is to get
>>> yourself a copy of the bible.
>>>
>>
>> I already have. But how is that going to get you and other Christians
>> thinking and questioning the falsities in your Bible and religion?
>> You have to resolve them in your own mind. But I have a feeling that
>> like 95% of Christians you are not even aware of them (and don't
>> want to know them).
>>
>

> Well you are opinionated that's for sure. ;) Your assumption about
> religion is not going to fit everyone.
>

Researched facts are not opinions or assumptions.
However settling on what a religion or book says is, because they were
written by humans with opinions and beliefs.
Thousands of other spiritual researchers around the world have come to the
same conclusions as I have.

>
I deal out of my spirit. In my spirit I have all knowledge. Via the renewing
of my mind I bring it
> into the real world. You should look that up sometime in your bible.
>

What you call your spirit could be just your emotions.
Other religion's followers also claim that they're guided by the spirit, yet
they totally contradict Christianity. How can that be?
What spirit is everyone listening to?

>>>
>> Something like the NKJV, and start at
>>> the beginning and read it through. It would be far easier and less
>>> time then jumping around all over the place.
>>>
>>
>> The Bible doesn't explain hardly anything. It just tells things
>> including stories.
>>
>

> Ayup! That is for sure. How you came across that I'd like to know.
>

Everyone who knows anything about the Bible knows that.

>
> The Holy Spirit of God is what gives life and meaning to those printed
> words. Including the stories. Which is why I suggested praying as you
> read so you could learn a little more.

>
>>>
>>> I would recommend before you read to ask the God of the Bible to
>>> reveal Himself to you before each session.
>>>
>>
>> I already did but nothing happened. You see I used to be a Christian.
>> The God of the Bible is just a personification of a Creator concept.
>> There is no evidence that there's an actual person like us anywhere.
>> Jesus was a person, but he also referred to God the Father as a
>> concept, not a person.
>>
>

> Jesus always referred to His Father as His Father or Abba Father,
> (dearest Dad)
>

A spiritual Father is not exactly a father as such, and its certainly not a
humanoid person.

>
We are and were created in the image of God. Yes, other
> than this world there is nothing like us.
>

The word 'image' can have many meanings. We have no idea what was meant by
that.
I've asked many Christians and none could answer the question properly.

>
> What was your definition or training or ??? That qualified you to be
> called Christian?
>

There is no qualification required for being called a Christian.
To be a Christian it only takes one to believe that Christ existed and to
follow his teachings of love and oneness.
I study and practice Christ's teachings, and I study the religion that was
formed after him.

>>
>> I did and the answer was that I should study everything and find out
>> the truth.
>> And the truth after more than ten years of study turned out to be
>> that Christianity and the Bible have gotten most things wrong about
>> God because of what ancient people wanted to believe. And the people
>> were given the free will to believe that.
>> Well the scriptures consequently contain all their ancient
>> superstition and fear based beliefs. They don't necessarily
>> represent fact or reality. That's the way it is. Take it or leave
>> it. Ask any biblical scholar.
>>
>

> Surest way of killing ones faith is to be a theologian.
>

If faith leads one to believe in false truths then faith is no good.
Study is more important than just faith and believing.
Religions use the call to faith to control and manipulate their flock. Did
you know that?
They don't want their flock to study and find out that their religion has
false truths because then the followers will leave in droves.

>
> There was a way God dealt with people in the garden. Another outside
> the garden up to the Flood. There was another way after the Flood up
> to the time of Abraham and his children. Then God called a people
> unto himself and called them Jews. they all made and signed a law
> covenant with God. With blessings and curses following dependant on
> how they lived.
>

Most of those are likely just stories.

>
> No with Jesus Christ we have a new and better covenant. One of Blood.
> and that will last until the time of the Gentiles will be fulfilled
> more than likely before you die.

>
>>>
>>> Sorry, but that is the best I can do for now.
>>>
>>
>> That's ok. I guess you did your best with your lack of knowledge.
>

> It isn't that, it is whether or not a person is sincere in learning.
>
> If you reply, I would mainly be interested in how you though you
> could call yourself Christian?
>

I do study and follow Christ's teachings as stated previously.

[duke]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:14:29 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

wrote:

>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:t1s2285en6049bld5...@4ax.com
>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:57:10 +1000, "Andrew W"
>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:2j1028tro4guh5i26...@4ax.com
>>>> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:45:08 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fgcv18le7ilh6qir4...@4ax.com
>>>>>> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:15:45 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>>>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So tell me something false.

>>> A jealous and vengeful god.
>> He's all loving.
>Says who?

The central theme of the bible.

>>> Eternal hell.
>> A person decision.
>A person's decision decides what is reality?

Your personal decision determines salvation or lack thereof.

>>> God wanting only obedience.
>> Take your pick - you or God. No interference.
>Free choice means that we have to determine what happens in *our* life, not
>a 'god'.

And it better be a loving decision, or your goose is already cooked, carved and
consumed.

>>> The Pope being God's deputy.
>> He is by definition.
>Who's definition?
>Answer: The church's.

Nope. God's announcement. And the proper term is "administrative deputy" led
by the Holy Spirit, who himself is God in the 3rd person.

>>> The Bible being words straight from God's mouth.
>> It's is not.
>Yet you always say it is.
>One of your favourite sayings is "God spoke, man wrote". Remember?

Yep, but God doens't use his lips. He speaks to us in our heart.

>>> The RCC being 100% honest and godly.
>> Led by the Holy Spirit so guaranteed.
>What guarantee? Where did you get this idea of a guarantee?

The Church is guided by God, the Holy Spirit. The Church can do no wrong, but
men hired by the Church can and, sadly, very often do.

>Its only in your mind.
>If the church was led by the Holy Spirit then it wouldn't have said and done
>all those dodgy and evil things throughout the centuries.
>Unless of course it is led by dark spirits. And I think that is the case.
>In fact many, including even clergy have said that they believe the church
>has been taken over by the dark.

People are sinners, not the Church.

>>>>> Style of morality and beliefs about God obviously.
>>>>> Those are what religious societies concern themselves with.
>>>> What varying beliefs are there? Can you name some?
>>> Some religions claim God is angry at our mistakes, some don't.
>> Christians don't. I can't speak for muslims.

>If God wasn't angry then -
>1/ Adam and Eve wouldn't have been thrown out of the garden.
>2/ Christ wouldn't have needed to die.
>3/ There would be no condemnation to hell.

To tell God you are his equal gets you thrown out of the garden.

>>> You seem to be new to all this.
>> We well see what you don't know.
>I do know.
>*You* don't know. You just parrot whatever your church utters.

Face it, aw, you're clueless to the Church.

>>>>> Catholicism teaches that God is angry with our mistakes and will
>>>>> abandon us in hell forever if we choose not to repent and dwell
>>>>> with the Catholic version of him, which is obviously stupid.
>>>
>>>> That is totally wrong. Catholicism, which is the Christian version
>>>> given by jesus, is 100% into love for one another.
>>
>>> That's Christianity. That's the Bible.
>> I know, and Catholicism if 100% into scripture.
>That should read - Catholicism is 100% into interpreting scripture its own
>way.

Oh, noooooo. Following the exact wording in scripture. See how little you
know.

>>> You continually fail to recite anything that the RCC says about love.
>>> If 'love for one another' is the only thing that's important (which
>>> I agree) then why do you even need the RCC at all?
>> To guide and help us by order of God.

>You keep repeating in post after post that 'love one another' is the
>important thing.
>If we just have to do that then no further guidance is required.
>So why follow the church's rules, restrictions and rituals?
>Do you like being controlled and told what to do? I think you do.

You're the perfect example of failure.

>>>> God put 1/2 the procreation equation in man and 1/2 in woman. The
>>>> purpose of sex is to mix the 2 parts of the equation to make a baby
>>>> via mutually shaped organs during an intensive act of love. To play
>>>> around with God's ways is evil by blocking the natural function with
>>>> condom or pill, or worst yet to murder the product.
>>> Its not evil! How can love and joy (which is what we will have in
>>> heaven) ever be evil? Think man. Don't you know control when you
>>> see it? Are you that blind and gullible?
>> There is no sex or making love in heaven.
>How do you know?

Sex is flesh, God is love.

>What heaven is about is eternal joy. We can experience some joy on earth to
>relieve some of our stresses. Plus it teaches us love, caring and sharing.
>All of God's children are already present.

>Huh? I think you must be referring to reproduction.

That's why God gave us sex.

>Again, reproduction is not the only function of sex. Its only the physical
>survival function. That's all.

Surprise. The only sex after death is the endless butt reaming you get from
satan (at most).

>
>>> Sex also has other functions than just reproduction like to share
>>> happiness, joy and intimacy.
>> Driven to acts of the flesh.
>"Acts of the flesh", lol!
>You are such a dork duke.

And you are such an immature fool and kid.

>>> But the thing is millennia ago the population was very low and
>>> that's why the society leaders and later the Catholic church
>>> focussed so much on reproduction (including even saving sperm !).
>>> But once a civilisation has reached its optimum level, reproduction
>>> is no longer so necessary. Surely you can see that.
>>> The RCC has filled its flock's heads with old superstitious fear
>>> based tripe, much of which even *it* no longer truly believes.
>>> It belongs in the dark superstitious past.

>I bet you ignored the above facts.

No truth.

>>>>> Also Catholicism is obsessed with the Pope being God's vicar, which
>>>>> God should have no use for and which leads to power accumulation
>>>>> and corruption.
>>>>
>>>> God clearly put Peter in charge and told him to go forward to teach
>>>> and baptize all nations forever.
>>>>
>>>> You lose 0 for 3.
>>
>>> God did no such thing. That's a naive fantasy. It is far from clear
>>> that that dialogue was exactly as described. It is all in the
>>> interpretation and context. You are taking it purely at face value.
>>
>> It's hard to ignore those exact words.
>Its the real meaning and context that was crucially important, and we don't
>know what that was.

The real meaning is the "exact words".

>>> Didn't you even know that religions interpret things
>> A direct quotation. NO interpretation necessary.

>Lol.
>Nothing in the scriptures is a direct quotation dummy.
>We can't know what was said because nothing was written down at the time.
>Much of the Bible is story telling. Every intelligent person knows that
>except dopes like you.

The written word is the newspaper of what all the witnesses of Jesus reported he
said, did, and called for. You didn't know that, did you?

[duke]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 11:03:56 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

wrote:

>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:7gs228dq1fel02af8...@4ax.com
>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 09:41:52 +1000, "Andrew W"
>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:m72028d8n25fa27qh...@4ax.com
>>>> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:57:02 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> a) The existence of God is not really relevant until you can
>>>>> properly and truthfully describe what that 'God' is and what it
>>>>> wants, and Christianity/Catholicism can't.
>>>>
>>>> That was constantly done over the last 6000 years. 0 for 1
>>
>>> Only to the satisfaction of simple slave minded folk like you.
>>
>> You don't even know what the bible says, or why.

>Yes I do. Half the time its *you* who doesn't know what's in the Bible.
>Things are quoted to you and you deny them!

Name 1 from scripture.

>The problem is you've allowed your head to be filled with church crap, and
>you love it!
>You need to be psychiatrically assessed.

God has me covered.

>>>>> b) God doesn't choose one people over another, and he doesn't
>>>>> dictate how we must live because we have free choice to learn and
>>>>> determine that for ourselves and that's the best way we will learn.
>>>>
>>>> God said "I do not run a democracy". 0 for 2.
>>> Then its a dictatorship. Thanks for clarifying that.
>> No, a dictatorship punishes you for taking an opposing view. In
>> Christianity, you get left behind just as you expressed a desire for..

>According to the Bible and 90% of Christianity, hell is a place of
>punishment duke.

Nobody's been there and come back to report. The bible speaks to the Jews as
the sinner is discarded as garbage is discarded in the dump and burned. The
same analogy happens with the wheat, the grain being stored (heaven) and the
hulls burned in the fire (hell).

>But a loving God wouldn't even leave anyone behind, just like a parent would
>never leave their child behind, even if the child wanted to.

When you jump up and cry and scream and refuse to follow, you will be. God
loves you so much that he will let you decide your eternal demise.

>The Christian god figure is anything but loving. It is only loving according
>to its worshippers, just like Allah is loving according to Muslims.
>Worshipful opinion is not reality.

>>> Incidentally it was not God who said anything like that. Except
>>> maybe a false 'god' of which there were many millennia ago, both
>>> human and non-material.
>> Incidentally, you're pure nuts.
>Satan is just one of the false gods duke.
>It has influence on all religions, especially the major ones like the RCC.

Satan is no god. He's a fallen angel.

>>>>> c) A 'messiah' takes away our self responsibility by saving us from
>>>>> ourselves using an irrational and barbaric blood sacrifice on a
>>>>> cross.
>>>> A messiah is a warrior king. 0 for 3.
>>> Jesus was about peace. That makes you and your church antichrists.
>> I know. I told you that. An antichrist denies God in the flesh.
>An antichrist also makes wars. So Jesus cannot be a warrior.

<sigh> The OT prophesied the coming of a messiah that would deliver the people
back to the prosperity they had in the Davidic kingdom before the Babylonian
exile. Surprise, Jesus arrives as a man of peace.

>>> Your mind is still stuck in the past. 'Warrior king' was just an
>>> ancient military saying by the Semites who believed in militarism
>>> ages ago. They were extremely patriarchal and fearful of attack by
>>> neighbouring nations. They wanted and dreamed of getting protection
>>> from the ultimate warrior. Remember that.
>>
>> Anohter demonstration of a nutty ignorance.
>You continually deny ancient facts.
>You are the ignorant one duke.

No points. You have to show me I'm wrong and you're right.

>>>>> The articles you gave above are long obsolete and were the belief
>>>>> of a no longer living group of people in another land.
>>>>
>>>> 0 for 4.
>>> Your beliefs amount to virtually zero in our present time.
>> blah, blah, blah. Quit wasting my time.

>Your time? You have nothing better to do every day except sit here invading
>newsgroup threads with your old RCC crap and inanities.
>Get a life.

You're posting in arcr-c too.

>>>>> And I didn't need the Catholic church and its Pope dictating to me
>>>>> to do it like some people do.
>>>> The Pope and the RCC guide and help us to follow the teachings of
>>>> Jesus.
>>> False. You are so gullible and stubborn. That can only be from fear
>>> of alleged consequences - ones that the RCC pretty much made up or
>>> twisted!
>> Absolute truth.
>I'm glad you agree finally.

Yes, absolute truth is the product of the RCC.

>>>> 0 for 5.
>>>> You are one ignorant boy re Christianity.
>>
>>> The truth is far more important than Christianity ever was.
>>> You are clinging to a religion. I'm not.
>>
>> You are clueless to truth. Just admit it and go away.
>You don't even know the meaning of several English words, let alone what's
>true.

And you have yet to make one accurate statement re the RCC.

[duke]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:36:24 -0700, Pete <b...@sod.cal> wrote:

>On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:06:13 +1000, Andrew W wrote:

>You don't have a lot of questions mostly arguments.
>

>The easiest way to resolve what you are arguing about is to get yourself a

>copy of the bible. Something like the NKJV, and start at the beginning and

>read it through. It would be far easier and less time then jumping around
>all over the place.
>

>I would recommend before you read to ask the God of the Bible to reveal

>Himself to you before each session. If you read it straight through you

>will start to see patterns developing. Also, if something just seems to
>strange of far out, stop and ask Him for the info.
>

>Sorry, but that is the best I can do for now.

Which is not much. You neither are capable of teaching or preaching.

[r m]

On Aug 9, 1:19 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:36:24 -0700, Pete <b...@sod.cal> wrote:
> >On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:06:13 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
> >You don't have a lot of questions mostly arguments.
>
> >The easiest way to resolve what you are arguing about is to get yourself a
> >copy of the bible. Something like the NKJV, and start at the beginning and
> >read it through. It would be far easier and less time then jumping around
> >all over the place.
>
> >I would recommend before you read to ask the God of the Bible to reveal
> >Himself to you before each session. If you read it straight through you
> >will start to see patterns developing. Also, if something just seems to
> >strange of far out, stop and ask Him for the info.
>
> >Sorry, but that is the best I can do for now.
>
> Which is not much.  You neither are capable of teaching or preaching.

If the enquirer has never seen a Bible before, it would be daunting to
pick it up from beginning to end. The churches I've been to simply
hand out one of the Gospels (e.g. Luke in contemporary English) or
possibly a New Testament (which the Gideons do admirably).

The principal reason for a Gospel is that the enquirer must decide
what to do with the Person of Jesus. The OT isn't that helpful in
that regard.

There's lots of tracts around that could be given out (even online
e.g. http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/2wtl/ ). Otherwise engage with
Christians at a local church, or work colleagues, or family and
friends.

But Pete is right that the way we live does heaps towards making Him
known "A new commandment I give unto you that ye love one another; as
I have loved you, that ye also love one another; by this shall all men
know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. "

[duke]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 17:39:21 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

wrote:

>"Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message
>news:3KjUr.3630$l63....@newsfe20.iad
>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 11:27:31 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
>>
>>> "Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message
>>> news:%DhUr.9483$BI5....@newsfe09.iad
>>>>
>>>> You don't have a lot of questions mostly arguments.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My questions are designed to get you and others thinking.
>>> Are you against doing that? Is your religion?
>>>
>>
>> You said it was initially for your benefit. That you were searching.
>> I am not searching other than for more of God in me. I have no reason
>> to search elsewhere. I have found the answers for my living life. As
>> to religion it is that of the NT to help the widows, orphans and such.
>>
>
>We all have to search for the truth in everything. We all benefit from
>greater truths in life and beyond.
>I see many religious people just accept everything their religion or book
>tells them without question.
>That's extremely unwise. Have you done that by any chance?

Man cannot move ahead of God in truth. The resurrection is the sign of God's
truth. Hundreds reported association with the risen Christ in the 40 days
before his ascension.

[r m]

On Aug 9, 2:11 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 17:39:21 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_ajwer...@optusnet.com.au>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message
> >news:3KjUr.3630$l63....@newsfe20.iad
> >> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 11:27:31 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
>
> >>> "Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message
> >>>news:%DhUr.9483$BI5....@newsfe09.iad
>
> >>>> You don't have a lot of questions mostly arguments.
>
> >>> My questions are designed to get you and others thinking.
> >>> Are you against doing that?  Is your religion?
>
> >> You said it was initially for your benefit. That you were searching.
> >> I am not searching other than for more of God in me. I have no reason
> >> to search elsewhere. I have found the answers for my living life. As
> >> to religion it is that of the NT to help the widows, orphans and such.

The Salvation Army (and similar NGOs) are good at that.

>
> >We all have to search for the truth in everything. We all benefit from
> >greater truths in life and beyond.
> >I see many religious people just accept everything their religion or book
> >tells them without question.
> >That's extremely unwise. Have you done that by any chance?
>
> Man cannot move ahead of God in truth.  The resurrection is the sign of God's
> truth.  Hundreds reported association with the risen Christ in the 40 days
> before his ascension.

Aye. Quite a number of witnesses indeed per 1Cor 15:6-ish.

[duke]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:07:44 -0700 (PDT), r m <roy...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Aug 9, 1:19 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:36:24 -0700, Pete <b...@sod.cal> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:06:13 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
>> >You don't have a lot of questions mostly arguments.
>>
>> >The easiest way to resolve what you are arguing about is to get yourself a
>> >copy of the bible. Something like the NKJV, and start at the beginning and
>> >read it through. It would be far easier and less time then jumping around
>> >all over the place.
>>
>> >I would recommend before you read to ask the God of the Bible to reveal
>> >Himself to you before each session. If you read it straight through you
>> >will start to see patterns developing. Also, if something just seems to
>> >strange of far out, stop and ask Him for the info.
>>
>> >Sorry, but that is the best I can do for now.
>>
>> Which is not much.  You neither are capable of teaching or preaching.

>If the enquirer has never seen a Bible before, it would be daunting to
>pick it up from beginning to end. The churches I've been to simply
>hand out one of the Gospels (e.g. Luke in contemporary English) or
>possibly a New Testament (which the Gideons do admirably).

It's takes a village to understand the bible. Those most guilty of cheating
themselves are the ones that think they can pull it together without expert
testimony form thousands of researchers are only fooling themselves. Pete is a
classic example of arrogant ignorance.

>The principal reason for a Gospel is that the enquirer must decide
>what to do with the Person of Jesus. The OT isn't that helpful in
>that regard.

It shouldn't be. The OT is God introducing himself to his creation, giving them
rules of proper living to go by (10 commandments) and the prophesy of the coming
of a future new way, which the Jews subsequently taught as a Messiah to come.

It is thus only in the appearance of the Lord Jesus that the prophesies of the
OT are shown to have occurred and that he is that future king. Jesus then gave
them a new covenant in his blood.

I chuckle every time I see a protest_ant tv service teachings from the OT. Talk
about a loose screw when it comes to current truth.

>There's lots of tracts around that could be given out (even online
>e.g. http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/2wtl/ ). Otherwise engage with
>Christians at a local church, or work colleagues, or family and
>friends.

