PDA

View Full Version : Religion Mary not a virgin anymore?


orange
04-21-2011, 03:27 PM
...

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, meanwhile, has thoroughly revised the Old Testament in its New American Bible, similarly changing many generic references to "mankind" in favor of gender neutrality. It also adopted language intended to "more clearly express the meaning of the original," it said — like changing "booty" to "plunder" or "spoils of war," because "booty" has a different, decidedly unbiblical meaning nowadays.

Most controversial is its revision of Isaiah 7:14 to predict that the messiah will be born to a "young woman," not to a "virgin," a characterization that some critics say casts doubt on the miraculous nature of Jesus' birth.

The conference of bishops explained that it had concluded that the original Hebrew ("almah") more accurately meant "maiden" or "young woman" and pointed out that several other modern translations agree, including the Revised Standard Version, the monumental 1950s translation that was the basis for many of the Protestant revisions in use today.

...

more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42215497/ns/us_news-life/

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/9116/1569699-mary2_super.jpg

orange
04-21-2011, 03:28 PM
Accurate or not, I predict this will not be well received.

talastan
04-21-2011, 03:30 PM
No it won't....to deny the take away the virgin birth is to essentially take away the divinity of Christ IMO. One of the most important prophecies of Isaiah (IIRC) was the virgin birth. Again JMO...

Donger
04-21-2011, 03:36 PM
...

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, meanwhile, has thoroughly revised the Old Testament in its New American Bible, similarly changing many generic references to "mankind" in favor of gender neutrality. It also adopted language intended to "more clearly express the meaning of the original," it said — like changing "booty" to "plunder" or "spoils of war," because "booty" has a different, decidedly unbiblical meaning nowadays.

Most controversial is its revision of Isaiah 7:14 to predict that the messiah will be born to a "young woman," not to a "virgin," a characterization that some critics say casts doubt on the miraculous nature of Jesus' birth.

The conference of bishops explained that it had concluded that the original Hebrew ("almah") more accurately meant "maiden" or "young woman" and pointed out that several other modern translations agree, including the Revised Standard Version, the monumental 1950s translation that was the basis for many of the Protestant revisions in use today.

...

more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42215497/ns/us_news-life/

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/9116/1569699-mary2_super.jpg

Did anyone else giggle a little when they read "booty"?

CoMoChief
04-21-2011, 03:42 PM
Christianity is no different than the many religions before it.

nstygma
04-21-2011, 03:48 PM
The conference of bishops explained that it had concluded that the original Hebrew ("almah") more accurately meant "maiden" or "young woman" and pointed out that several other modern translations agree, including the Revised Standard Version, the monumental 1950s translation that was the basis for many of the Protestant revisions in use today.
i think the bishops are ignorant.
a bunch of jewish hebrew israelite scholars translated isaiah to greek several hundred years before christ, and they used the greek word for virgin to translate that hebrew word. they just might know a little more about what that word meant in their culture