>But Pete is right that the way we live does heaps towards making Him
>known

Of course it does, but making him known is not the same as following his
example. Jesus said "follow me", not admit I came. The fulfillment of the OT
prophesies in Jesus is clear.

[duke]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:19:49 -0700 (PDT), r m <roy...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Aug 9, 2:11 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 17:39:21 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_ajwer...@optusnet.com.au>
>> wrote:

>> >"Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message
>> >news:3KjUr.3630$l63....@newsfe20.iad
>> >> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 11:27:31 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
>>
>> >>> "Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message
>> >>>news:%DhUr.9483$BI5....@newsfe09.iad
>>
>> >>>> You don't have a lot of questions mostly arguments.
>>
>> >>> My questions are designed to get you and others thinking.
>> >>> Are you against doing that?  Is your religion?
>>
>> >> You said it was initially for your benefit. That you were searching.
>> >> I am not searching other than for more of God in me. I have no reason
>> >> to search elsewhere. I have found the answers for my living life. As
>> >> to religion it is that of the NT to help the widows, orphans and such.

>The Salvation Army (and similar NGOs) are good at that.

They're a VERY small piece of that. The RCC is world wide.

[r m]

On Aug 9, 2:31 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:19:49 -0700 (PDT), r   m <roym...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 9, 2:11 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 17:39:21 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_ajwer...@optusnet.com.au>
> >> wrote:
> >> >"Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message
> >> >news:3KjUr.3630$l63....@newsfe20.iad
> >> >> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 11:27:31 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
>
> >> >>> "Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message
> >> >>>news:%DhUr.9483$BI5....@newsfe09.iad
>
> >> >>>> You don't have a lot of questions mostly arguments.
>
> >> >>> My questions are designed to get you and others thinking.
> >> >>> Are you against doing that?  Is your religion?
>
> >> >> You said it was initially for your benefit. That you were searching.
> >> >> I am not searching other than for more of God in me. I have no reason
> >> >> to search elsewhere. I have found the answers for my living life. As
> >> >> to religion it is that of the NT to help the widows, orphans and such.
> >The Salvation Army (and similar NGOs) are good at that.
>
> They're a VERY small piece of that.  The RCC is world wide.

Aye. I stand corrected. Even the Orthodox church provides such
services (and they are numerically very biggish).

[Michael Joel]

duke wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:07:44 -0700 (PDT), r m <roy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Aug 9, 1:19 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:36:24 -0700, Pete <b...@sod.cal> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:06:13 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
>>>>You don't have a lot of questions mostly arguments.
>>>
>>>>The easiest way to resolve what you are arguing about is to get yourself a
>>>>copy of the bible. Something like the NKJV, and start at the beginning and
>>>>read it through. It would be far easier and less time then jumping around
>>>>all over the place.
>>>
>>>>I would recommend before you read to ask the God of the Bible to reveal
>>>>Himself to you before each session. If you read it straight through you
>>>>will start to see patterns developing. Also, if something just seems to
>>>>strange of far out, stop and ask Him for the info.
>>>
>>>>Sorry, but that is the best I can do for now.
>>>
>>>Which is not much. You neither are capable of teaching or preaching.
>
>
>>If the enquirer has never seen a Bible before, it would be daunting to
>>pick it up from beginning to end. The churches I've been to simply
>>hand out one of the Gospels (e.g. Luke in contemporary English) or
>>possibly a New Testament (which the Gideons do admirably).
>
>
> It's takes a village to understand the bible. Those most guilty of cheating
> themselves are the ones that think they can pull it together without expert
> testimony form thousands of researchers are only fooling themselves. Pete is a
> classic example of arrogant ignorance.

Wow.

Matthew 18:20 (KJV)
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I
in the midst of them.

I don't recall the verses in which it says to go join a group so you can
understand God's Word? I also missed the verses that said thousands of
researchers were needed?

Matthew 7:7-8 (KJV)
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and
it shall be opened unto you: [8] For every one that asketh receiveth;
and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.


Why are you arguing on behalf of God's Word while at the same time not
even going by It?

As for the large groups with thousands of researchers,

Matthew 7:13-14 (KJV)
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is
the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in
thereat: [14] Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which
leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.


Matthew 7:15-20 (KJV)
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly they are ravening wolves. [16] Ye shall know them by their
fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? [17] Even
so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit. [18] A good tree cannot bring forth evil
fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. [19] Every
tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the
fire. [20] Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.


Matthew 7:21-23 (KJV)
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in
heaven. [22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy
name done many wonderful works? [23] And then will I profess unto them,
I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


Matthew 7:24-27 (KJV)
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them,
I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
[25] And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew,
and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a
rock. [26] And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth
them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house
upon the sand: [27] And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the
winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the
fall of it.

>
>
>>The principal reason for a Gospel is that the enquirer must decide
>>what to do with the Person of Jesus. The OT isn't that helpful in
>>that regard.

What? The Old Testament is of extreme help. If you get rid of the Old
Testament you have placed yourself on a path that is easily going to
lead you astray...

Romans 15:4 (KJV)
For whatsoever things were WRITTEN AFORETIME WERE WRITTEN FOR OUR
LEARNING, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might
have hope.

Romans 4:22-24 (KJV)
And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. [23] Now it
was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; [24] But
for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that
raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

2 Tim. 3:15-17 (KJV)
And that from a child thou hast KNOWN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, which
are ABLE TO MAKE THEE WISE UNTO SALVATION THROUGH FAITH which is IN
CHRIST JESUS. [16] ALL SCRIPTURE is given BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is
PROFITABLE for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION IN
RIGHTEOUSNESS: [17] That the man of God MAY BE PERFECT, thoroughly
FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS.

2 Peter 1:20-21 (KJV)
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any
private interpretation. [21] For the prophecy came not in old time by
the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the
Holy Ghost.

>
>
> It shouldn't be. The OT is God introducing himself to his creation, giving them
> rules of proper living to go by (10 commandments) and the prophesy of the coming
> of a future new way, which the Jews subsequently taught as a Messiah to come.
>
> It is thus only in the appearance of the Lord Jesus that the prophesies of the
> OT are shown to have occurred and that he is that future king. Jesus then gave
> them a new covenant in his blood.
>
> I chuckle every time I see a protest_ant tv service teachings from the OT. Talk
> about a loose screw when it comes to current truth.

Again - you claim God's Word but what you say is completely against It.
Not that the protestants do either -
catholics follow a man and his, and their, imaginations and minimize
God's Word.
Protestants follow each man's imaginations and minimize God's Word.


Malachi 1:6-7 (KJV)
A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be
a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear?
saith the Lord of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And
ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name? [7] Ye offer polluted bread
upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye
say, The table of the Lord is contemptible.


You rather men's imaginations than God's Word.


Luke 6:46 (KJV)
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?


Matthew 7:21-23 (KJV)
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven; BUT HE THAT DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER which is in
heaven. [22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy
name done many wonderful works? [23] And then will I profess unto them,
I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

And simply Loving your neighbor as yourself isn't doing the Law when the
Love is by your standard and not God's.

Romans 13:8-10 (KJV)
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that LOVETH
ANOTHER HATH FULFILLED THE LAW.

[9] For this, THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,
THOU SHALT NOT KILL,
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL,
THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS,
THOU SHALT NOT COVET;

and if there be ANY OTHER COMMANDMENT, it is BRIEFLY COMPREHENDED in
this saying, namely, THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR AS THYSELF. [10] LOVE
WORKETH NO ILL to his neighbour: THEREFORE LOVE IS THE FULFILLING OF THE
LAW.

If your working sin then you are not Loving. Sin is the breaking of the Law.

1 John 3:4 (KJV)
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: FOR SIN IS THE
TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW.

>
>
>>There's lots of tracts around that could be given out (even online
>>e.g. http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/2wtl/ ). Otherwise engage with
>>Christians at a local church, or work colleagues, or family and
>>friends.
>
>
>>But Pete is right that the way we live does heaps towards making Him
>>known
>
>
> Of course it does, but making him known is not the same as following his
> example. Jesus said "follow me", not admit I came. The fulfillment of the OT
> prophesies in Jesus is clear.

Jesus did say "follow Me" - He also said to follow Him one had to deny
themselves - and hate their lives. He didn't mean deny yourself in your
way - or hate your life in your way. It must be in His way. And the Law
teaches us righteousness so we know what sin is and what righteousness is.


Matthew 5:17-20 (KJV)
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am
not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [18] For verily I say unto you, Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from
the law, till all be fulfilled. [19] Whosoever therefore shall break one
of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called
the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach
them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For
I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter
into the kingdom of heaven.



--

If you wish to post a reply, please reply in
alt.religion.christian.biblestudy
Replies in other newsgroups will not be seen.

[Michael Joel]

duke wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:36:24 -0700, Pete <b...@sod.cal> wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:06:13 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
>
>
>>You don't have a lot of questions mostly arguments.
>>
>>The easiest way to resolve what you are arguing about is to get yourself a
>>copy of the bible. Something like the NKJV, and start at the beginning and
>>read it through. It would be far easier and less time then jumping around
>>all over the place.
>>
>>I would recommend before you read to ask the God of the Bible to reveal
>>Himself to you before each session. If you read it straight through you
>>will start to see patterns developing. Also, if something just seems to
>>strange of far out, stop and ask Him for the info.
>>
>>Sorry, but that is the best I can do for now.
>


>
> Which is not much. You neither are capable of teaching or preaching.

Sounded like righteous advice. Seek God and aks of Him.

But you appear believe on relying on man to get understanding so to you
it wouldn't. You seek man and ask of him.

[r m]

On Aug 9, 5:54 am, Pete <b...@sod.cal> wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:07:44 -0700 (PDT), r m wrote:
> > But Pete is right that the way we live does heaps towards making Him
> > known "A new commandment I give unto you that ye love one another; as
> > I have loved you, that ye also love one another; by this shall all men
> > know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. "
>

> I'm not right, the word of God is. This intrinsic truth should be
> associated with Christ Jesus, not me.

No worries. Just giving due credit for bringing this passage to our
attention in recent times.

>
> --
> Peter
> A living Stone
> A Disciple of The Lord Jesus Christ
> Joh 13:34-35 KJV
> Join up now.

[r m]

On Aug 9, 3:58 am, Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void>
wrote:
> duke wrote:

My comment was on the basis of a new comer with no exposure to the
Bible. Since it is such a big read before coming to the gospel of our
Lord, the best place to start would be the NT - not discounting the OT
at all.

r

> >>e.g.http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/2wtl/).  Otherwise engage with

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:cej428d9ujhe88ct7...@4ax.com

> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:14:29 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:t1s2285en6049bld5...@4ax.com
>>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:57:10 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So tell me something false.
>
>>>> A jealous and vengeful god.
>>> He's all loving.
>> Says who?
>
> The central theme of the bible.
>

It doesn't matter much what the Bible says.
It was written by humans who had their own beliefs. They had the free will
to write whatever they wanted.

>
>>>> Eternal hell.
>>> A person decision.
>> A person's decision decides what is reality?
>
> Your personal decision determines salvation or lack thereof.
>

The RCC has over dramatised the whole thing.

>
>>>> God wanting only obedience.
>>> Take your pick - you or God. No interference.
>> Free choice means that we have to determine what happens in *our*
>> life, not a 'god'.
>
> And it better be a loving decision, or your goose is already cooked,
> carved and consumed.
>

Cut the drama already duke.
You sound like a talk show host.

>
>>>> The Pope being God's deputy.
>>> He is by definition.
>> Who's definition?
>> Answer: The church's.
>
> Nope. God's announcement. And the proper term is "administrative
> deputy" led by the Holy Spirit, who himself is God in the 3rd person.
>

And who told you all that?
Answer: Your church.

>
>>>> The Bible being words straight from God's mouth.
>>> It's is not.
>> Yet you always say it is.
>> One of your favourite sayings is "God spoke, man wrote". Remember?
>
> Yep, but God doens't use his lips. He speaks to us in our heart.
>

Where did I say he used physical lips?

>
>>>> The RCC being 100% honest and godly.
>>> Led by the Holy Spirit so guaranteed.
>> What guarantee? Where did you get this idea of a guarantee?
>
> The Church is guided by God, the Holy Spirit. The Church can do no
> wrong, but men hired by the Church can and, sadly, very often do.
>

The church is made up of men duke. It is the church.
The rest is the flock and they're even more fallible.
And the church has done plenty of wrong throughout the millennia. They have
never shown any guidance by a divine spirit, except with charities etc,
which are also done by other groups in the community including non religious
ones.

>
>> Its only in your mind.
>> If the church was led by the Holy Spirit then it wouldn't have said
>> and done all those dodgy and evil things throughout the centuries.
>> Unless of course it is led by dark spirits. And I think that is the
>> case. In fact many, including even clergy have said that they
>> believe the church has been taken over by the dark.
>
> People are sinners, not the Church.
>

The people are the church.
What did you think the church was?

>
>>>>>> Style of morality and beliefs about God obviously.
>>>>>> Those are what religious societies concern themselves with.
>>>>> What varying beliefs are there? Can you name some?
>>>> Some religions claim God is angry at our mistakes, some don't.
>>> Christians don't. I can't speak for muslims.
>
>> If God wasn't angry then -
>> 1/ Adam and Eve wouldn't have been thrown out of the garden.
>> 2/ Christ wouldn't have needed to die.
>> 3/ There would be no condemnation to hell.
>
> To tell God you are his equal gets you thrown out of the garden.
>

No one suggested any such thing.
This is just your imagination and interpretation.
But think about this. Only a tyrannical false god would get up in arms about
someone wanting to be like him in the first place.
For the true Creator it would be no problem because nothing can threaten the
power of a true God, only a false one.
In fact a true Creator would be flattered if his creations wanted to be like
him. Because besides God made us in his image anyway.
So this proves that the OT Bible god figure was a false god.

>
>>>> You seem to be new to all this.
>>> We well see what you don't know.
>> I do know.
>> *You* don't know. You just parrot whatever your church utters.
>
> Face it, aw, you're clueless to the Church.
>

No, you are. I know about the corruption and falsities in it. You don't.
And you don't even want to know.

>
>>>>>> Catholicism teaches that God is angry with our mistakes and will
>>>>>> abandon us in hell forever if we choose not to repent and dwell
>>>>>> with the Catholic version of him, which is obviously stupid.
>>>>
>>>>> That is totally wrong. Catholicism, which is the Christian
>>>>> version given by jesus, is 100% into love for one another.
>>>
>>>> That's Christianity. That's the Bible.
>>> I know, and Catholicism if 100% into scripture.
>> That should read - Catholicism is 100% into interpreting scripture
>> its own way.
>
> Oh, noooooo. Following the exact wording in scripture. See how
> little you know.
>

You only have beliefs.
Beliefs are not knowledge. Learn the difference.
Plus your knowledge of certain things in the scriptures is atrocious.

>
>>>> You continually fail to recite anything that the RCC says about
>>>> love. If 'love for one another' is the only thing that's important
>>>> (which I agree) then why do you even need the RCC at all?
>>> To guide and help us by order of God.
>
>> You keep repeating in post after post that 'love one another' is the
>> important thing.
>> If we just have to do that then no further guidance is required.
>> So why follow the church's rules, restrictions and rituals?
>> Do you like being controlled and told what to do? I think you do.
>
> You're the perfect example of failure.
>

You are talking about yourself again.
It seems you can hardly ever reply properly to any question, except with
stupid little come-backs.

>
>>>>> God put 1/2 the procreation equation in man and 1/2 in woman. The
>>>>> purpose of sex is to mix the 2 parts of the equation to make a
>>>>> baby via mutually shaped organs during an intensive act of love.
>>>>> To play around with God's ways is evil by blocking the natural
>>>>> function with condom or pill, or worst yet to murder the product.
>>>> Its not evil! How can love and joy (which is what we will have in
>>>> heaven) ever be evil? Think man. Don't you know control when you
>>>> see it? Are you that blind and gullible?
>>> There is no sex or making love in heaven.
>> How do you know?
>
> Sex is flesh, God is love.
>

God created flesh. If flesh is evil then God created evil.

>
>> What heaven is about is eternal joy. We can experience some joy on
>> earth to relieve some of our stresses. Plus it teaches us love,
>> caring and sharing. All of God's children are already present.
>
>> Huh? I think you must be referring to reproduction.
>
> That's why God gave us sex.
>

That's one reason.
Don't pretend that you're an authority on sex.

>
>> Again, reproduction is not the only function of sex. Its only the
>> physical survival function. That's all.
>
> Surprise. The only sex after death is the endless butt reaming you
> get from satan (at most).
>>

You're being silly and crude again.
Cut it out.

In the spirit world there is a similar type of interaction as love making
but in an energetic way.

>
>>>> Sex also has other functions than just reproduction like to share
>>>> happiness, joy and intimacy.
>>> Driven to acts of the flesh.
>> "Acts of the flesh", lol!
>> You are such a dork duke.
>
> And you are such an immature fool and kid.
>

Why? Because I don't march to your church's drum?
You are the immature one by your stupid responses.

>
>>>> But the thing is millennia ago the population was very low and
>>>> that's why the society leaders and later the Catholic church
>>>> focussed so much on reproduction (including even saving sperm !).
>>>> But once a civilisation has reached its optimum level, reproduction
>>>> is no longer so necessary. Surely you can see that.
>>>> The RCC has filled its flock's heads with old superstitious fear
>>>> based tripe, much of which even *it* no longer truly believes.
>>>> It belongs in the dark superstitious past.
>
>> I bet you ignored the above facts.
>
> No truth.
>

You don't know what truth is.
You think truth is whatever your church claims about God and Jesus and its
own biblical interpretations.

>>>
>>>> God did no such thing. That's a naive fantasy. It is far from clear
>>>> that that dialogue was exactly as described. It is all in the
>>>> interpretation and context. You are taking it purely at face value.
>>>
>>> It's hard to ignore those exact words.
>> Its the real meaning and context that was crucially important, and
>> we don't know what that was.
>
> The real meaning is the "exact words".
>

Nope. You're taking them purely at face value. Most of the scriptures are
symbolic and metaphoric.
And a lot of them are religious opinions of the human authors.
You are just a common literalist simpleton like the protestant
evangelist Bible thumpers.
You lot never learned to use your brains properly and think critically.
Critical thinking is crucial in this world.

>
>> Lol.
>> Nothing in the scriptures is a direct quotation dummy.
>> We can't know what was said because nothing was written down at the
>> time. Much of the Bible is story telling. Every intelligent person
>> knows that except dopes like you.
>
> The written word is the newspaper of what all the witnesses of Jesus
> reported he said, did, and called for. You didn't know that, did you?
>

The scriptures are in no way 'newspaper' reports. But newspapers lie
and exaggerate anyway.
The scriptures were just verbally passed on accounts by fallible ancient
superstitious humans who didn't understand what Jesus was about.

Honestly, if you were to say some of these dopey things in front of a
biblical scholar he would rupture himself laughing.

[duke]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:32:45 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

wrote:

>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:cej428d9ujhe88ct7...@4ax.com
>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:14:29 +1000, "Andrew W"
>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:t1s2285en6049bld5...@4ax.com
>>>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:57:10 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So tell me something false.
>>
>>>>> A jealous and vengeful god.
>>>> He's all loving.
>>> Says who?
>>
>> The central theme of the bible.

>It doesn't matter much what the Bible says.
>It was written by humans who had their own beliefs. They had the free will
>to write whatever they wanted.

That's what you just did.

>>>>> Eternal hell.
>>>> A person decision.
>>> A person's decision decides what is reality?
>> Your personal decision determines salvation or lack thereof.
>The RCC has over dramatised the whole thing.

Well, you'll find out shortly. Personally, I suspect satan sees fresh meat in
you coming his way.

>>>>> God wanting only obedience.
>>>> Take your pick - you or God. No interference.
>>> Free choice means that we have to determine what happens in *our*
>>> life, not a 'god'.
>> And it better be a loving decision, or your goose is already cooked,
>> carved and consumed.

>Cut the drama already duke.
>You sound like a talk show host.

Right now, you're a very foolish boy.

>>>>> The Pope being God's deputy.
>>>> He is by definition.
>>> Who's definition?
>>> Answer: The church's.
>> Nope. God's announcement. And the proper term is "administrative
>> deputy" led by the Holy Spirit, who himself is God in the 3rd person.
>
>And who told you all that?
>Answer: Your church.

And you got your info from a Superman comic book.

>>>>> The Bible being words straight from God's mouth.
>>>> It's is not.
>>> Yet you always say it is.
>>> One of your favourite sayings is "God spoke, man wrote". Remember?
>> Yep, but God doens't use his lips. He speaks to us in our heart.
>Where did I say he used physical lips?

I was pretty sure you didn't know that.

>>>>> The RCC being 100% honest and godly.
>>>> Led by the Holy Spirit so guaranteed.
>>> What guarantee? Where did you get this idea of a guarantee?
>> The Church is guided by God, the Holy Spirit. The Church can do no
>> wrong, but men hired by the Church can and, sadly, very often do.
>The church is made up of men duke. It is the church.

And Jesus clearly stated that all men are sinners. And so, the Church is fully
called to overcome sin on an individual basis.

You are too weak to comply.

>The rest is the flock and they're even more fallible.
>And the church has done plenty of wrong throughout the millennia. They have
>never shown any guidance by a divine spirit, except with charities etc,
>which are also done by other groups in the community including non religious
>ones.

Well, you're just demonstrating your ignorance now.

>>> Its only in your mind.
>>> If the church was led by the Holy Spirit then it wouldn't have said
>>> and done all those dodgy and evil things throughout the centuries.
>>> Unless of course it is led by dark spirits. And I think that is the
>>> case. In fact many, including even clergy have said that they
>>> believe the church has been taken over by the dark.
>> People are sinners, not the Church.
>The people are the church.
>What did you think the church was?

People who make the special effort to overcome their sinfulness. You should try
it sometime.

>>> If God wasn't angry then -
>>> 1/ Adam and Eve wouldn't have been thrown out of the garden.
>>> 2/ Christ wouldn't have needed to die.
>>> 3/ There would be no condemnation to hell.
>> To tell God you are his equal gets you thrown out of the garden.
>No one suggested any such thing.

Wow, how ignorant truth can you be.

>This is just your imagination and interpretation.
>But think about this. Only a tyrannical false god would get up in arms about
>someone wanting to be like him in the first place.
>For the true Creator it would be no problem because nothing can threaten the
>power of a true God, only a false one.
>In fact a true Creator would be flattered if his creations wanted to be like
>him. Because besides God made us in his image anyway.
>So this proves that the OT Bible god figure was a false god.

>>>>> You seem to be new to all this.
>>>> We well see what you don't know.
>>> I do know.
>>> *You* don't know. You just parrot whatever your church utters.
>> Face it, aw, you're clueless to the Church.
>No, you are. I know about the corruption and falsities in it. You don't.
>And you don't even want to know.

<smile>

>>>>>>> Catholicism teaches that God is angry with our mistakes and will
>>>>>>> abandon us in hell forever if we choose not to repent and dwell
>>>>>>> with the Catholic version of him, which is obviously stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is totally wrong. Catholicism, which is the Christian
>>>>>> version given by jesus, is 100% into love for one another.
>>>>
>>>>> That's Christianity. That's the Bible.
>>>> I know, and Catholicism if 100% into scripture.
>>> That should read - Catholicism is 100% into interpreting scripture
>>> its own way.
>>
>> Oh, noooooo. Following the exact wording in scripture. See how
>> little you know.

>You only have beliefs.
>Beliefs are not knowledge. Learn the difference.
>Plus your knowledge of certain things in the scriptures is atrocious.

You have zero knowledge.

>>>> There is no sex or making love in heaven.
>>> How do you know?
>> Sex is flesh, God is love.
>God created flesh. If flesh is evil then God created evil.

God wanted our individual choice. Too bad you're losing so bad.

>>> What heaven is about is eternal joy. We can experience some joy on
>>> earth to relieve some of our stresses. Plus it teaches us love,
>>> caring and sharing. All of God's children are already present.
>>> Huh? I think you must be referring to reproduction.
>> That's why God gave us sex.
>That's one reason.
>Don't pretend that you're an authority on sex.

That's the only reason.

>>> Again, reproduction is not the only function of sex. Its only the
>>> physical survival function. That's all.
>> Surprise. The only sex after death is the endless butt reaming you
>> get from satan (at most).
>You're being silly and crude again.
>Cut it out.

You just didn't know that.

[duke]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:34:30 -0700 (PDT), r m <roy...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Aug 9, 2:31 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:19:49 -0700 (PDT), r   m <roym...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >On Aug 9, 2:11 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 17:39:21 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_ajwer...@optusnet.com.au>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >"Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message
>> >> >news:3KjUr.3630$l63....@newsfe20.iad
>> >> >> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 11:27:31 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> "Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message
>> >> >>>news:%DhUr.9483$BI5....@newsfe09.iad
>>
>> >> >>>> You don't have a lot of questions mostly arguments.
>>
>> >> >>> My questions are designed to get you and others thinking.
>> >> >>> Are you against doing that?  Is your religion?
>>
>> >> >> You said it was initially for your benefit. That you were searching.
>> >> >> I am not searching other than for more of God in me. I have no reason
>> >> >> to search elsewhere. I have found the answers for my living life. As
>> >> >> to religion it is that of the NT to help the widows, orphans and such.
>> >The Salvation Army (and similar NGOs) are good at that.
>>
>> They're a VERY small piece of that.  The RCC is world wide.
>
>Aye. I stand corrected. Even the Orthodox church provides such
>services (and they are numerically very biggish).

I'm just saying that the call of the religious base in Christianity is to love
one another and feed the hungry, clothe the naked, given drink to the thirsty,
help the needy, etc.

[duke]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 12:47:58 -0700, Pete <b...@sod.cal> wrote:

>On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 17:39:21 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
>
>> "Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message
>> news:3KjUr.3630$l63....@newsfe20.iad
>>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 11:27:31 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message
>>>> news:%DhUr.9483$BI5....@newsfe09.iad
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't have a lot of questions mostly arguments.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My questions are designed to get you and others thinking.
>>>> Are you against doing that? Is your religion?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You said it was initially for your benefit. That you were searching.
>>> I am not searching other than for more of God in me. I have no reason
>>> to search elsewhere. I have found the answers for my living life. As
>>> to religion it is that of the NT to help the widows, orphans and such.
>>>
>>
>> We all have to search for the truth in everything. We all benefit from
>> greater truths in life and beyond.
>> I see many religious people just accept everything their religion or book
>> tells them without question.
>> That's extremely unwise. Have you done that by any chance?

>Nope, In fact he proved himself to me years before I gave my life to him.
>He reminded me of that on more than one occasion over the years. Until I
>desparately needed Him, He was faithful all along. Even preserving my life
>on more than one occasion. Which I am eternally grateful for. Yet I am just
>a man like everyone else, what He does for one He is more than willing to
>do for all.

The world is full of evil people who succeed. Why? By your words, it's thanks
to Jesus.

[duke]

Yet, the bible (such as the NT itself) is a committee decision on which books to
include and which not to basis being in full accord with the words, actions and
teaching of Jesus.

They are the research experts that know how the NT dovetails into the OT. The
NT is the certification, for instance, that Jesus is the messiah because he
fulfilled the prophesies of the OT. Now since the time of Jesus, millions of
man hours of biblical research has been performed, evaluated, studied, written
etc in certifying the accuracy of the bible.

No man by himself could even scratch the glass without such help. That's a
major knowledge problem for bible readers. They can try, but they just don't
have what it takes to pull it all together. That is highly evident in their
"settling on 1 or 2 verses in the bible" as being gospel. And that's a major
error on their part. One must take the entirety of the bible into consideration
to even come close to understanding God's call to us.

One thing is clear. Any man that claims to know the bible can't possibly be
anything but Roman Catholic.

>Matthew 7:7-8 (KJV)
> Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and
>it shall be opened unto you: [8] For every one that asketh receiveth;
>and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

And what is given? What you want or what God knows you need?

>Why are you arguing on behalf of God's Word while at the same time not
>even going by It?

You have an impossible task ahead of you to make that case.

You don't understand. God is one to the Jew. God became seen as a trinity to
the Christian.

No, it's not. I telling you what is thanks to both OT and NT.

>Not that the protestants do either -
>catholics follow a man and his, and their, imaginations and minimize
>God's Word.
>Protestants follow each man's imaginations and minimize God's Word.

Catholics are fully in accord with everything in the OT and NT. Most
protest_ants don't even know there's 4 gospels. They have never read them.

>Malachi 1:6-7 (KJV)
> A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be
>a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear?
>saith the Lord of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And
>ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name? [7] Ye offer polluted bread
>upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye
>say, The table of the Lord is contemptible.
>You rather men's imaginations than God's Word.

>Luke 6:46 (KJV)
> And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

Protest_ants don't understand "Jesus' call to follow him".

>Matthew 7:21-23 (KJV)
> Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
>kingdom of heaven; BUT HE THAT DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER which is in
>heaven. [22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
>prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy
>name done many wonderful works? [23] And then will I profess unto them,
>I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

>And simply Loving your neighbor as yourself isn't doing the Law when the
>Love is by your standard and not God's.

John 13:34 disagrees with you.

>Romans 13:8-10 (KJV)
> Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that LOVETH
>ANOTHER HATH FULFILLED THE LAW.

And some protest_ant churches allow the members to judge other members. How
unchristian.

>[9] For this, THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,
>THOU SHALT NOT KILL,
>THOU SHALT NOT STEAL,
>THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS,
>THOU SHALT NOT COVET;

>and if there be ANY OTHER COMMANDMENT, it is BRIEFLY COMPREHENDED in
>this saying, namely, THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR AS THYSELF. [10] LOVE
>WORKETH NO ILL to his neighbour: THEREFORE LOVE IS THE FULFILLING OF THE
>LAW.

>If your working sin then you are not Loving. Sin is the breaking of the Law.

Sin is worst than that. To sin is to tell God you are his equal and will make
decisions re right v wrong. See adam and eve. The classical example - God said
"do not" and they said "we'll decide".

>1 John 3:4 (KJV)
> Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: FOR SIN IS THE
>TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW.

>>>There's lots of tracts around that could be given out (even online
>>>e.g. http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/2wtl/ ). Otherwise engage with
>>>Christians at a local church, or work colleagues, or family and
>>>friends.
>>
>>
>>>But Pete is right that the way we live does heaps towards making Him
>>>known

>> Of course it does, but making him known is not the same as following his
>> example. Jesus said "follow me", not admit I came. The fulfillment of the OT
>> prophesies in Jesus is clear.

>Jesus did say "follow Me" - He also said to follow Him one had to deny
>themselves - and hate their lives. He didn't mean deny yourself in your
>way - or hate your life in your way. It must be in His way. And the Law
>teaches us righteousness so we know what sin is and what righteousness is.

Of course. Mat 25:31-46 is an excellent follow on to John 13:34. Most
protest_ants don't know that because they don't read the gospels.

>Matthew 5:17-20 (KJV)
> Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am
>not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [18] For verily I say unto you, Till
>heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from
>the law, till all be fulfilled. [19] Whosoever therefore shall break one
>of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called
>the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach
>them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For
>I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the
>righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter
>into the kingdom of heaven.

[duke]

Right. The OT is essentially God introducing himself to his lost people, giving
them a set of rules (10 commandments) for living God's way, and prophesying the
coming of a new way, which the Jews came to know as a messiah, which technically
is a warrior king that would deliver the Jews back to the prosperity of the
Davidic kingdom prior to the Babylonian exile.

That just goes to show us how important history is to the where's and whyfores
of that which is written in and around God's word.

The arrival of Jesus and the happenings around him certify the fulfillment of
the OT prophesies.

Then the Son of God present as son of man (flesh) demonstrated to us the way to
the heavenly kingdom by way of full and complete love and obedience to the
Father.

The flesh of Jesus said to other flesh "follow me".

[duke]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 12:54:31 -0700, Pete <b...@sod.cal> wrote:

>On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:07:44 -0700 (PDT), r m wrote:
>
>> But Pete is right that the way we live does heaps towards making Him
>> known "A new commandment I give unto you that ye love one another; as
>> I have loved you, that ye also love one another; by this shall all men
>> know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. "
>

>I'm not right, the word of God is. This intrinsic truth should be
>associated with Christ Jesus, not me.

AMEN to that.

[duke]

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:58:05 -0400, Michael Joel
<no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:36:24 -0700, Pete <b...@sod.cal> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:06:13 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You don't have a lot of questions mostly arguments.
>>>
>>>The easiest way to resolve what you are arguing about is to get yourself a
>>>copy of the bible. Something like the NKJV, and start at the beginning and
>>>read it through. It would be far easier and less time then jumping around
>>>all over the place.
>>>
>>>I would recommend before you read to ask the God of the Bible to reveal
>>>Himself to you before each session. If you read it straight through you
>>>will start to see patterns developing. Also, if something just seems to
>>>strange of far out, stop and ask Him for the info.
>>>
>>>Sorry, but that is the best I can do for now.

>> Which is not much. You neither are capable of teaching or preaching.
>Sounded like righteous advice. Seek God and aks of Him.

No - seek God and FOLLOW his son.

>But you appear believe on relying on man to get understanding so to you
>it wouldn't. You seek man and ask of him.

Our guide was a man of flesh some 2000 years ago. He was the only flesh to
avoid sin. Heb 4:15. He said "follow me".

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:539728pnfodmahp6v...@4ax.com

> On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:32:45 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> A jealous and vengeful god.
>>>>> He's all loving.
>>>> Says who?
>>>
>>> The central theme of the bible.
>
>> It doesn't matter much what the Bible says.
>> It was written by humans who had their own beliefs. They had the
>> free will to write whatever they wanted.
>
> That's what you just did.
>

Its what we all do in this world, whether its writing a novel or writing the
scriptures.

>
>>>>>> Eternal hell.
>>>>> A person decision.
>>>> A person's decision decides what is reality?
>>> Your personal decision determines salvation or lack thereof.
>> The RCC has over dramatised the whole thing.
>
> Well, you'll find out shortly. Personally, I suspect satan sees
> fresh meat in you coming his way.
>

You like to use the words 'fresh meat' and scare people a lot with your
unfounded old religious beliefs.
You are sick.
Religions often make people sick in the head. Sometimes they already are
sick in the head and that's why they join.

>
>>>>>> God wanting only obedience.
>>>>> Take your pick - you or God. No interference.
>>>> Free choice means that we have to determine what happens in *our*
>>>> life, not a 'god'.
>>> And it better be a loving decision, or your goose is already cooked,
>>> carved and consumed.
>
>> Cut the drama already duke.
>> You sound like a talk show host.
>
> Right now, you're a very foolish boy.
>

Why? Because I don't jump to your scary and dorky warnings?
You're a fool for falling for the church's old false superstitious scare
mongering in the first place.
If you could think critically like most people then you'd be a very
different and normal person.

>
>>>>>> The Pope being God's deputy.
>>>>> He is by definition.
>>>> Who's definition?
>>>> Answer: The church's.
>>> Nope. God's announcement. And the proper term is "administrative
>>> deputy" led by the Holy Spirit, who himself is God in the 3rd
>>> person.
>>
>> And who told you all that?
>> Answer: Your church.
>
> And you got your info from a Superman comic book.
>

I don't read comics.
But your comic book is your Bible.
Most people realise when they grow up that most of the Bible stories are
just that. But since your mind is stunted you still believe the stories were
all real events.

>
>>>>>> The Bible being words straight from God's mouth.
>>>>> It's is not.
>>>> Yet you always say it is.
>>>> One of your favourite sayings is "God spoke, man wrote". Remember?
>>> Yep, but God doens't use his lips. He speaks to us in our heart.
>> Where did I say he used physical lips?
>
> I was pretty sure you didn't know that.
>

Lol! Didn't know what? You're the one who thinks God is a person who
speaks, not me.

>
>>>>>> The RCC being 100% honest and godly.
>>>>> Led by the Holy Spirit so guaranteed.
>>>> What guarantee? Where did you get this idea of a guarantee?
>>> The Church is guided by God, the Holy Spirit. The Church can do no
>>> wrong, but men hired by the Church can and, sadly, very often do.
>> The church is made up of men duke. It is the church.
>
> And Jesus clearly stated that all men are sinners. And so, the
> Church is fully called to overcome sin on an individual basis.
>
> You are too weak to comply.
>

What exactly did you want me to say there?
Do you want a reply for every dorky comment you make? Are you that hungry
for attention?

But I don't think Jesus ever said that we are all sinners. That was priests
who said that.
Jesus wasn't into laying guilt trips onto people. He was more positive and
helpful than that.
The problem is, you like the dumb evangelists just think that every single
thing in the Bible was said by God or Jesus. That is in no way the case.

>
>>>> Its only in your mind.
>>>> If the church was led by the Holy Spirit then it wouldn't have said
>>>> and done all those dodgy and evil things throughout the centuries.
>>>> Unless of course it is led by dark spirits. And I think that is the
>>>> case. In fact many, including even clergy have said that they
>>>> believe the church has been taken over by the dark.
>>> People are sinners, not the Church.
>> The people are the church.
>> What did you think the church was?
>
> People who make the special effort to overcome their sinfulness. You
> should try it sometime.
>

So according to you, any Catholic member who is not making enough effort to
avoid sin, is not really part of the church?
So in that case the Catholic church is really far smaller than is stated by
attendance and membership. Your church is not so big after all then.
Thanks for clarifying that.

>
>>>> If God wasn't angry then -
>>>> 1/ Adam and Eve wouldn't have been thrown out of the garden.
>>>> 2/ Christ wouldn't have needed to die.
>>>> 3/ There would be no condemnation to hell.
>>> To tell God you are his equal gets you thrown out of the garden.
>> No one suggested any such thing.
>
> Wow, how ignorant truth can you be.
>

The scriptures say nothing about Adam and Eve or anyone else believing that
they are equal to God. This is just your silly imagination.
If you can find a verse or statement saying so then quote it. Otherwise get
a brain and stop twaddling inane crap.

>>>>>
>>>>>> That's Christianity. That's the Bible.
>>>>> I know, and Catholicism if 100% into scripture.
>>>> That should read - Catholicism is 100% into interpreting scripture
>>>> its own way.
>>>
>>> Oh, noooooo. Following the exact wording in scripture. See how
>>> little you know.
>
>> You only have beliefs.
>> Beliefs are not knowledge. Learn the difference.
>> Plus your knowledge of certain things in the scriptures is atrocious.
>
> You have zero knowledge.
>

Wrong. Its you that has zero brains, so you can't recognise true knowledge,
because your brain is stuffed with fallacious old superstition based
doctrines. There's no room for anything else. You as a Catholic fundy are
completely incapable of critical thinking.
Have you ever had an original thought in your entire life? I really doubt
it.

>
>>>> What heaven is about is eternal joy. We can experience some joy on
>>>> earth to relieve some of our stresses. Plus it teaches us love,
>>>> caring and sharing. All of God's children are already present.
>>>> Huh? I think you must be referring to reproduction.
>>> That's why God gave us sex.
>> That's one reason.
>> Don't pretend that you're an authority on sex.
>
> That's the only reason.
>

Says who?

>
>>>> Again, reproduction is not the only function of sex. Its only the
>>>> physical survival function. That's all.
>>> Surprise. The only sex after death is the endless butt reaming you
>>> get from satan (at most).
>> You're being silly and crude again.
>> Cut it out.
>
> You just didn't know that.
>

Lol.
You always imagine that you're smarter than others just because they argue
with you.
Duke's rule: If you argue against me then you're dumb! If you agree with me
100% then you're smart!

You're a riot duke! I've met some loonies but you take the cake.

[•R.Measures]

In article <k01gvi$gik$1...@dont-email.me>, "Andrew W"

<remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:539728pnfodmahp6v...@4ax.com
> > On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:32:45 +1000, "Andrew W"
> > <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> A jealous and vengeful god.
> >>>>> He's all loving.
> >>>> Says who?
> >>>
> >>> The central theme of the bible.
> >
> >> It doesn't matter much what the Bible says.
> >> It was written by humans who had their own beliefs. They had the
> >> free will to write whatever they wanted.
> >
> > That's what you just did.
> >
>
> Its what we all do in this world, whether its writing a novel or writing the
> scriptures.
>

• The RCC has inabashedly done this when writing its version of its own
history.

[duke]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:26:39 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

wrote:

>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:539728pnfodmahp6v...@4ax.com
>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:32:45 +1000, "Andrew W"
>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> A jealous and vengeful god.
>>>>>> He's all loving.
>>>>> Says who?
>>>>
>>>> The central theme of the bible.
>>
>>> It doesn't matter much what the Bible says.
>>> It was written by humans who had their own beliefs. They had the
>>> free will to write whatever they wanted.
>>
>> That's what you just did.

>Its what we all do in this world, whether its writing a novel or writing the
>scriptures.

But the bible comes from God. You have only yourself to blame.

>>>>>>> Eternal hell.
>>>>>> A person decision.
>>>>> A person's decision decides what is reality?
>>>> Your personal decision determines salvation or lack thereof.
>>> The RCC has over dramatised the whole thing.
>>
>> Well, you'll find out shortly. Personally, I suspect satan sees
>> fresh meat in you coming his way.

>You like to use the words 'fresh meat' and scare people a lot with your
>unfounded old religious beliefs.

Your unfounded beliefs state there is no God and no hell. You're misleading
yourself and maybe hundreds others by your stupid assessments. I must stop you
to save them.

>You are sick.
>Religions often make people sick in the head. Sometimes they already are
>sick in the head and that's why they join.

The real sickos are you and yours.

Gosh this is fun. Let's do this again.

>>>>>>> God wanting only obedience.
>>>>>> Take your pick - you or God. No interference.
>>>>> Free choice means that we have to determine what happens in *our*
>>>>> life, not a 'god'.
>>>> And it better be a loving decision, or your goose is already cooked,
>>>> carved and consumed.
>>
>>> Cut the drama already duke.
>>> You sound like a talk show host.
>>
>> Right now, you're a very foolish boy.

>Why? Because I don't jump to your scary and dorky warnings?

No, because you take a position that is a WHOLE lot less supported than mine.

>> And you got your info from a Superman comic book.

>I don't read comics.

You should. At least you'd have a minor bit of support for your beliefs.

>>>>>>> The Bible being words straight from God's mouth.
>>>>>> It's is not.
>>>>> Yet you always say it is.
>>>>> One of your favourite sayings is "God spoke, man wrote". Remember?
>>>> Yep, but God doens't use his lips. He speaks to us in our heart.
>>> Where did I say he used physical lips?
>> I was pretty sure you didn't know that.

>Lol! Didn't know what? You're the one who thinks God is a person who
>speaks, not me.

I talk to him every day, and he responds back to me.

>>>>>>> The RCC being 100% honest and godly.
>>>>>> Led by the Holy Spirit so guaranteed.
>>>>> What guarantee? Where did you get this idea of a guarantee?
>>>> The Church is guided by God, the Holy Spirit. The Church can do no
>>>> wrong, but men hired by the Church can and, sadly, very often do.
>>> The church is made up of men duke. It is the church.
>>
>> And Jesus clearly stated that all men are sinners. And so, the
>> Church is fully called to overcome sin on an individual basis.
>> You are too weak to comply.

>What exactly did you want me to say there?

All you can say truthfully is to agree with me.

>Do you want a reply for every dorky comment you make? Are you that hungry
>for attention?

I'm talking to you, nobody else.

>But I don't think Jesus ever said that we are all sinners. That was priests
>who said that.

It's stated in the bible, bubba.

>Jesus wasn't into laying guilt trips onto people. He was more positive and
>helpful than that.

Right, to overcome is to set aside the guilt trip.

>The problem is, you like the dumb evangelists just think that every single
>thing in the Bible was said by God or Jesus. That is in no way the case.

When God said the every man is a sinner 24/7, it was God speaking. And you are
called to overcome with his help. You refuse. You're fresh meat.

>>>>> Its only in your mind.
>>>>> If the church was led by the Holy Spirit then it wouldn't have said
>>>>> and done all those dodgy and evil things throughout the centuries.
>>>>> Unless of course it is led by dark spirits. And I think that is the
>>>>> case. In fact many, including even clergy have said that they
>>>>> believe the church has been taken over by the dark.
>>>> People are sinners, not the Church.
>>> The people are the church.
>>> What did you think the church was?
>>
>> People who make the special effort to overcome their sinfulness. You
>> should try it sometime.

>So according to you, any Catholic member who is not making enough effort to
>avoid sin, is not really part of the church?

No, any human being.

>So in that case the Catholic church is really far smaller than is stated by
>attendance and membership. Your church is not so big after all then.
>Thanks for clarifying that.

It's 10:35am.

>>>>> If God wasn't angry then -
>>>>> 1/ Adam and Eve wouldn't have been thrown out of the garden.
>>>>> 2/ Christ wouldn't have needed to die.
>>>>> 3/ There would be no condemnation to hell.
>>>> To tell God you are his equal gets you thrown out of the garden.
>>> No one suggested any such thing.
>>
>> Wow, how ignorant truth can you be.

>The scriptures say nothing about Adam and Eve or anyone else believing that
>they are equal to God. This is just your silly imagination.

Really, they openly decided for themselves that they could eat anything they
wanted and didn't have to listen to God. That IS placing themselves equal to
God. Just like you do every day of your life. They didn't care or understand.
You don't care or understand.

>If you can find a verse or statement saying so then quote it. Otherwise get
>a brain and stop twaddling inane crap.

Heeheehee.

>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's Christianity. That's the Bible.
>>>>>> I know, and Catholicism if 100% into scripture.
>>>>> That should read - Catholicism is 100% into interpreting scripture
>>>>> its own way.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, noooooo. Following the exact wording in scripture. See how
>>>> little you know.
>>
>>> You only have beliefs.
>>> Beliefs are not knowledge. Learn the difference.
>>> Plus your knowledge of certain things in the scriptures is atrocious.
>>
>> You have zero knowledge.

>Wrong. Its you that has zero brains, so you can't recognise true knowledge,

So show me some "true knowledge". My true knowledge says you're trying hard
for the flames.

>because your brain is stuffed with fallacious old superstition based
>doctrines. There's no room for anything else. You as a Catholic fundy are
>completely incapable of critical thinking.
>Have you ever had an original thought in your entire life? I really doubt
>it.

>>>>> What heaven is about is eternal joy. We can experience some joy on
>>>>> earth to relieve some of our stresses. Plus it teaches us love,
>>>>> caring and sharing. All of God's children are already present.
>>>>> Huh? I think you must be referring to reproduction.
>>>> That's why God gave us sex.
>>> That's one reason.
>>> Don't pretend that you're an authority on sex.
>> That's the only reason.
>Says who?

God. There won't be sex in heaven because God has complete the human race, and
that is what sex is for.

>>>>> Again, reproduction is not the only function of sex. Its only the
>>>>> physical survival function. That's all.
>>>> Surprise. The only sex after death is the endless butt reaming you
>>>> get from satan (at most).
>>> You're being silly and crude again.
>>> Cut it out.
>>
>> You just didn't know that.

>Lol.
>You always imagine that you're smarter than others just because they argue
>with you.
>Duke's rule: If you argue against me then you're dumb! If you agree with me
>100% then you're smart!

Don't take my word for it. Wait and see how satan handles your butt.........eh,
case.

>You're a riot duke! I've met some loonies but you take the cake.

You're the self-imolation kid.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:70aa28lhmvfo21nn2...@4ax.com

> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:26:39 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It doesn't matter much what the Bible says.
>>>> It was written by humans who had their own beliefs. They had the
>>>> free will to write whatever they wanted.
>>>
>>> That's what you just did.
>
>> Its what we all do in this world, whether its writing a novel or
>> writing the scriptures.
>
> But the bible comes from God.
>

Who told you that?

>>>
>>> Well, you'll find out shortly. Personally, I suspect satan sees
>>> fresh meat in you coming his way.
>
>> You like to use the words 'fresh meat' and scare people a lot with
>> your unfounded old religious beliefs.
>
> Your unfounded beliefs state there is no God and no hell.
>

When did I say such a thing? All I say is there is no jealous and vengeful
type God.
And none is in evidence.

>
You're
> misleading yourself and maybe hundreds others by your stupid
> assessments. I must stop you to save them.
>

Save from what?
Are you living in fear of something terrible?
Only evil uses fear to control people. Only cults do that.
Talk about love instead. You keep preaching about that but then you only
talk about hell and satan and fresh meat etc.
You never actually do what you preach about.

>
>> You are sick.
>> Religions often make people sick in the head. Sometimes they already
>> are sick in the head and that's why they join.
>
> The real sickos are you and yours.
>
> Gosh this is fun. Let's do this again.
>

I'm talking to a child it seems.

>>>
>>>> Cut the drama already duke.
>>>> You sound like a talk show host.
>>>
>>> Right now, you're a very foolish boy.
>
>> Why? Because I don't jump to your scary and dorky warnings?
>
> No, because you take a position that is a WHOLE lot less supported
> than mine.
>

What does popular supported consensus have to do with the truth?
I prefer to seek the truth than just go with old popular supported religious
consensus.
It used to be popular consensus that the earth was flat.
It used to be popular consensus (and law by your church) that everything
revolved around the earth.
The list goes on.
Who's the real fool here? You and your conservative Catholic folk friends.
That's who.

>
>>> And you got your info from a Superman comic book.
>
>> I don't read comics.
>
> You should. At least you'd have a minor bit of support for your
> beliefs.
>

You're the one who has beliefs. But you somehow imagine that old beliefs are
facts.

>>>>> Yep, but God doens't use his lips. He speaks to us in our heart.
>>>> Where did I say he used physical lips?
>>> I was pretty sure you didn't know that.
>
>> Lol! Didn't know what? You're the one who thinks God is a person
>> who speaks, not me.
>
> I talk to him every day, and he responds back to me.
>

That's another part of your own mind. Many people have that.

>>>
>>> And Jesus clearly stated that all men are sinners. And so, the
>>> Church is fully called to overcome sin on an individual basis.
>>> You are too weak to comply.
>
>> What exactly did you want me to say there?
>
> All you can say truthfully is to agree with me.
>

So you just want everyone to agree with good old duke?
You're all about ego then.
The true God very much dislikes self-righteous and egotistical people.
Your's (the one in your mind) apparently loves them, which really proves
what he is

>
>> Do you want a reply for every dorky comment you make? Are you that
>> hungry for attention?
>
> I'm talking to you, nobody else.
>

So you only want replies to every single comment from me?
You're weird.

>
>> But I don't think Jesus ever said that we are all sinners. That was
>> priests who said that.
>
> It's stated in the bible, bubba.
>

A lot of things are stated in the Bible. It was written by men. So what?
Who says you have to believe everything and take it all at face value?

>
>> Jesus wasn't into laying guilt trips onto people. He was more
>> positive and helpful than that.
>
> Right, to overcome is to set aside the guilt trip.
>

If we set aside the guilt trip then we'll have to set aside the doctrine of
sin and punishment.

>
>> The problem is, you like the dumb evangelists just think that every
>> single thing in the Bible was said by God or Jesus. That is in no
>> way the case.
>
> When God said the every man is a sinner 24/7, it was God speaking.
>

Says who?
How do you know it wasn't a priest saying that?

>
> And you are called to overcome with his help. You refuse. You're
> fresh meat.
>

There's that dumb fresh meat reference again.
No one's going to be 'fresh meat' for anyone.
Why are you so scared of the doctrine of sin and horrible consequences of
the afterlife?
Why do you subscribe to an old religion cult that spreads fear?

But wait, you *claim* that the RCC is only about love etc. Yet *you* only
talk about being 'fresh meat' for a 'satan'.
So you are allegedly preaching the opposite of your church.
So as well as everything else you are a heretic duke.
You should be ashamed of yourself.

>
>>>>> People are sinners, not the Church.
>>>> The people are the church.
>>>> What did you think the church was?
>>>
>>> People who make the special effort to overcome their sinfulness.
>>> You should try it sometime.
>
>> So according to you, any Catholic member who is not making enough
>> effort to avoid sin, is not really part of the church?
>
> No, any human being.
>

?? Non Catholics were never part of your church in the first place.

>
>> So in that case the Catholic church is really far smaller than is
>> stated by attendance and membership. Your church is not so big after
>> all then.
>> Thanks for clarifying that.
>
> It's 10:35am.
>

Now why are you giving me the time?

>>>
>>> Wow, how ignorant truth can you be.
>
>> The scriptures say nothing about Adam and Eve or anyone else
>> believing that they are equal to God. This is just your silly
>> imagination.
>
> Really, they openly decided for themselves that they could eat
> anything they wanted and didn't have to listen to God. That IS
> placing themselves equal to God. Just like you do every day of your
> life. They didn't care or understand. You don't care or understand.
>

Rubbish. According to the scriptures they were confused and deceived by
another being.
They in no way decided that they were equal to God. There is nothing in the
scriptures to suggest that.
You're letting your imagination run away with you.

>
>> If you can find a verse or statement saying so then quote it.
>> Otherwise get a brain and stop twaddling inane crap.
>
> Heeheehee.
>

You're a total loony duke.
Instead of substantiating your claims with verses you just giggle like a
demented moron.

>>>
>>>> You only have beliefs.
>>>> Beliefs are not knowledge. Learn the difference.
>>>> Plus your knowledge of certain things in the scriptures is
>>>> atrocious.
>>>
>>> You have zero knowledge.
>
>> Wrong. Its you that has zero brains, so you can't recognise true
>> knowledge,
>
> So show me some "true knowledge". My true knowledge says you're
> trying hard for the flames.
>

You would neither be able to recognise true knowledge nor handle it.
You're too much in love with and addicted to what your church cult says.
It talks about flames etc. (it used to long ago) and you believe them.
The RCC no longer even talks about the flames of hell etc. Maybe in your
southern parts of America they do however.
Goes to show how little you know about the RCC globally.

>
>>>>> That's why God gave us sex.
>>>> That's one reason.
>>>> Don't pretend that you're an authority on sex.
>>> That's the only reason.
>> Says who?
>
> God. There won't be sex in heaven because God has complete the human
> race, and that is what sex is for.
>

God never said any such thing. That was priests etc. who said those kinds of
things.

>>>
>>> You just didn't know that.
>
>> Lol.
>> You always imagine that you're smarter than others just because they
>> argue with you.
>> Duke's rule: If you argue against me then you're dumb! If you agree
>> with me 100% then you're smart!
>
> Don't take my word for it. Wait and see how satan handles your
> butt.........eh, case.
>

Relax. That won't happen.
Stop worrying about other people and fearful things and live your own life.
Think positive for a change.

[Andrew W]

"Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message

news:RnzUr.48241$7y4....@newsfe23.iad

> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 17:39:21 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
>
>> "Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message
>> news:3KjUr.3630$l63....@newsfe20.iad
>>>

>>> You said it was initially for your benefit. That you were searching.
>>> I am not searching other than for more of God in me. I have no
>>> reason to search elsewhere. I have found the answers for my living
>>> life. As to religion it is that of the NT to help the widows,
>>> orphans and such.
>>>
>>
>> We all have to search for the truth in everything. We all benefit
>> from greater truths in life and beyond.
>> I see many religious people just accept everything their religion or
>> book tells them without question.
>> That's extremely unwise. Have you done that by any chance?
>>
>
> Nope, In fact he proved himself to me years before I gave my life to
> him. He reminded me of that on more than one occasion over the years.
> Until I desparately needed Him, He was faithful all along. Even
> preserving my life on more than one occasion. Which I am eternally
> grateful for. Yet I am just a man like everyone else, what He does
> for one He is more than willing to do for all.
>

Who? How do you who or what it was?
Did you hear a voice or something?

>>>>
>>>
>>> Well you are opinionated that's for sure. ;) Your assumption about
>>> religion is not going to fit everyone.
>>>
>>
>> Researched facts are not opinions or assumptions.
>> However settling on what a religion or book says is, because they
>> were written by humans with opinions and beliefs.
>> Thousands of other spiritual researchers around the world have come
>> to the same conclusions as I have.
>>
>
> Yes, because none were spiritual.
>

Excuse me, how would you know this?
Are you making assumptions about people you don't know?

>>>
>> I deal out of my spirit. In my spirit I have all knowledge. Via the
>> renewing of my mind I bring it
>>> into the real world. You should look that up sometime in your bible.
>>>
>>
>> What you call your spirit could be just your emotions.
>
> No, those are in my soul.
>

How do you know?

>
>> Other religion's followers also claim that they're guided by the
>> spirit, yet they totally contradict Christianity. How can that be?
>
> For a variety of reasons. Satan and his demons are all evil spirits,
> and satan can come like an angel of light to even almost fool some of
> those in Christ.
>

And you think you somehow cannot be fooled?
The one who thinks he cannot be fooled will be the first to be fooled.

>>>
>>> Jesus always referred to His Father as His Father or Abba Father,
>>> (dearest Dad)
>>>
>>
>> A spiritual Father is not exactly a father as such, and its
>> certainly not a humanoid person.
>>
>
> His Dad via the Holy Spirit Conceived the Baby Jesus. All the prophecy
> about that one even which all came true precisely as prophesied if
> mathematically calculated out is something on the order of 1 to
> 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 X
> 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
> against it ever happening.
>

That's a naive idea of an event we know almost nothing about except for some
old later written stories.
People routinely retrofit stories to events. Didn't you know this? They
also exaggerate and add details to flesh them out more.

>>>
>> We are and were created in the image of God. Yes, other
>>> than this world there is nothing like us.
>>>
>>
>> The word 'image' can have many meanings. We have no idea what was
>> meant by that.
>> I've asked many Christians and none could answer the question
>> properly.
>>
>
> Because many do not know Him.
>

What makes you think you do?
Every religious zealot imagines that they know God. You only know what you
know. That is until the next thing you find out (if you ever really do).

>>>
>>> What was your definition or training or ??? That qualified you to be
>>> called Christian?
>>>
>>
>> There is no qualification required for being called a Christian.
>> To be a Christian it only takes one to believe that Christ existed
>> and to follow his teachings of love and oneness.
>> I study and practice Christ's teachings, and I study the religion
>> that was formed after him.
>>
>
> Christian is a derogatory term. It was coined by heathens who
> typically spoke like, Oh, its another one of those Christ like ones.
> Christians.
>

That was said very long ago by the Romans. Its no longer a derogatory term
F.Y.I.

>
> But your reasoning which is common to many of the so-called
> Christians is why I call myself a Believer. A biblical term. Satan
> and the demons are far more confident of Jesus Christ than yourself
> and many other "Christians".
>

'Believer' can be an even more derogatory term because one can easily come
to believe false things and end up harming people.

>
> If that is truly the extent of why you are a Christian then please do
> not fool yourself and think you will be going to heaven on that
> basis. Jesus Himself teaches otherwise.
>
>>
>> If faith leads one to believe in false truths then faith is no good.
>> Study is more important than just faith and believing.
>> Religions use the call to faith to control and manipulate their
>> flock. Did you know that?
>
> Yes, said so many many times. That is why I say religions suck.
>

Every time you pick up the Christian Bible you are following the Christian
religion.
The Bible is the Christian religion's instruction manual in case you didn't
know.

>
>> They don't want their flock to study and find out that their
>> religion has false truths because then the followers will leave in
>> droves.
>>
>
> One will not find false truths in the Bible, only in religion and man
> made doctrines like theosis and theostokos, both tools of satan.
>

Excuse me? Which world religion can have 100% of the truth? Answer: None.
All religions, especially the big mainstream ones have corruptions. Don't
kid yourself like the Bible fundies do.

>
>>>
>>> There was a way God dealt with people in the garden. Another outside
>>> the garden up to the Flood. There was another way after the Flood up
>>> to the time of Abraham and his children. Then God called a people
>>> unto himself and called them Jews. they all made and signed a law
>>> covenant with God. With blessings and curses following dependant on
>>> how they lived.
>>>
>>
>> Most of those are likely just stories.
>>
>
> They are different dispensations.
>

That's a fundy statement.

>>>
>>> It isn't that, it is whether or not a person is sincere in learning.
>>>
>>> If you reply, I would mainly be interested in how you though you
>>> could call yourself Christian?
>>>
>>
>> I do study and follow Christ's teachings as stated previously.
>
> Yet not all of them.
>

Which ones don't you think I follow?
How do you know the Catholic church didn't take out or distort some of his
teachings?
I and many others know for a fact that they did.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:nnb728l37jih11lu1...@4ax.com

> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:22:46 -0700 (PDT), r m <roy...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> My comment was on the basis of a new comer with no exposure to the
>> Bible. Since it is such a big read before coming to the gospel of
>> our Lord, the best place to start would be the NT - not discounting
>> the OT at all.
>> r
>
> Right. The OT is essentially God introducing himself to his lost
> people, giving them a set of rules (10 commandments) for living God's
>

Bahaha!
The OT god was the old patriarchal god of war and obedience.
The NT god was the god of peace and love.
They were virtually diametrically opposite!
One was essentially a false one by the ancient Hebrews etc.

>
> way, and prophesying the coming of a new way, which the Jews came to
> know as a messiah, which technically is a warrior king that would
> deliver the Jews back to the prosperity of the Davidic kingdom prior
> to the Babylonian exile.
>

It was the *people* who wanted a 'warrior king', not God!

>
> That just goes to show us how important history is to the where's and
> whyfores of that which is written in and around God's word.
>

Lol. Fool.
History is written by the victors, and the victors are usually corrupt.
You'd believe anything duke.

>
> The arrival of Jesus and the happenings around him certify the
> fulfillment of the OT prophesies.
>

No they don't.
Prophesies are usually retrofitted to events to make them fit.

>
> Then the Son of God present as son of man (flesh) demonstrated to us
> the way to the heavenly kingdom by way of full and complete love and
> obedience to the Father.
>

Obedience? Bahahah!
That goes against free will and choice! Didn't you realise that duke?
Man. Get your head read.

>
> The flesh of Jesus said to other flesh "follow me".
>

Jesus wasn't ordering anyone. Read verses about him to see that he was not
about obedience.

[Andrew W]

"Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message

news:VimVr.48985$jA7....@newsfe15.iad

> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:42:40 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We all have to search for the truth in everything. We all benefit
>>>> from greater truths in life and beyond.
>>>> I see many religious people just accept everything their religion
>>>> or book tells them without question.
>>>> That's extremely unwise. Have you done that by any chance?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, In fact he proved himself to me years before I gave my life to
>>> him. He reminded me of that on more than one occasion over the
>>> years. Until I desparately needed Him, He was faithful all along.
>>> Even preserving my life on more than one occasion. Which I am
>>> eternally grateful for. Yet I am just a man like everyone else,
>>> what He does for one He is more than willing to do for all.
>>>
>>
>> Who? How do you who or what it was?
>> Did you hear a voice or something?
>>
>

> Yes, in a couple of ways.
>

You know what they call that. Schizophrenia.
You do know that cult followers including ones that committed the mass
suicides, and also those in insane asylums also claim that God talks to
them?

>>>>
>>>> Researched facts are not opinions or assumptions.
>>>> However settling on what a religion or book says is, because they
>>>> were written by humans with opinions and beliefs.
>>>> Thousands of other spiritual researchers around the world have come
>>>> to the same conclusions as I have.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, because none were spiritual.
>>>
>>
>> Excuse me, how would you know this?
>> Are you making assumptions about people you don't know?
>>
>

> Because I know enough of God to know when things are out of line with
> whom God is.
>

And what if that's not God?

>>>>
>>>> I deal out of my spirit. In my spirit I have all knowledge. Via the
>>>> renewing of my mind I bring it
>>>>> into the real world. You should look that up sometime in your
>>>>> bible.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What you call your spirit could be just your emotions.
>>>
>>> No, those are in my soul.
>>>
>>
>> How do you know?
>>
>

> Because I know the difference between Body, Soul and Spirit.
>

Rubbish. No human does.
We humans don't understand physical things like that. You'd have to be a
spirit yourself - or God

>>>
>>>> Other religion's followers also claim that they're guided by the
>>>> spirit, yet they totally contradict Christianity. How can that be?
>>>
>>> For a variety of reasons. Satan and his demons are all evil spirits,
>>> and satan can come like an angel of light to even almost fool some
>>> of those in Christ.
>>>
>>
>> And you think you somehow cannot be fooled?
>> The one who thinks he cannot be fooled will be the first to be
>> fooled.
>>
>

> That is why we are to test the spirits and see if they be of God.
>

How on earth do you test the spirit? There is no test available!
Can't you see that these are all just fundamentalist constructs for fundies
to justify themselves?

>
> That is scriptural.
>

But we don't know what they did, if anything at all. It was likely just a
saying.

>
I have heard demons on occasion as well. Satan
> will try and mimic your own thought process and try and make you
> think the thoughts were your own as well.
>

Or God's thoughts.

>
Which is why we are to be
> careful knowing that he is such a wily one.

>
>>>
>>> His Dad via the Holy Spirit Conceived the Baby Jesus. All the
>>> prophecy about that one even which all came true precisely as
>>> prophesied if mathematically calculated out is something on the
>>> order of 1 to
>>> 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 X
>>> 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
>>> against it ever happening.
>>>
>>
>> That's a naive idea of an event we know almost nothing about except
>> for some old later written stories.
>> People routinely retrofit stories to events. Didn't you know this?
>> They also exaggerate and add details to flesh them out more.
>>
>

> What is naive is to assume what you just did.
>

I'm not the one who's made any assumptions. I study these subjects to find
out the real truth and I'm not alone.
Around the world more and more people are exposing these false old modes of
religious thinking.

>
The OT written long
> before Jesus, had all the prophecies in it, from many books.
>

All? That's rather convenient!

>
Yet with
> all the various books, the various authors, the various prophecies
> none of them were incorrect,
>

Not true. Many were incorrect. And they all had inconsistencies. Ask any
biblical scholar.

>
all happened in the order they should be
> and all about one man, Jesus Christ. Including His manner or death
> and resurrection. The odds for evolution to be true are far, far
> lower than the odds surrounding the birth of Jesus Christ, which went
> to far as to predict his place of birth.
>

? Did you think that evolution and the Christian God were the only two
alternatives for creation?
Lol. No. We now have a far better picture of how creation was formed.
Unfortunately its still too advanced for the average human to comprehend.
I'm not saying Christ is not in that picture, its just that its not quite
they way Christianity recorded it in its scriptures. The way it was recorded
was just the way those primitive people could manage at the time.

>>>>
>>>> The word 'image' can have many meanings. We have no idea what was
>>>> meant by that.
>>>> I've asked many Christians and none could answer the question
>>>> properly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because many do not know Him.
>>>
>>
>> What makes you think you do?
>> Every religious zealot imagines that they know God. You only know
>> what you know. That is until the next thing you find out (if you
>> ever really do).
>>
>

> When one has a relationship with another, they end up knowing who
> they are dealing with, if they keep their eyes open. We as believers
> are to have a relationship with God the Father, made possible by His
> Son.
>

A physical being cannot have a proper relationship with a non physical
entity. Especially in a world like we have now.
You are kidding yourself.

>
I don't believe in a religion, do not follow any religion
> outside of the one mentioned in James and by Jesus.
>

Too late. In this world all we have is religions, unless of course you have
a time machine and can go back 2000 years. Do you?

>
The Bible says,
> in the NT, draw near to Him and He will draw near to you. It is true.
>

First you have to know the real Christ, not the corrupted Christian version
brought to us via the Catholic church.
We now have better information about Christ's true teachings. You can find
much of it on various good spiritual websites.

>
> That is why when we believe by faith that God will do something for
> us in our lives that we can know beyond a certainty that it will be
> realized in this world. No matter how many people tell you that you
> are crazy, or God does not do these things anymore, or that something
> is scientifically impossible, one believes it against all the odds.
> Why, we can count on God, fully, and what He says He *will* do. It is
> more real than the dirt we stand on.
>

Ok. Simply ask him now for the real truth about Christ. Can you do that?
Just humour me if nothing else.

>>>
>>> Christian is a derogatory term. It was coined by heathens who
>>> typically spoke like, Oh, its another one of those Christ like ones.
>>> Christians.
>>>
>>
>> That was said very long ago by the Romans. Its no longer a
>> derogatory term F.Y.I.
>>
>

> It is when spoken of by a muslim or atheist.
>

Who cares what they say. A thousand words are derogatory today.
So that's why you don't want to be called a Christian now?

>
It is when compared
> against the faithless people who are christians politically (name
> only) of in certain nations.
>

So now all good Christians should distance themselves from that word just
because of that?
You will just cause more confusion and division with this kind of thinking.
We're supposed to be promoting unity and love, not more division and
confusion.

>>>
>>> But your reasoning which is common to many of the so-called
>>> Christians is why I call myself a Believer. A biblical term. Satan
>>> and the demons are far more confident of Jesus Christ than yourself
>>> and many other "Christians".
>>>
>>
>> 'Believer' can be an even more derogatory term because one can
>> easily come to believe false things and end up harming people.
>>
>

> In the case of harming people it is up to the person that believes
> that.
>

Better to educate oneself and gain knowledge.

>
Those that do not know the Word of God are apt to say most
> anything, like God is a God of hate only.
>

What 'word of God'? You mean the Christian Bible?

>>>>
>>>> If faith leads one to believe in false truths then faith is no
>>>> good. Study is more important than just faith and believing.
>>>> Religions use the call to faith to control and manipulate their
>>>> flock. Did you know that?
>>>
>>> Yes, said so many many times. That is why I say religions suck.
>>>
>>
>> Every time you pick up the Christian Bible you are following the
>> Christian religion.
>

> Nope, not at all.
>

Yes.
Didn't you know that the Christian religion is a religion?

>> The Bible is the Christian religion's instruction manual in case you
>> didn't know.
>>
>

> Nope, only those that misconstrue the word of God would turn it into a
> religion with rites, rotes, holidays and observations.
>

Don't delude yourself. Its not just that.
How do you know that you have all the teachings right? How can you be sure?

>
The only
> religion sanctioned by God was Judaism.
>

Who told you that?
And that was for those people at that time because it was in line with their
traditions and understandings.

>
> Nothing since.
>

You somehow magically know this?

>
Some would
> have you believe like you are saying so they can control you and your
> family, even go so far as to tell you that you will not be one of
> those getting into heaven.

>
>
>>>
>>> One will not find false truths in the Bible, only in religion and
>>> man made doctrines like theosis and theostokos, both tools of satan.
>>>
>>
>> Excuse me? Which world religion can have 100% of the truth? Answer:
>> None. All religions, especially the big mainstream ones have
>> corruptions. Don't kid yourself like the Bible fundies do.
>>
>

> No religion has 100% of the truth, yet the Bible is all truth.
>

Who told you that?

>
It also
> deals with the worlds to come, the powers of the world to come
> operating in today's world and so on. The bible even has facts of
> science in it that took eons for men to learn.
>

It only makes brief ambiguous references that we can't properly interpret.
Ask any Scholar.

>>>>
>>>> Most of those are likely just stories.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They are different dispensations.
>>>
>>
>> That's a fundy statement.
>>
>

> It is also biblical.
>

Its all personal interpretations.
All kinds of strange things have been interpreted in the Bible by various
zealots.
Some went to mental asylums.

>>>>>
>>>>> If you reply, I would mainly be interested in how you though you
>>>>> could call yourself Christian?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I do study and follow Christ's teachings as stated previously.
>>>
>>> Yet not all of them.
>>>
>>
>> Which ones don't you think I follow?
>

> I haven't spoken with you enough to know you as a person.
>

Yet you made a positive statement.

>
>> How do you know the Catholic church didn't take out or distort some
>> of his teachings?
>

> I know they have many distortions and have had from their beginnings,
> evidenced by Iranaeous.
>

And they produced the Bible, with their editings and exclusions.
Of course then later they produced their own version.

>
>> I and many others know for a fact that they did.
>

> As have certain other mainstream religions and all cults.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Truth is still the truth even if no one believes it.
> And a lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.

[duke]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:22:55 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

wrote:

>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:70aa28lhmvfo21nn2...@4ax.com
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:26:39 +1000, "Andrew W"
>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't matter much what the Bible says.
>>>>> It was written by humans who had their own beliefs. They had the
>>>>> free will to write whatever they wanted.
>>>>
>>>> That's what you just did.
>>
>>> Its what we all do in this world, whether its writing a novel or
>>> writing the scriptures.
>>
>> But the bible comes from God.

>Who told you that?

The world, with your exception, knows that God revealed, but man wrote the words
down in his handwriting and culture.

>>>> Well, you'll find out shortly. Personally, I suspect satan sees
>>>> fresh meat in you coming his way.
>>
>>> You like to use the words 'fresh meat' and scare people a lot with
>>> your unfounded old religious beliefs.
>>
>> Your unfounded beliefs state there is no God and no hell.

>When did I say such a thing? All I say is there is no jealous and vengeful
>type God. And none is in evidence.

Those are Jewish words.

>You're
>> misleading yourself and maybe hundreds others by your stupid
>> assessments. I must stop you to save them.

>Save from what?

Eternal damnation for freely choosing to live outside God's influence.

>Are you living in fear of something terrible?
>Only evil uses fear to control people. Only cults do that.
>Talk about love instead. You keep preaching about that but then you only
>talk about hell and satan and fresh meat etc.
>You never actually do what you preach about.

Sure I do. You ignorant people need a kick in the butt to wake you up.

>>> You are sick.
>>> Religions often make people sick in the head. Sometimes they already
>>> are sick in the head and that's why they join.
>> The real sickos are you and yours.
>> Gosh this is fun. Let's do this again.
>I'm talking to a child it seems.

Well, I sure am.

>>>>> Cut the drama already duke.
>>>>> You sound like a talk show host.
>>>> Right now, you're a very foolish boy.
>>> Why? Because I don't jump to your scary and dorky warnings?
>> No, because you take a position that is a WHOLE lot less supported
>> than mine.
>What does popular supported consensus have to do with the truth?

It comes from truth.

>I prefer to seek the truth than just go with old popular supported religious
>consensus.
>It used to be popular consensus that the earth was flat.

Scientific observation by an uneducated world and since corrected.

>It used to be popular consensus (and law by your church) that everything
>revolved around the earth.
>The list goes on.
>Who's the real fool here? You and your conservative Catholic folk friends.
>That's who.

>>>> And you got your info from a Superman comic book.
>>> I don't read comics.
>> You should. At least you'd have a minor bit of support for your
>> beliefs.
>You're the one who has beliefs. But you somehow imagine that old beliefs are
>facts.

I know. I told you that you didn't.

>>>> And Jesus clearly stated that all men are sinners. And so, the
>>>> Church is fully called to overcome sin on an individual basis.
>>>> You are too weak to comply.
>>> What exactly did you want me to say there?
>> All you can say truthfully is to agree with me.
>So you just want everyone to agree with good old duke?
>You're all about ego then.

You sure don't have it now.

>The true God very much dislikes self-righteous and egotistical people.
>Your's (the one in your mind) apparently loves them, which really proves
>what he is
>>> Do you want a reply for every dorky comment you make? Are you that
>>> hungry for attention?
>> I'm talking to you, nobody else.

>So you only want replies to every single comment from me?
>You're weird.

You're nuts.

>>> But I don't think Jesus ever said that we are all sinners. That was
>>> priests who said that.
>> It's stated in the bible, bubba.
>A lot of things are stated in the Bible. It was written by men. So what?
>Who says you have to believe everything and take it all at face value?

Revealed by God.

>>> Jesus wasn't into laying guilt trips onto people. He was more
>>> positive and helpful than that.
>>
>> Right, to overcome is to set aside the guilt trip.
>>
>
>If we set aside the guilt trip then we'll have to set aside the doctrine of
>sin and punishment.
>
>>
>>> The problem is, you like the dumb evangelists just think that every
>>> single thing in the Bible was said by God or Jesus. That is in no
>>> way the case.
>>
>> When God said the every man is a sinner 24/7, it was God speaking.
>Says who?
>How do you know it wasn't a priest saying that?

Scripture says it.

>> And you are called to overcome with his help. You refuse. You're
>> fresh meat.

>There's that dumb fresh meat reference again.
>No one's going to be 'fresh meat' for anyone.

If you follow satan instead of God, YOU will be.

>Why are you so scared of the doctrine of sin and horrible consequences of
>the afterlife?

>Why do you subscribe to an old religion cult that spreads fear?
>But wait, you *claim* that the RCC is only about love etc. Yet *you* only
>talk about being 'fresh meat' for a 'satan'.

Satan is the reward for those that don't live in love for one another.

>So you are allegedly preaching the opposite of your church.
>So as well as everything else you are a heretic duke.
>You should be ashamed of yourself.
>>>>>> People are sinners, not the Church.
>>>>> The people are the church.
>>>>> What did you think the church was?
>>>> People who make the special effort to overcome their sinfulness.
>>>> You should try it sometime.
>>> So according to you, any Catholic member who is not making enough
>>> effort to avoid sin, is not really part of the church?
>> No, any human being.
>?? Non Catholics were never part of your church in the first place.
>>> So in that case the Catholic church is really far smaller than is
>>> stated by attendance and membership. Your church is not so big after
>>> all then.
>>> Thanks for clarifying that.
>> It's 10:35am.
>Now why are you giving me the time?

It fits your comment.

>>>> Wow, how ignorant truth can you be.
>>
>>> The scriptures say nothing about Adam and Eve or anyone else
>>> believing that they are equal to God. This is just your silly
>>> imagination.
>>
>> Really, they openly decided for themselves that they could eat
>> anything they wanted and didn't have to listen to God. That IS
>> placing themselves equal to God. Just like you do every day of your
>> life. They didn't care or understand. You don't care or understand.

>Rubbish. According to the scriptures they were confused and deceived by
>another being.

Yeah, a snake. Haahaahaa.

>They in no way decided that they were equal to God. There is nothing in the
>scriptures to suggest that.
>You're letting your imagination run away with you.
>>> If you can find a verse or statement saying so then quote it.
>>> Otherwise get a brain and stop twaddling inane crap.
>> Heeheehee.
>You're a total loony duke.
>Instead of substantiating your claims with verses you just giggle like a
>demented moron.

It's impossible to get to that brick you have for a head.

>>>>> You only have beliefs.
>>>>> Beliefs are not knowledge. Learn the difference.
>>>>> Plus your knowledge of certain things in the scriptures is
>>>>> atrocious.
>>>>
>>>> You have zero knowledge.
>>
>>> Wrong. Its you that has zero brains, so you can't recognise true
>>> knowledge,
>>
>> So show me some "true knowledge". My true knowledge says you're
>> trying hard for the flames.

>You would neither be able to recognise true knowledge nor handle it.

Says one who doesn't??

Ah, well, enough of the crap.

[duke]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 22:44:17 -0700, Pete <b...@sod.cal> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:42:40 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
>
>> "Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message
>> news:RnzUr.48241$7y4....@newsfe23.iad
>>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 17:39:21 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message
>>>> news:3KjUr.3630$l63....@newsfe20.iad
>>>>>
>>>>> You said it was initially for your benefit. That you were searching.
>>>>> I am not searching other than for more of God in me. I have no
>>>>> reason to search elsewhere. I have found the answers for my living
>>>>> life. As to religion it is that of the NT to help the widows,
>>>>> orphans and such.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We all have to search for the truth in everything. We all benefit
>>>> from greater truths in life and beyond.
>>>> I see many religious people just accept everything their religion or
>>>> book tells them without question.
>>>> That's extremely unwise. Have you done that by any chance?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, In fact he proved himself to me years before I gave my life to
>>> him. He reminded me of that on more than one occasion over the years.
>>> Until I desparately needed Him, He was faithful all along. Even
>>> preserving my life on more than one occasion. Which I am eternally
>>> grateful for. Yet I am just a man like everyone else, what He does
>>> for one He is more than willing to do for all.
>>>
>>
>> Who? How do you who or what it was?
>> Did you hear a voice or something?

>Yes, in a couple of ways.

This should prove interesting.

>>>> Thousands of other spiritual researchers around the world have come
>>>> to the same conclusions as I have.
>>> Yes, because none were spiritual.
>> Excuse me, how would you know this?
>> Are you making assumptions about people you don't know?

>Because I know enough of God to know when things are out of line with whom
>God is.

Except for your own out of line thoughts, of course.

>>>> I deal out of my spirit. In my spirit I have all knowledge. Via the
>>>> renewing of my mind I bring it
>>>>> into the real world. You should look that up sometime in your bible.
>>>> What you call your spirit could be just your emotions.
>>> No, those are in my soul.
>> How do you know?

>Because I know the difference between Body, Soul and Spirit.

Wow, I hope you elaborate on that. I'd like to know.

>>>> Other religion's followers also claim that they're guided by the
>>>> spirit, yet they totally contradict Christianity. How can that be?
>>>
>>> For a variety of reasons. Satan and his demons are all evil spirits,
>>> and satan can come like an angel of light to even almost fool some of
>>> those in Christ.
>>>
>>
>> And you think you somehow cannot be fooled?
>> The one who thinks he cannot be fooled will be the first to be fooled.

>That is why we are to test the spirits and see if they be of God.

You see more than one??? Pete, what heresy are you pushing now?

> That is
>scriptural. I have heard demons on occasion as well. Satan will try and

>mimic your own thought process and try and make you think the thoughts were

>your own as well. Which is why we are to be careful knowing that he is such
>a wily one.

And how do you delineate them?

>What is naive is to assume what you just did. The OT written long before
>Jesus, had all the prophecies in it, from many books. Yet with all the

>various books, the various authors, the various prophecies none of them

>were incorrect, all happened in the order they should be and all about one

>man, Jesus Christ. Including His manner or death and resurrection. The odds
>for evolution to be true are far, far lower than the odds surrounding the
>birth of Jesus Christ, which went to far as to predict his place of birth.

A very, very poor statement, pete. They didn't predict - they prophesied. And
better yet, they expected a warrior king, not a man of love. You really need to
over come your shortcomings and do a better job of explanation.

>When one has a relationship with another, they end up knowing who they are
>dealing with, if they keep their eyes open. We as believers are to have a
>relationship with God the Father, made possible by His Son.

Another weird sort of comment. The Jews knew of God before Jesus.

>>>> There is no qualification required for being called a Christian.
>>>> To be a Christian it only takes one to believe that Christ existed
>>>> and to follow his teachings of love and oneness.
>>>> I study and practice Christ's teachings, and I study the religion
>>>> that was formed after him.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Christian is a derogatory term. It was coined by heathens who
>>> typically spoke like, Oh, its another one of those Christ like ones.
>>> Christians.

>> That was said very long ago by the Romans. Its no longer a derogatory term
>> F.Y.I.

>It is when spoken of by a muslim or atheist. It is when compared against

>the faithless people who are christians politically (name only) of in
>certain nations.

Wow, what in the world are you trying to say now?

[duke]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 03:14:48 -0700, Pete <b...@sod.cal> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:43:27 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
>
>> "Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message
>> news:VimVr.48985$jA7....@newsfe15.iad
>>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:42:40 +1000, Andrew W wrote:

>> You know what they call that. Schizophrenia.
>> You do know that cult followers including ones that committed the mass
>> suicides, and also those in insane asylums also claim that God talks to
>> them?

>I knew there would be no respect from you.

Pete. Respect is earned.

>>> Because I know the difference between Body, Soul and Spirit.

>> Rubbish. No human does.
>> We humans don't understand physical things like that. You'd have to be a
>> spirit yourself - or God

>I have a spirit, made alive by God Himself, because of my belief in Jesus.
>Odd thing here is that you attempt to deny something that you said cannot
>be done while you are dealing from a standpoint of total ignorance. You
>cannot judge since you cannot know. You said, No human does. Hypocrite.

And so you continue to hide your knowledge of body, spirit, soul.

>> How on earth do you test the spirit? There is no test available!
>> Can't you see that these are all just fundamentalist constructs for fundies
>> to justify themselves?

>Yes, there is a test available. Fundies never discuss such things, so why
>bring them up?

Wow, you sure ducked that one. Shame on you, pete.

>>> That is scriptural.
>> But we don't know what they did, if anything at all. It was likely just a
>> saying.

>You cannot know.

Good job, andrew. You got him in a corner facing the crack.

[duke]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:25:39 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:nnb728l37jih11lu1...@4ax.com
>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:22:46 -0700 (PDT), r m <roy...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> My comment was on the basis of a new comer with no exposure to the
>>> Bible. Since it is such a big read before coming to the gospel of
>>> our Lord, the best place to start would be the NT - not discounting
>>> the OT at all.
>>> r
>>
>> Right. The OT is essentially God introducing himself to his lost
>> people, giving them a set of rules (10 commandments) for living God's

>Bahaha!
>The OT god was the old patriarchal god of war and obedience.

>The NT god was the god of peace and love.
>They were virtually diametrically opposite!
>One was essentially a false one by the ancient Hebrews etc.

They are one and the same, aw. The God of love wasn't revealed until Jesus
came.

>> way, and prophesying the coming of a new way, which the Jews came to
>> know as a messiah, which technically is a warrior king that would
>> deliver the Jews back to the prosperity of the Davidic kingdom prior
>> to the Babylonian exile.
>It was the *people* who wanted a 'warrior king', not God!

Of course. They thought that prophesy was revealing the coming of a warrior
king that would deliver them back to the prosperity they had in the Davidic
kingdom before the Babylonian exile.

>> That just goes to show us how important history is to the where's and
>> whyfores of that which is written in and around God's word.

>Lol. Fool.
>History is written by the victors, and the victors are usually corrupt.
>You'd believe anything duke.

But facts are my support.

>> The arrival of Jesus and the happenings around him certify the
>> fulfillment of the OT prophesies.

>No they don't.
>Prophesies are usually retrofitted to events to make them fit.

Not when they are recorded long before the event.

>> Then the Son of God present as son of man (flesh) demonstrated to us
>> the way to the heavenly kingdom by way of full and complete love and
>> obedience to the Father.

>Obedience? Bahahah!
>That goes against free will and choice! Didn't you realise that duke?
>Man. Get your head read.

You have the free choice to make and thus receive God's gift or satan's gift.
You have yet to come to grips with what the "free choice" is.

>> The flesh of Jesus said to other flesh "follow me".
>Jesus wasn't ordering anyone. Read verses about him to see that he was not
>about obedience.

Of course he was NOT ordering anyone. It's our free choice. And he is the
example of flesh following the Father.

[•R.Measures]

In article <k04jbq$nbh$1...@dont-email.me>, "Andrew W"

<remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:nnb728l37jih11lu1...@4ax.com
> > On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:22:46 -0700 (PDT), r m <roy...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> My comment was on the basis of a new comer with no exposure to the
> >> Bible. Since it is such a big read before coming to the gospel of
> >> our Lord, the best place to start would be the NT - not discounting
> >> the OT at all.
> >> r
> >
> > Right. The OT is essentially God introducing himself to his lost
> > people, giving them a set of rules (10 commandments) for living God's
> >
>
> Bahaha!

> The OT god was the old patriarchal god of war and obedience....

*** There it is again Andrew.

[Andrew W]

"Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message

news:xgqVr.49152$7y4....@newsfe23.iad

> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:43:27 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
>>>>

>>>> Who? How do you who or what it was?
>>>> Did you hear a voice or something?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, in a couple of ways.
>>>
>>
>> You know what they call that. Schizophrenia.
>> You do know that cult followers including ones that committed the
>> mass suicides, and also those in insane asylums also claim that God
>> talks to them?
>>
>

> I knew there would be no respect from you. In your ignorance you blend
> everything together. You nor others like you do not know the
> difference between God and satan, neither do you care.
>

None of that is true.
You are trying to justify your investment in your belief system.

>>>>
>>>> Excuse me, how would you know this?
>>>> Are you making assumptions about people you don't know?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because I know enough of God to know when things are out of line
>>> with whom God is.
>>>
>>
>> And what if that's not God?
>>
>

> There is no chance of that.
>

You cannot know that as a human with a limited mind.

>>>>
>>>> How do you know?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because I know the difference between Body, Soul and Spirit.
>>>
>>
>> Rubbish. No human does.
>> We humans don't understand physical things like that. You'd have to
>> be a spirit yourself - or God
>>
>

> I have a spirit, made alive by God Himself, because of my belief in
> Jesus.
>

You are focussed in a human mind, not a spirit mind. We all are.

>
Odd thing here is that you attempt to deny something that you
> said cannot be done while you are dealing from a standpoint of total
> ignorance.
>

Nope. I've done my homework on this subject. You haven't.
I know a lot about the spirit world.

>
You cannot judge since you cannot know. You said, No human
> does. Hypocrite.
>

No human can know for sure unless they seek from every source they can. But
most people don't.
The answers are available. But you won't get them from one religion's
book.
I'm a metaphysics researcher, one of an increasing number now around the
world.
We have found out many truths about the spirit world and about the false
beliefs in the Christian Bible. We have facts that verify and match up.

People including Christians have been deceived by false entities pretending
to be God.
These entities also cause people to develop schizophrenia and other maladies
in order to control the human race.
All religions and belief systems have been affected, including politics etc.
If you believe in a waring and blood sacrifice demanding god then you are
already worshipping a false god entity.
The only hope you and everyone has is to seek information from all sources
you can find. You cannot rely on any single source.

>>>>
>>>> And you think you somehow cannot be fooled?
>>>> The one who thinks he cannot be fooled will be the first to be
>>>> fooled.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is why we are to test the spirits and see if they be of God.
>>>
>>
>> How on earth do you test the spirit? There is no test available!
>> Can't you see that these are all just fundamentalist constructs for
>> fundies to justify themselves?
>

> Yes, there is a test available. Fundies never discuss such things, so
> why bring them up?
>>

What test?
I have heard Bible fundies say 'test the spirit' many times.

>>>
>>> That is scriptural.
>>>
>>
>> But we don't know what they did, if anything at all. It was likely
>> just a saying.
>>
>

> You cannot know.
>

Neither can you. We would need a time machine and go back and ask them.
But we can find out things pretty much for sure.
So what test did you do?
And why imply that you were successful by claiming that you know God?

>>>
>>> I have heard demons on occasion as well. Satan
>>> will try and mimic your own thought process and try and make you
>>> think the thoughts were your own as well.
>>>
>>
>> Or God's thoughts.
>>
>

> And you know this how?
>

Many spiritual people's decades of research including mine.

Most pious worshipping type people have been deceived by demons into
thinking they were hearing God's thoughts. Jim Jones was but one.
Its only logical that demons would do that. Why wouldn't they?
I've heard they can even manipulate pleasure hormones in the brain to make
you feel euphoria which feels similar to divine love.
That's why worship is wrong. It is unnecessary. Only false entities demand
it. Why would our Creator want it? To have you polish his ego? He doesn't
have one for a start.

>>>>
>>>> That's a naive idea of an event we know almost nothing about except
>>>> for some old later written stories.
>>>> People routinely retrofit stories to events. Didn't you know this?
>>>> They also exaggerate and add details to flesh them out more.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is naive is to assume what you just did.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not the one who's made any assumptions. I study these subjects
>> to find out the real truth and I'm not alone.
>

> That is a lie. Had you studied these things you would have read the
> source and known it well. You don't as shown in your comments above.
>

I do study your source the Bible. I know that it has corruptions of concepts
and truths. You don't. Right there I know more than you know about it.
But you can always ask a scholar like Bart Ehrman about this and he will say
basically the same thing.

>
>> Around the world more and more people are exposing these false old
>> modes of religious thinking.
>>

> Yet more ignorance. You have exposed nothing so far. You have not even
> attempted it. You have never used reasoning but accusation or mocking.
>

Ignorance?
I have given a lot of good researched reasonings on these groups, even in
this thread. You have not read them or just dismissed them.

Why would a loving Creator want or need a blood sacrifice from his own
precious creations at all? Why would he get angry and want petty payment of
death? Is he a homicidal maniac or mafia boss? You couldn't answer any of
these properly. The answer is it was a false entity craving death and
suffering of humans.

You say I haven't exposed anything. What do you want me to do? Its not
possible to properly expose things of this nature on usenet.
What we all have to do is take responsibility for our own welfare and seek
the truth for ourselves. Its our duty. Jesus said leave no stone unturned.

I'm only here to alert people to false old beliefs. You have the internet
and libraries. Use them.
How much research have you done on whether the Bible is all true or not?
Lets see who's the ignorant one.
I'm not going to do your homework for you.

>>>
>> Yet with
>>> all the various books, the various authors, the various prophecies
>>> none of them were incorrect,
>>>
>>
>> Not true. Many were incorrect. And they all had inconsistencies. Ask
>> any biblical scholar.
>>
>

> None were, had you studied this you would have known that all the
> prophecies were correct, but you don't. So you where neither honest
> nor correct nor a christian.
>

Who says they were correct? Not the biblical scholars. Have you asked any?
Its only the evangelists and Bible zealots who say it. And many of those are
not very highly educated, and they do their own personal interpretations.

Here's a good clue to their errors. - They all claim different meanings for
the same verses.
Here's another. - They've created thousands of sects and denominations that
argue amongst themselves as to what God really wants and how to get to
heaven.
The writing is on the wall.

>>>
>> all happened in the order they should be
>>> and all about one man, Jesus Christ. Including His manner or death
>>> and resurrection. The odds for evolution to be true are far, far
>>> lower than the odds surrounding the birth of Jesus Christ, which
>>> went to far as to predict his place of birth.
>>>
>>
>> ? Did you think that evolution and the Christian God were the only
>> two alternatives for creation?
>

> Not at all, creation is the only way. Only the foolish believe a
> theory that has been proven wrong in almost every aspect.
>

Creation just says that God created everything. It doesn't describe how or
why.
It is substanceless. Its just for worshipping purposes only.

What theory has been proven wrong? By who? What about newer theories?
I think you haven't even heard about those.

>
>> Lol. No. We now have a far better picture of how creation was formed.
>> Unfortunately its still too advanced for the average human to
>> comprehend. I'm not saying Christ is not in that picture, its just
>> that its not quite they way Christianity recorded it in its
>> scriptures. The way it was recorded was just the way those primitive
>> people could manage at the time.
>>
>

> Again you show your ignorance and lack of knowledge. Christianity did
> not make the Bible.
>

How did the Bible get here then?
God does not use printing presses. Nor does he write.

Why do you call me ignorant? Just because I don't agree with your popular
cherished beliefs?

>
Nor did they speak of Adam and Eve other than to
> say how they brought sin into the world. LOL even small kids would
> be laughing at you right now.

>
>
>>>
>> I don't believe in a religion, do not follow any religion
>>> outside of the one mentioned in James and by Jesus.
>>>
>>
>> Too late. In this world all we have is religions, unless of course
>> you have a time machine and can go back 2000 years. Do you?
>>
>

> What foolishness are you speaking of know? You are in the process of
> inventing your own religion, which will fail you, as many others have
> before you.
>

Looks like I have to explain this to you. You would have to go back 2000
years to truly find out exactly what was said, by whom, and exactly what
happened. i.e. stories are unreliable.
I can see that you are very deep in your beliefs.
You think that you're in contact with the real God of creation. If that was
true then he would have corrected you on many false points, but he didn't.
I think there is no hope that you're ever going to think your way out of
this. Your belief has become too deep and comfortable.

>
>> We now have better information about Christ's true teachings. You
>> can find much of it on various good spiritual websites.
>>
>

> And most of them false. The Bible is the only true way.
>

No.
There are many excellent websites that give far more info on the spirit
world, God and Christ than the Bible does.
You haven't even looked or read any so how can you say?
Someone here is ignorant but its not me.

>>>
>>> That is why when we believe by faith that God will do something for
>>> us in our lives that we can know beyond a certainty that it will be
>>> realized in this world. No matter how many people tell you that you
>>> are crazy, or God does not do these things anymore, or that
>>> something is scientifically impossible, one believes it against all
>>> the odds. Why, we can count on God, fully, and what He says He
>>> *will* do. It is more real than the dirt we stand on.
>>>
>>
>> Ok. Simply ask him now for the real truth about Christ. Can you do
>> that? Just humour me if nothing else.
>>
>

> Humor yourself,
>

Dear me.
I can see that your don't even want to find the real truth, or you're too
scared.
What can it hurt to ask?
If you don't ask then you don't get.

>
>>>
>> Those that do not know the Word of God are apt to say most
>>> anything, like God is a God of hate only.
>>>
>>
>> What 'word of God'? You mean the Christian Bible?
>>
>

> Gods Word.
>

You can't even answer a question properly.

>>
>>>
>> It also
>>> deals with the worlds to come, the powers of the world to come
>>> operating in today's world and so on. The bible even has facts of
>>> science in it that took eons for men to learn.
>>>
>>
>> It only makes brief ambiguous references that we can't properly
>> interpret. Ask any Scholar.
>>
>

> Scholars cannot know it they are not spiritual.
>

Newsflash. Many are. Some very much so.
Your statement is very ignorant.

.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is also biblical.
>>>
>>
>> Its all personal interpretations.
>> All kinds of strange things have been interpreted in the Bible by
>> various zealots.
>> Some went to mental asylums.
>>
>

> and you assume this why?
>

I've assumed nothing. I have facts.
You assume that I assume. Why? Because what I say doesn't happen to line up
with your cherished beliefs and pious worldview.

>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which ones don't you think I follow?
>>>
>>> I haven't spoken with you enough to know you as a person.
>>>
>>
>> Yet you made a positive statement.
>>
>

> But in this post you have shown you do not follow God, but satan.
>

A blood sacrificing entity is what satan is.
I think you're the one who follows that, not me.

>>>
>>>> How do you know the Catholic church didn't take out or distort some
>>>> of his teachings?
>>>
>>> I know they have many distortions and have had from their
>>> beginnings, evidenced by Iranaeous.
>>>
>>
>> And they produced the Bible, with their editings and exclusions.
>> Of course then later they produced their own version.
>>
>

> More gross ignorance.
>

Prove me wrong.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:bgkc28tcl45sbbflr...@4ax.com

> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:25:39 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> Right. The OT is essentially God introducing himself to his lost
>>> people, giving them a set of rules (10 commandments) for living
>>> God's
>
>> Bahaha!
>> The OT god was the old patriarchal god of war and obedience.
>
>> The NT god was the god of peace and love.
>> They were virtually diametrically opposite!
>> One was essentially a false one by the ancient Hebrews etc.
>
> They are one and the same, aw. The God of love wasn't revealed
> until Jesus came.
>

The God of 'love' was revealed?? Then what on earth was the previous one?
What was its validity?
Answer. Those ancient people *thought* that was the God of creation.
How can the OT god and Christ be the same individual if they are totally
different in their nature and actions?

>
>>> way, and prophesying the coming of a new way, which the Jews came to
>>> know as a messiah, which technically is a warrior king that would
>>> deliver the Jews back to the prosperity of the Davidic kingdom prior
>>> to the Babylonian exile.
>> It was the *people* who wanted a 'warrior king', not God!
>
> Of course. They thought that prophesy was revealing the coming of a
> warrior king that would deliver them back to the prosperity they had
> in the Davidic kingdom before the Babylonian exile.
>

Yes. They believed that was what God was about.
The new testament brought a truer notion of God.
God isn't jealous and vengeful after all. So there is no hell etc.

>
>>> That just goes to show us how important history is to the where's
>>> and whyfores of that which is written in and around God's word.
>
>> Lol. Fool.
>> History is written by the victors, and the victors are usually
>> corrupt. You'd believe anything duke.
>
> But facts are my support.
>

Facts from religious men? Not really possible. Religious men carry on
beliefs and traditions.

Oh but you call them researchers. Lol.

>
>>> The arrival of Jesus and the happenings around him certify the
>>> fulfillment of the OT prophesies.
>
>> No they don't.
>> Prophesies are usually retrofitted to events to make them fit.
>
> Not when they are recorded long before the event.
>

Hmm. Its kind of hard to find that out for sure after this much time.

>
>>> Then the Son of God present as son of man (flesh) demonstrated to us
>>> the way to the heavenly kingdom by way of full and complete love and
>>> obedience to the Father.
>
>> Obedience? Bahahah!
>> That goes against free will and choice! Didn't you realise that
>> duke? Man. Get your head read.
>
> You have the free choice to make and thus receive God's gift or
> satan's gift. You have yet to come to grips with what the "free
> choice" is.
>

Its hard to choose from choices that no human properly understands or can
see for themselves.

Of course most people would choose Christ. He's sounded like a great guy.
But then there's the jealous and vengeful OT god which makes things very
confusing.
Its no wonder most people have trouble with this.
I think we just have too choose over love or violence and forget about gods
and satans.
Confusion leads to no choice.
Best to stay clear of confusing religions like Catholicism.

>
>>> The flesh of Jesus said to other flesh "follow me".
>> Jesus wasn't ordering anyone. Read verses about him to see that he
>> was not about obedience.
>
> Of course he was NOT ordering anyone. It's our free choice. And he
> is the example of flesh following the Father.
>

So God is not about obedience after all then.

[Paul Duca]

On Sunday, August 5, 2012 9:05:29 AM UTC-4, duke wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 07:52:50 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
>


Um...that He doesn't care about you or me, Duke?

{Paul

[duke]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:21:05 -0700, Pete <b...@sod.cal> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:44:12 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
>
>> "Pete" <b...@sod.cal> wrote in message
>> news:xgqVr.49152$7y4....@newsfe23.iad
>>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:43:27 +1000, Andrew W wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who? How do you who or what it was?
>>>>>> Did you hear a voice or something?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, in a couple of ways.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You know what they call that. Schizophrenia.
>>>> You do know that cult followers including ones that committed the
>>>> mass suicides, and also those in insane asylums also claim that God
>>>> talks to them?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I knew there would be no respect from you. In your ignorance you blend
>>> everything together. You nor others like you do not know the
>>> difference between God and satan, neither do you care.
>>>
>>
>> None of that is true.
>> You are trying to justify your investment in your belief system.
>

>Sorry, but this is as far as I got it your post. I have no investment other
>than time. He has given me everything, even my life. I cannot ever hope to
>repay Him, not does He expect me to.
>
>Our path together ends here and I will not be reading your reply so don't
>waste you time like the puppy dog that is following me around, un read.
>
>If you happen to have a quiet time and hear God speak, listen up, it will
>be in your best interest to do so. Bye.

Oops, pete goes into his cry baby mode when people argue with him. That'
happens often today with his weak scripture knowledge.

[duke]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 10:29:52 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

wrote:

>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:bgkc28tcl45sbbflr...@4ax.com
>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:25:39 +1000, "Andrew W"
>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Right. The OT is essentially God introducing himself to his lost
>>>> people, giving them a set of rules (10 commandments) for living
>>>> God's
>>
>>> Bahaha!
>>> The OT god was the old patriarchal god of war and obedience.
>>
>>> The NT god was the god of peace and love.
>>> They were virtually diametrically opposite!
>>> One was essentially a false one by the ancient Hebrews etc.
>>
>> They are one and the same, aw. The God of love wasn't revealed
>> until Jesus came.
>>
>
>The God of 'love' was revealed?? Then what on earth was the previous one?
>What was its validity?

<sigh> The God of the OT did not reveal love as a criteria for eternal
salvation. That didn't come until God came to us in the flesh of Jesus Christ.

>Answer. Those ancient people *thought* that was the God of creation.
>How can the OT god and Christ be the same individual if they are totally
>different in their nature and actions?

>>>> way, and prophesying the coming of a new way, which the Jews came to
>>>> know as a messiah, which technically is a warrior king that would
>>>> deliver the Jews back to the prosperity of the Davidic kingdom prior
>>>> to the Babylonian exile.
>>> It was the *people* who wanted a 'warrior king', not God!
>>
>> Of course. They thought that prophesy was revealing the coming of a
>> warrior king that would deliver them back to the prosperity they had
>> in the Davidic kingdom before the Babylonian exile.

>Yes. They believed that was what God was about.
>The new testament brought a truer notion of God.
>God isn't jealous and vengeful after all. So there is no hell etc.

Only if that's what you want. You get to decide if eternity without God is your
desire by the way you live your life.

>>>> That just goes to show us how important history is to the where's
>>>> and whyfores of that which is written in and around God's word.
>>
>>> Lol. Fool.
>>> History is written by the victors, and the victors are usually
>>> corrupt. You'd believe anything duke.
>>
>> But facts are my support.

>Facts from religious men? Not really possible. Religious men carry on
>beliefs and traditions.

Yep. The man Jesus said to love one another as he loves us. Choose wisely.

>Oh but you call them researchers. Lol.

>>>> The arrival of Jesus and the happenings around him certify the
>>>> fulfillment of the OT prophesies.
>>
>>> No they don't.
>>> Prophesies are usually retrofitted to events to make them fit.
>> Not when they are recorded long before the event.
>Hmm. Its kind of hard to find that out for sure after this much time.

The arrival of the Son of God was all over the OT in prophesy. Jesus became
those prophesies.

>>>> Then the Son of God present as son of man (flesh) demonstrated to us
>>>> the way to the heavenly kingdom by way of full and complete love and
>>>> obedience to the Father.
>>
>>> Obedience? Bahahah!
>>> That goes against free will and choice! Didn't you realise that
>>> duke? Man. Get your head read.

>> You have the free choice to make and thus receive God's gift or
>> satan's gift. You have yet to come to grips with what the "free
>> choice" is.

>Its hard to choose from choices that no human properly understands or can
>see for themselves.

Then it's the natural evil in your heart blocking the way.

>Of course most people would choose Christ. He's sounded like a great guy.

Choice is fully demonstrated in our life style, not words out of our lips.

>But then there's the jealous and vengeful OT god which makes things very
>confusing.
>Its no wonder most people have trouble with this.
>I think we just have too choose over love or violence and forget about gods
>and satans.
>Confusion leads to no choice.
>Best to stay clear of confusing religions like Catholicism.
>
>>
>>>> The flesh of Jesus said to other flesh "follow me".
>>> Jesus wasn't ordering anyone. Read verses about him to see that he
>>> was not about obedience.
>>
>> Of course he was NOT ordering anyone. It's our free choice. And he
>> is the example of flesh following the Father.

>So God is not about obedience after all then.

Jesus showed his love in obedience. You better wise up.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:u2qi28tacoqs6bssu...@4ax.com

> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 10:29:52 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The NT god was the god of peace and love.
>>>> They were virtually diametrically opposite!
>>>> One was essentially a false one by the ancient Hebrews etc.
>>>
>>> They are one and the same, aw. The God of love wasn't revealed
>>> until Jesus came.
>>>
>>
>> The God of 'love' was revealed?? Then what on earth was the
>> previous one? What was its validity?
>
> <sigh> The God of the OT did not reveal love as a criteria for
> eternal salvation. That didn't come until God came to us in the
> flesh of Jesus Christ.
>

He didn't reveal love? Why not?
Very strange since that's the only thing that can lead
to salvation on both sides.
Sounds more like the devil to me.

>
You get to decide if eternity without
> God is your desire by the way you live your life.
>

Being truly without God in this universe of God is not possible because he's
everywhere.

But if that's all that free choice was about then it would be a bit stupid
and petty wouldn't it?

>>>
>>>> Lol. Fool.
>>>> History is written by the victors, and the victors are usually
>>>> corrupt. You'd believe anything duke.
>>>
>>> But facts are my support.
>
>> Facts from religious men? Not really possible. Religious men carry
>> on beliefs and traditions.
>
> Yep. The man Jesus said to love one another as he loves us. Choose
> wisely.
>

So then start loving people in this group.
Practice what you preach duke.

>>>
>>>> Obedience? Bahahah!
>>>> That goes against free will and choice! Didn't you realise that
>>>> duke? Man. Get your head read.
>
>>> You have the free choice to make and thus receive God's gift or
>>> satan's gift. You have yet to come to grips with what the "free
>>> choice" is.
>
>> Its hard to choose from choices that no human properly understands
>> or can see for themselves.
>
> Then it's the natural evil in your heart blocking the way.
>

Or maybe you and your church understood it wrong.

>
>> Of course most people would choose Christ. He's sounded like a great
>> guy.
>
> Choice is fully demonstrated in our life style, not words out of our
> lips.
>

Your choice and lifestyle reflects totally buying into everything an old
religion says.

>>>
>>>>> The flesh of Jesus said to other flesh "follow me".
>>>> Jesus wasn't ordering anyone. Read verses about him to see that he
>>>> was not about obedience.
>>>
>>> Of course he was NOT ordering anyone. It's our free choice. And he
>>> is the example of flesh following the Father.
>
>> So God is not about obedience after all then.
>
> Jesus showed his love in obedience. You better wise up.
>

That's your interpretation of Christ.
If you only want to be obedient and never amount to anything but a robot or
puppy dog then that's your choice.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:08jc28pshguku2e83...@4ax.com

> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:22:55 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:70aa28lhmvfo21nn2...@4ax.com
>>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:26:39 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't matter much what the Bible says.
>>>>>> It was written by humans who had their own beliefs. They had the
>>>>>> free will to write whatever they wanted.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what you just did.
>>>
>>>> Its what we all do in this world, whether its writing a novel or
>>>> writing the scriptures.
>>>
>>> But the bible comes from God.
>
>> Who told you that?
>
> The world, with your exception, knows that God revealed, but man
> wrote the words down in his handwriting and culture.
>

Wrong. Only under educated Bible thumping fundies believe that.
That's what you are essentially, and practically.

>
>> You're
>>> misleading yourself and maybe hundreds others by your stupid
>>> assessments. I must stop you to save them.
>
>> Save from what?
>
> Eternal damnation for freely choosing to live outside God's influence.
>

Foolish gullible boy. There is no Eternal damnation.

>
>> Are you living in fear of something terrible?
>> Only evil uses fear to control people. Only cults do that.
>> Talk about love instead. You keep preaching about that but then you
>> only talk about hell and satan and fresh meat etc.
>> You never actually do what you preach about.
>
> Sure I do. You ignorant people need a kick in the butt to wake you
> up.
>

What act of love have you shown?
You have only demonstrated arrogance, self-righteousness, fear of hell and
satan, and dumbness in these groups.

>
>>>> You are sick.
>>>> Religions often make people sick in the head. Sometimes they
>>>> already are sick in the head and that's why they join.
>>> The real sickos are you and yours.
>>> Gosh this is fun. Let's do this again.
>> I'm talking to a child it seems.
>
> Well, I sure am.
>

Grow up already.
Your behaviour is shameful for a 70-80 year old.

>>
>>>
>>>> The problem is, you like the dumb evangelists just think that every
>>>> single thing in the Bible was said by God or Jesus. That is in no
>>>> way the case.
>>>
>>> When God said the every man is a sinner 24/7, it was God speaking.
>> Says who?
>> How do you know it wasn't a priest saying that?
>
> Scripture says it.
>

So what?
Scripture was written by men, and often inspired by their fears and needs to
control others.
That's human nature, and men were given the free choice to do that. This
means its up to you and I to be careful what we buy into in this world. You
haven't done that at all.

>
>> Why are you so scared of the doctrine of sin and horrible
>> consequences of the afterlife?
>
>> Why do you subscribe to an old religion cult that spreads fear?
>> But wait, you *claim* that the RCC is only about love etc. Yet
>> *you* only talk about being 'fresh meat' for a 'satan'.
>
> Satan is the reward for those that don't live in love for one another.
>

There you go again.
No wonder you have no fans duke. Always talking negative.

>
>> They in no way decided that they were equal to God. There is nothing
>> in the scriptures to suggest that.
>> You're letting your imagination run away with you.
>>>> If you can find a verse or statement saying so then quote it.
>>>> Otherwise get a brain and stop twaddling inane crap.
>>> Heeheehee.
>> You're a total loony duke.
>> Instead of substantiating your claims with verses you just giggle
>> like a demented moron.
>
> It's impossible to get to that brick you have for a head.
>

So the solution is to just giggle like a moron and also make dumb remarks
and sayings most of the time?

[duke]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 09:26:42 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

wrote:

>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:08jc28pshguku2e83...@4ax.com
>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:22:55 +1000, "Andrew W"
>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:70aa28lhmvfo21nn2...@4ax.com
>>>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:26:39 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It doesn't matter much what the Bible says.
>>>>>>> It was written by humans who had their own beliefs. They had the
>>>>>>> free will to write whatever they wanted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what you just did.
>>>>
>>>>> Its what we all do in this world, whether its writing a novel or
>>>>> writing the scriptures.
>>>>
>>>> But the bible comes from God.
>>
>>> Who told you that?
>>
>> The world, with your exception, knows that God revealed, but man
>> wrote the words down in his handwriting and culture.

>Wrong.

Right, but I didn't expect you to know.

> Only under educated Bible thumping fundies believe that.
>That's what you are essentially, and practically.
>
>>
>>> You're
>>>> misleading yourself and maybe hundreds others by your stupid
>>>> assessments. I must stop you to save them.
>>
>>> Save from what?
>>
>> Eternal damnation for freely choosing to live outside God's influence.
>Foolish gullible boy. There is no Eternal damnation.

I have no intention of being the one to find out different like you are.

>>> Are you living in fear of something terrible?
>>> Only evil uses fear to control people. Only cults do that.
>>> Talk about love instead. You keep preaching about that but then you
>>> only talk about hell and satan and fresh meat etc.
>>> You never actually do what you preach about.
>>
>> Sure I do. You ignorant people need a kick in the butt to wake you
>> up.

>What act of love have you shown?
>You have only demonstrated arrogance, self-righteousness, fear of hell and
>satan, and dumbness in these groups.

Your comments pretty much leave "dumb" in your column, not mine.

>Grow up already.
>Your behaviour is shameful for a 70-80 year old.

I operate at the expert level compared to you.

>>>>> The problem is, you like the dumb evangelists just think that every
>>>>> single thing in the Bible was said by God or Jesus. That is in no
>>>>> way the case.
>>>>
>>>> When God said the every man is a sinner 24/7, it was God speaking.
>>> Says who?
>>> How do you know it wasn't a priest saying that?
>>
>> Scripture says it.

>So what?
>Scripture was written by men, and often inspired by their fears and needs to
>control others.

Where did you get that wild idea?

>That's human nature, and men were given the free choice to do that. This
>means its up to you and I to be careful what we buy into in this world. You
>haven't done that at all.
>
>>
>>> Why are you so scared of the doctrine of sin and horrible
>>> consequences of the afterlife?
>>
>>> Why do you subscribe to an old religion cult that spreads fear?
>>> But wait, you *claim* that the RCC is only about love etc. Yet
>>> *you* only talk about being 'fresh meat' for a 'satan'.
>>
>> Satan is the reward for those that don't live in love for one another.

>There you go again.
>No wonder you have no fans duke. Always talking negative.

My friends know me and I know them.

>>> They in no way decided that they were equal to God. There is nothing
>>> in the scriptures to suggest that.
>>> You're letting your imagination run away with you.
>>>>> If you can find a verse or statement saying so then quote it.
>>>>> Otherwise get a brain and stop twaddling inane crap.
>>>> Heeheehee.
>>> You're a total loony duke.
>>> Instead of substantiating your claims with verses you just giggle
>>> like a demented moron.
>>
>> It's impossible to get to that brick you have for a head.

>So the solution is to just giggle like a moron and also make dumb remarks
>and sayings most of the time?

You're the only one too challenged to see them as intelligent.

[duke]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 09:07:48 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

wrote:

>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:u2qi28tacoqs6bssu...@4ax.com
>> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 10:29:52 +1000, "Andrew W"
>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The NT god was the god of peace and love.
>>>>> They were virtually diametrically opposite!
>>>>> One was essentially a false one by the ancient Hebrews etc.
>>>>
>>>> They are one and the same, aw. The God of love wasn't revealed
>>>> until Jesus came.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The God of 'love' was revealed?? Then what on earth was the
>>> previous one? What was its validity?
>>
>> <sigh> The God of the OT did not reveal love as a criteria for
>> eternal salvation. That didn't come until God came to us in the
>> flesh of Jesus Christ.

>He didn't reveal love? Why not?

That came with Jesus. Just how ignorant are you as you try to sound
intelligent?

>Very strange since that's the only thing that can lead
>to salvation on both sides.
>Sounds more like the devil to me.

>You get to decide if eternity without
>> God is your desire by the way you live your life.

>Being truly without God in this universe of God is not possible because he's
>everywhere.

Now that's something a child would push.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:hul238dt7ddd5vk4h...@4ax.com

> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 09:07:48 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The God of 'love' was revealed?? Then what on earth was the
>>>> previous one? What was its validity?
>>>
>>> <sigh> The God of the OT did not reveal love as a criteria for
>>> eternal salvation. That didn't come until God came to us in the
>>> flesh of Jesus Christ.
>
>> He didn't reveal love? Why not?
>
> That came with Jesus. Just how ignorant are you as you try to sound
> intelligent?
>

Love should have been there from the start if it was a God of love.
Its clear that the OT God was not a god of love but a god of war and
subjugation, but you and other religious bumpkins just can't make that
simple realisation.

>
>> You get to decide if eternity without
>>> God is your desire by the way you live your life.
>
>> Being truly without God in this universe of God is not possible
>> because he's everywhere.
>
> Now that's something a child would push.
>

Do you know the meaning of the word omnipresent? Obviously you don't.

[duke]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:42:49 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

wrote:

>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:hul238dt7ddd5vk4h...@4ax.com
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 09:07:48 +1000, "Andrew W"
>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The God of 'love' was revealed?? Then what on earth was the
>>>>> previous one? What was its validity?
>>>>
>>>> <sigh> The God of the OT did not reveal love as a criteria for
>>>> eternal salvation. That didn't come until God came to us in the
>>>> flesh of Jesus Christ.
>>
>>> He didn't reveal love? Why not?
>>
>> That came with Jesus. Just how ignorant are you as you try to sound
>> intelligent?

>Love should have been there from the start if it was a God of love.

You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.

>Its clear that the OT God was not a god of love but a god of war and
>subjugation, but you and other religious bumpkins just can't make that
>simple realisation.

And before God made his presence known, men bbq'ed their first born sons and had
them for lunch. That was the ways up to the time of Abraham.

>>> You get to decide if eternity without
>>>> God is your desire by the way you live your life.
>>
>>> Being truly without God in this universe of God is not possible
>>> because he's everywhere.

>> Now that's something a child would push.
>Do you know the meaning of the word omnipresent? Obviously you don't.

Yep, you are a child.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:0aa4389lmvi483e24...@4ax.com

> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:42:49 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:hul238dt7ddd5vk4h...@4ax.com
>>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 09:07:48 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The God of 'love' was revealed?? Then what on earth was the
>>>>>> previous one? What was its validity?
>>>>>
>>>>> <sigh> The God of the OT did not reveal love as a criteria for
>>>>> eternal salvation. That didn't come until God came to us in the
>>>>> flesh of Jesus Christ.
>>>
>>>> He didn't reveal love? Why not?
>>>
>>> That came with Jesus. Just how ignorant are you as you try to sound
>>> intelligent?
>
>> Love should have been there from the start if it was a God of love.
>
> You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
>

Rubbish. Love is not complex. It can be received and understood innately by
any human. If we were made in God's image then it is inside each of us
already.
You're just trying to make up excuses to justify the false OT god figure.

>
>> Its clear that the OT God was not a god of love but a god of war and
>> subjugation, but you and other religious bumpkins just can't make
>> that simple realisation.
>
> And before God made his presence known, men bbq'ed their first born
> sons and had them for lunch. That was the ways up to the time of
> Abraham.
>

That's because they were misled in the first place.

>
>>>> You get to decide if eternity without
>>>>> God is your desire by the way you live your life.
>>>
>>>> Being truly without God in this universe of God is not possible
>>>> because he's everywhere.
>
>>> Now that's something a child would push.
>> Do you know the meaning of the word omnipresent? Obviously you
>> don't.
>
> Yep, you are a child.
>

I'm a child because *you* don't know the meaning of words???

[duke]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:33:32 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

wrote:

>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:0aa4389lmvi483e24...@4ax.com
>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:42:49 +1000, "Andrew W"
>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:hul238dt7ddd5vk4h...@4ax.com
>>>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 09:07:48 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The God of 'love' was revealed?? Then what on earth was the
>>>>>>> previous one? What was its validity?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <sigh> The God of the OT did not reveal love as a criteria for
>>>>>> eternal salvation. That didn't come until God came to us in the
>>>>>> flesh of Jesus Christ.
>>>>
>>>>> He didn't reveal love? Why not?
>>>>
>>>> That came with Jesus. Just how ignorant are you as you try to sound
>>>> intelligent?
>>
>>> Love should have been there from the start if it was a God of love.
>>
>> You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.

>Rubbish. Love is not complex. It can be received and understood innately by
>any human. If we were made in God's image then it is inside each of us
>already.
>You're just trying to make up excuses to justify the false OT god figure.

All that means is that you never read the bible and followed the central idea.
God brought man from pagan bbq "son" to bbq ram to Jesus on the cross. And the
purpose of Jesus on the cross was to demonstrate eternal salvation thru
obedience to God.

>>> Its clear that the OT God was not a god of love but a god of war and
>>> subjugation, but you and other religious bumpkins just can't make
>>> that simple realisation.

>> And before God made his presence known, men bbq'ed their first born
>> sons and had them for lunch. That was the ways up to the time of
>> Abraham.

>That's because they were misled in the first place.

They were pagans. Their god was a pagan god.

>
>>>>> You get to decide if eternity without
>>>>>> God is your desire by the way you live your life.
>>>>
>>>>> Being truly without God in this universe of God is not possible
>>>>> because he's everywhere.
>>
>>>> Now that's something a child would push.
>>> Do you know the meaning of the word omnipresent? Obviously you
>>> don't.
>>
>> Yep, you are a child.

>I'm a child because *you* don't know the meaning of words???

I know the story, and you don't.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:3lv438hfketgej062...@4ax.com

Have you ever considered the possibility that you might not have things
exactly right?

>
>>>> Its clear that the OT God was not a god of love but a god of war
>>>> and subjugation, but you and other religious bumpkins just can't
>>>> make that simple realisation.
>
>>> And before God made his presence known, men bbq'ed their first born
>>> sons and had them for lunch. That was the ways up to the time of
>>> Abraham.
>
>> That's because they were misled in the first place.
>
> They were pagans. Their god was a pagan god.
>>

Which proves and goes to show that people *can* get things wrong about God.
Your position and that of other fundy's is that that can't happen in
your/their own religion.
That's the effect that religions can have on people's minds, and worship of
a deity is what leads to it. That's why as Christ said its better to love
one another (than to worship an invisible entity).

>
>>>>>> You get to decide if eternity without
>>>>>>> God is your desire by the way you live your life.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Being truly without God in this universe of God is not possible
>>>>>> because he's everywhere.
>>>
>>>>> Now that's something a child would push.
>>>> Do you know the meaning of the word omnipresent? Obviously you
>>>> don't.
>>>
>>> Yep, you are a child.
>
>> I'm a child because *you* don't know the meaning of words???
>
> I know the story, and you don't.
>

You can't know the proper story until you know and understand the meaning of
the words used.
And that's just the start of it.
Biblical scholars still struggle today with meanings and interpretations of
ancient accounts, but you somehow imagine that you've magically got it all
down pat. That's arrogance and self-righteousness. You've stopped searching
for the truth, just like the protestant fundy's have. Searching for the
truth is a life long process. God won't have you and them in his house
that's for sure. God only wants humble and seeking people.

[duke]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 07:47:45 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

Yep, for 20 years, and then I found the truth.

>>>>> Its clear that the OT God was not a god of love but a god of war
>>>>> and subjugation, but you and other religious bumpkins just can't
>>>>> make that simple realisation.
>>
>>>> And before God made his presence known, men bbq'ed their first born
>>>> sons and had them for lunch. That was the ways up to the time of
>>>> Abraham.
>>
>>> That's because they were misled in the first place.
>>
>> They were pagans. Their god was a pagan god.

>Which proves and goes to show that people *can* get things wrong about God.

That's always been the case. As mankind has matured, mankind grew in wisdom and
knowledge and now understands that there is only one God and that God has a
message for us to live a life of love for one another. That central theme is
found throughout the whole bible - demonstrating paganism moving to the chosen
people to the Christian. And God told us we now have it all - there are no
more directions coming. We are matured, knowledgeable and live in wisdom.

>Your position and that of other fundy's is that that can't happen in
>your/their own religion.
>That's the effect that religions can have on people's minds, and worship of
>a deity is what leads to it. That's why as Christ said its better to love
>one another (than to worship an invisible entity).
>
>>
>>>>>>> You get to decide if eternity without
>>>>>>>> God is your desire by the way you live your life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Being truly without God in this universe of God is not possible
>>>>>>> because he's everywhere.
>>>>
>>>>>> Now that's something a child would push.
>>>>> Do you know the meaning of the word omnipresent? Obviously you
>>>>> don't.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, you are a child.
>>
>>> I'm a child because *you* don't know the meaning of words???
>>
>> I know the story, and you don't.

>You can't know the proper story until you know and understand the meaning of
>the words used.

More children's mentality coming out in your words.

>And that's just the start of it.
>Biblical scholars still struggle today with meanings and interpretations of
>ancient accounts, but you somehow imagine that you've magically got it all
>down pat. That's arrogance and self-righteousness. You've stopped searching
>for the truth, just like the protestant fundy's have. Searching for the
>truth is a life long process. God won't have you and them in his house
>that's for sure. God only wants humble and seeking people.

I didn't figure it out for myself. I have a plethora of writings from old to
new to validate that I'm moving in the right direction.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:p2s638d02t5dslsms...@4ax.com

> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 07:47:45 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:3lv438hfketgej062...@4ax.com
>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:33:32 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Love should have been there from the start if it was a God of
>>>>>> love.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
>>>
>>>> Rubbish. Love is not complex. It can be received and understood
>>>> innately by any human. If we were made in God's image then it is
>>>> inside each of us already.
>>>> You're just trying to make up excuses to justify the false OT god
>>>> figure.
>>>
>>> All that means is that you never read the bible and followed the
>>> central idea. God brought man from pagan bbq "son" to bbq ram to
>>> Jesus on the cross. And the purpose of Jesus on the cross was to
>>> demonstrate eternal salvation thru obedience to God.
>
>> Have you ever considered the possibility that you might not have
>> things exactly right?
>
> Yep, for 20 years, and then I found the truth.
>

You found the truth on one thing and that's love, but you can't claim that
you've found the truth regarding hell and whether God demands obedience or
not etc.

>>>
>>>>> And before God made his presence known, men bbq'ed their first
>>>>> born sons and had them for lunch. That was the ways up to the
>>>>> time of Abraham.
>>>
>>>> That's because they were misled in the first place.
>>>
>>> They were pagans. Their god was a pagan god.
>
>> Which proves and goes to show that people *can* get things wrong
>> about God.
>
> That's always been the case. As mankind has matured, mankind grew in
> wisdom and knowledge and now understands that there is only one God
> and that God has a message for us to live a life of love for one
> another. That central theme is found throughout the whole bible -
> demonstrating paganism moving to the chosen people to the Christian.
> And God told us we now have it all - there are no more directions
> coming. We are matured, knowledgeable and live in wisdom.
>

Yet don't you still believe the *old* belief that God demands obedience, and
asked Christ to die horribly and unlovingly on a cross etc.?
And don't you also believe that at our death God suddenly cuts off our
choices and abandons us in an eternal fire if we haven't chosen to obey
certain old rules and do certain rituals in a church every Sunday?

>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now that's something a child would push.
>>>>>> Do you know the meaning of the word omnipresent? Obviously you
>>>>>> don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, you are a child.
>>>
>>>> I'm a child because *you* don't know the meaning of words???
>>>
>>> I know the story, and you don't.
>
>> You can't know the proper story until you know and understand the
>> meaning of the words used.
>
> More children's mentality coming out in your words.
>

Yet a biblical scholar would say pretty much what I just said.
So basically you think yourself more mature and smart than a biblical
scholar? How arrogant of you.

>
>> And that's just the start of it.
>> Biblical scholars still struggle today with meanings and
>> interpretations of ancient accounts, but you somehow imagine that
>> you've magically got it all down pat. That's arrogance and
>> self-righteousness. You've stopped searching for the truth, just
>> like the protestant fundy's have. Searching for the truth is a life
>> long process. God won't have you and them in his house that's for
>> sure. God only wants humble and seeking people.
>
> I didn't figure it out for myself. I have a plethora of writings
> from old to new to validate that I'm moving in the right direction.
>

You rely on old writings? You mean the ones based on the old beliefs of the
ancient peoples???

[duke]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:21:06 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

Hebrews 5:7-9 (New International Version)
7 During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions
with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he
was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Son though he was, he learned
obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source
of eternal salvation for all who obey him

>>>>>> And before God made his presence known, men bbq'ed their first
>>>>>> born sons and had them for lunch. That was the ways up to the
>>>>>> time of Abraham.
>>>>
>>>>> That's because they were misled in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> They were pagans. Their god was a pagan god.
>>
>>> Which proves and goes to show that people *can* get things wrong
>>> about God.
>>
>> That's always been the case. As mankind has matured, mankind grew in
>> wisdom and knowledge and now understands that there is only one God
>> and that God has a message for us to live a life of love for one
>> another. That central theme is found throughout the whole bible -
>> demonstrating paganism moving to the chosen people to the Christian.
>> And God told us we now have it all - there are no more directions
>> coming. We are matured, knowledgeable and live in wisdom.

>Yet don't you still believe the *old* belief that God demands obedience, and
>asked Christ to die horribly and unlovingly on a cross etc.?
>And don't you also believe that at our death God suddenly cuts off our
>choices and abandons us in an eternal fire if we haven't chosen to obey
>certain old rules and do certain rituals in a church every Sunday?

Hebrews 5:7-9 (New International Version)
7 During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions
with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he
was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Son though he was, he learned
obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source
of eternal salvation for all who obey him

>>> You can't know the proper story until you know and understand the
>>> meaning of the words used.
>> More children's mentality coming out in your words.

>Yet a biblical scholar would say pretty much what I just said.

They why did the say otherwise?

>So basically you think yourself more mature and smart than a biblical
>scholar? How arrogant of you.

>>> And that's just the start of it.
>>> Biblical scholars still struggle today with meanings and
>>> interpretations of ancient accounts, but you somehow imagine that
>>> you've magically got it all down pat. That's arrogance and
>>> self-righteousness. You've stopped searching for the truth, just
>>> like the protestant fundy's have. Searching for the truth is a life
>>> long process. God won't have you and them in his house that's for
>>> sure. God only wants humble and seeking people.
>>
>> I didn't figure it out for myself. I have a plethora of writings
>> from old to new to validate that I'm moving in the right direction.

>You rely on old writings? You mean the ones based on the old beliefs of the
>ancient peoples???

Do you believe a written history book?

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:lef938pht1s596qvn...@4ax.com

What's your point? That was that author's opinion.

Again you haven't answered with anything remarkable or useful.

>
>>>> You can't know the proper story until you know and understand the
>>>> meaning of the words used.
>>> More children's mentality coming out in your words.
>
>> Yet a biblical scholar would say pretty much what I just said.
>
> They why did the say otherwise?
>

Huh? You mean why did they say otherwise? They didn't. Its clear you've
never even spoken with or read anything by a biblical scholar in your life.
Do you even know what a scholar is? From your responses I really doubt it.
Same goes for about fifty other words of the English language.

>
>> So basically you think yourself more mature and smart than a biblical
>> scholar? How arrogant of you.
>
>>>> And that's just the start of it.
>>>> Biblical scholars still struggle today with meanings and
>>>> interpretations of ancient accounts, but you somehow imagine that
>>>> you've magically got it all down pat. That's arrogance and
>>>> self-righteousness. You've stopped searching for the truth, just
>>>> like the protestant fundy's have. Searching for the truth is a life
>>>> long process. God won't have you and them in his house that's for
>>>> sure. God only wants humble and seeking people.
>>>
>>> I didn't figure it out for myself. I have a plethora of writings
>>> from old to new to validate that I'm moving in the right direction.
>
>> You rely on old writings? You mean the ones based on the old beliefs
>> of the ancient peoples???
>
> Do you believe a written history book?
>

In many case one cannot rely on mainstream history books, especially
religious ones, because many history books are written by the victors. They
write them in whatever fashion favours their beliefs and edicts.
Research of multiple sources is the only way to find out real truth in this
world.

[duke]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:57:31 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

Inspired of God.

No wonder you're so lost.

Another way of saying it's all over your head.

>>>>> You can't know the proper story until you know and understand the
>>>>> meaning of the words used.
>>>> More children's mentality coming out in your words.
>>> Yet a biblical scholar would say pretty much what I just said.
>> They why did the say otherwise?

>Huh? You mean why did they say otherwise? They didn't. Its clear you've
>never even spoken with or read anything by a biblical scholar in your life.
>Do you even know what a scholar is? From your responses I really doubt it.
>Same goes for about fifty other words of the English language.

Shall I post that list of all the early church fathers for you again?

>>> So basically you think yourself more mature and smart than a biblical
>>> scholar? How arrogant of you.
>>
>>>>> And that's just the start of it.
>>>>> Biblical scholars still struggle today with meanings and
>>>>> interpretations of ancient accounts, but you somehow imagine that
>>>>> you've magically got it all down pat. That's arrogance and
>>>>> self-righteousness. You've stopped searching for the truth, just
>>>>> like the protestant fundy's have. Searching for the truth is a life
>>>>> long process. God won't have you and them in his house that's for
>>>>> sure. God only wants humble and seeking people.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't figure it out for myself. I have a plethora of writings
>>>> from old to new to validate that I'm moving in the right direction.
>>
>>> You rely on old writings? You mean the ones based on the old beliefs
>>> of the ancient peoples???
>>
>> Do you believe a written history book?

>In many case one cannot rely on mainstream history books, especially
>religious ones, because many history books are written by the victors.

Then you must deny all historical books.

> They
>write them in whatever fashion favours their beliefs and edicts.
>Research of multiple sources is the only way to find out real truth in this
>world.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:vj5c38p7v7u0b4n01...@4ax.com

> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:57:31 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All that means is that you never read the bible and followed the
>>>>>>> central idea. God brought man from pagan bbq "son" to bbq ram to
>>>>>>> Jesus on the cross. And the purpose of Jesus on the cross was
>>>>>>> to demonstrate eternal salvation thru obedience to God.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you ever considered the possibility that you might not have
>>>>>> things exactly right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, for 20 years, and then I found the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You found the truth on one thing and that's love, but you can't
>>>> claim that you've found the truth regarding hell and whether God
>>>> demands obedience or not etc.
>>>
>>> Hebrews 5:7-9 (New International Version)
>>> 7 During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and
>>> petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him
>>> from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8
>>> Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and,
>>> once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all
>>> who obey him
>
>> What's your point? That was that author's opinion.
>
> Inspired of God.
>

Lets look at the issue more carefully. What does the word inspire mean?

If you see someone do something great and you're inspired to write something
about it then are you using that person's words?
Of course not, you're using your own words and ideas. You are simply
'inspired'.
What you and other Bible thumpers are thinking of is more called
'dictation'. That's not what makes up the scriptures.

>>>
>>>> Yet don't you still believe the *old* belief that God demands
>>>> obedience, and asked Christ to die horribly and unlovingly on a
>>>> cross etc.?
>>>> And don't you also believe that at our death God suddenly cuts off
>>>> our choices and abandons us in an eternal fire if we haven't chosen
>>>> to obey certain old rules and do certain rituals in a church every
>>>> Sunday?
>>>
>>> Hebrews 5:7-9 (New International Version)
>>> 7 During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and
>>> petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him
>>> from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8
>>> Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and,
>>> once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all
>>> who obey him
>
>> Again you haven't answered with anything remarkable or useful.
>
> Another way of saying it's all over your head.
>

No, its all gone over your head, you just don't have the brains to realise
it.
You've chosen to live in a biblical fantasy land just like the protestant
Bible thumpers in your part of America.
I've analysed the words and actions of you Bible thumpers and Catholics and
you're all living in a kind of fantasy land imagining that God said this and
God said that. You all contradict each other constantly and say the most
naive and sometimes silly things. Its really sad to watch.

>
>>>>>> You can't know the proper story until you know and understand the
>>>>>> meaning of the words used.
>>>>> More children's mentality coming out in your words.
>>>> Yet a biblical scholar would say pretty much what I just said.
>>> They why did the say otherwise?
>
>> Huh? You mean why did they say otherwise? They didn't. Its clear
>> you've never even spoken with or read anything by a biblical scholar
>> in your life. Do you even know what a scholar is? From your
>> responses I really doubt it. Same goes for about fifty other words
>> of the English language.
>
> Shall I post that list of all the early church fathers for you again?
>

Are church fathers scholars? Can you prove that?
Find out what the word scholar means before mouthing off about it. You have
access to dictionaries.

>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't figure it out for myself. I have a plethora of writings
>>>>> from old to new to validate that I'm moving in the right
>>>>> direction.
>>>
>>>> You rely on old writings? You mean the ones based on the old
>>>> beliefs of the ancient peoples???
>>>
>>> Do you believe a written history book?
>
>> In many case one cannot rely on mainstream history books, especially
>> religious ones, because many history books are written by the
>> victors.
>
> Then you must deny all historical books.
>

Of course not all. Study and discernment is needed to determine truth with
everything.
But just accepting as 100% true all history books or anything in this world
is very naive and foolish.
No wonder there are so many sects and denominations in Christianity. There's
no discernment or critical thinking there what so ever. Its all just
personal fantasy.

[duke]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:40:28 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

God did not dictate to us. God slowly led mankind away from paganism to
Christianity, the faith of love. God's love is deeply ingrained in us, and so
our actions and words begin to reflect love. Now if i were a fighter pilot, I'm
probably related my understanding of God's message in the language of a fighter
pilot. And now you know.

>>>>> Yet don't you still believe the *old* belief that God demands
>>>>> obedience, and asked Christ to die horribly and unlovingly on a
>>>>> cross etc.?
>>>>> And don't you also believe that at our death God suddenly cuts off
>>>>> our choices and abandons us in an eternal fire if we haven't chosen
>>>>> to obey certain old rules and do certain rituals in a church every
>>>>> Sunday?
>>>>
>>>> Hebrews 5:7-9 (New International Version)
>>>> 7 During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and
>>>> petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him
>>>> from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8
>>>> Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and,
>>>> once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all
>>>> who obey him
>>
>>> Again you haven't answered with anything remarkable or useful.
>>
>> Another way of saying it's all over your head.

>No, its all gone over your head, you just don't have the brains to realise
>it.

And you clearly don't have the knowledge to correct me.

>You've chosen to live in a biblical fantasy land just like the protestant
>Bible thumpers in your part of America.
>I've analysed the words and actions of you Bible thumpers and Catholics and
>you're all living in a kind of fantasy land imagining that God said this and
>God said that. You all contradict each other constantly and say the most
>naive and sometimes silly things. Its really sad to watch.

God said "love one another as I have loved you". John 13:34. End of story.

>>>>>>> You can't know the proper story until you know and understand the
>>>>>>> meaning of the words used.
>>>>>> More children's mentality coming out in your words.
>>>>> Yet a biblical scholar would say pretty much what I just said.
>>>> They why did the say otherwise?
>>
>>> Huh? You mean why did they say otherwise? They didn't. Its clear
>>> you've never even spoken with or read anything by a biblical scholar
>>> in your life. Do you even know what a scholar is? From your
>>> responses I really doubt it. Same goes for about fifty other words
>>> of the English language.
>>
>> Shall I post that list of all the early church fathers for you again?

>Are church fathers scholars? Can you prove that?
>Find out what the word scholar means before mouthing off about it. You have
>access to dictionaries.

Main Entry:scholŁar
1 : a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher : PUPIL
2 a : a person who has done advanced study in a special field b : a learned
person
3 : a holder of a scholarship

Wow, these nailed it. The Church Fathers were definitely that.

>>>>>> I didn't figure it out for myself. I have a plethora of writings
>>>>>> from old to new to validate that I'm moving in the right
>>>>>> direction.
>>>>
>>>>> You rely on old writings? You mean the ones based on the old
>>>>> beliefs of the ancient peoples???
>>>>
>>>> Do you believe a written history book?
>>
>>> In many case one cannot rely on mainstream history books, especially
>>> religious ones, because many history books are written by the
>>> victors.
>>
>> Then you must deny all historical books.
>>
>
>Of course not all. Study and discernment is needed to determine truth with
>everything.

Right, and now you know

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:7tpe38dlra554bfib...@4ax.com

> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:40:28 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:vj5c38p7v7u0b4n01...@4ax.com
>>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:57:31 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>> What's your point? That was that author's opinion.
>>>
>>> Inspired of God.
>
>> Lets look at the issue more carefully. What does the word inspire
>> mean?
>
>> If you see someone do something great and you're inspired to write
>> something about it then are you using that person's words?
>> Of course not, you're using your own words and ideas. You are simply
>> 'inspired'.
>> What you and other Bible thumpers are thinking of is more called
>> 'dictation'. That's not what makes up the scriptures.
>
> God did not dictate to us.
>

Then the Bible is not God's word is it.

>
God slowly led mankind away from paganism
> to Christianity, the faith of love. God's love is deeply ingrained
> in us, and so our actions and words begin to reflect love. Now if i
> were a fighter pilot, I'm probably related my understanding of God's
> message in the language of a fighter pilot. And now you know.
>

Yet you still believe in some of the ancient people's beliefs like obedience
and eternal hell and paganish ideas like eating Christ's flesh etc.

>>>
>>>> Again you haven't answered with anything remarkable or useful.
>>>
>>> Another way of saying it's all over your head.
>
>> No, its all gone over your head, you just don't have the brains to
>> realise it.
>
> And you clearly don't have the knowledge to correct me.
>

I do have knowledge.
You don't know what knowledge is so you don't recognise it.
You think knowledge is just a religion's old beliefs.

Take this religious quiz to see how much knowledge you really have about
Christianity and the Bible etc.
http://tinyurl.com/3f6p22t
Most Catholics only get about 14.7 out of 32 answers right.
The highest scores are by atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons with
about 20.9 average.
My score was 24.

>
>> You've chosen to live in a biblical fantasy land just like the
>> protestant Bible thumpers in your part of America.
>> I've analysed the words and actions of you Bible thumpers and
>> Catholics and you're all living in a kind of fantasy land imagining
>> that God said this and God said that. You all contradict each other
>> constantly and say the most naive and sometimes silly things. Its
>> really sad to watch.
>
> God said "love one another as I have loved you". John 13:34. End of
> story.
>

Then follow it!
But wrong. Jesus said that, not God. But only in one or two places in the
whole of the NT. Obviously even he didn't consider it that important.

>>>
>>>> Huh? You mean why did they say otherwise? They didn't. Its clear
>>>> you've never even spoken with or read anything by a biblical
>>>> scholar in your life. Do you even know what a scholar is? From
>>>> your responses I really doubt it. Same goes for about fifty other
>>>> words of the English language.
>>>
>>> Shall I post that list of all the early church fathers for you
>>> again?
>
>> Are church fathers scholars? Can you prove that?
>> Find out what the word scholar means before mouthing off about it.
>> You have access to dictionaries.
>

> Main Entry:schol�ar

> 1 : a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher : PUPIL
> 2 a : a person who has done advanced study in a special field b : a
> learned person
> 3 : a holder of a scholarship
>
> Wow, these nailed it. The Church Fathers were definitely that.
>

That's only a general definition. Its not quite as simple as that.
Biblical scholars study the Bible objectively and critically. That's true
biblical scholarship.
Priests, especially Catholic, only study established dogmas that are
approved by the church. Big difference. If they don't then they risk
excommunication.

How many actual official biblical scholars are there named in the Vatican?
I think none.

>>>>>
>>>>>> You rely on old writings? You mean the ones based on the old
>>>>>> beliefs of the ancient peoples???
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you believe a written history book?
>>>
>>>> In many case one cannot rely on mainstream history books,
>>>> especially religious ones, because many history books are written
>>>> by the victors.
>>>
>>> Then you must deny all historical books.
>>>
>>
>> Of course not all. Study and discernment is needed to determine
>> truth with everything.
>
> Right, and now you know
>

?

[•R.Measures]

In article <k197io$9pp$1...@dont-email.me>, "Andrew W"

ААА Ritual cannibalism was practiced by pagan religions centuries before
Christians adopted it late in the 4th Century.

[Andrew W]

".R.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2408122...@10.0.1.3

> ??? Ritual cannibalism was practiced by pagan religions centuries

> before Christians adopted it late in the 4th Century.
>

Of course.
It was adopted by the RCC (in a modified form) because it was still a
popular idea with the people at the time.
The church always stuck to known good formulas to keep their membership
high. Never mind what the truth might have been, just whatever keeps the
sheeple coming back.

[duke]

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 10:51:32 +1000, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

I do. You don't.

>But wrong. Jesus said that, not God. But only in one or two places in the
>whole of the NT. Obviously even he didn't consider it that important.

It was such a major statement that he referred to it as a new Commandment.

>>>>> Huh? You mean why did they say otherwise? They didn't. Its clear
>>>>> you've never even spoken with or read anything by a biblical
>>>>> scholar in your life. Do you even know what a scholar is? From
>>>>> your responses I really doubt it. Same goes for about fifty other
>>>>> words of the English language.
>>>>
>>>> Shall I post that list of all the early church fathers for you
>>>> again?
>>
>>> Are church fathers scholars? Can you prove that?
>>> Find out what the word scholar means before mouthing off about it.
>>> You have access to dictionaries.
>>

>> Main Entry:scholŁar

>> 1 : a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher : PUPIL
>> 2 a : a person who has done advanced study in a special field b : a
>> learned person
>> 3 : a holder of a scholarship
>>
>> Wow, these nailed it. The Church Fathers were definitely that.

>That's only a general definition. Its not quite as simple as that.

Well, you mentioned the dictionary, so I used one.

>Biblical scholars study the Bible objectively and critically. That's true
>biblical scholarship.
>Priests, especially Catholic, only study established dogmas that are
>approved by the church. Big difference. If they don't then they risk
>excommunication.

Dogmas are not established by the Chruch. Doctrine is. Dogma are those truths
that God actually gave to mankind.

>How many actual official biblical scholars are there named in the Vatican?
>I think none.

You're blowing smoke up your own ass now, aw. The Church is heavy with people
with doctorate degrees that study, teach and research the entire history of the
Christian world. You can't win with that line of mistakes.

[duke]

>€€€ Ritual cannibalism was practiced by pagan religions centuries before

>Christians adopted it late in the 4th Century.

It wasn't ritual then. They actually bbq'ed their own first born sons. That's
exactly what Abraham, the first actual man mentioned in the bible, was setting
out to do when God stopped him and substituted a ram in Isaac's place.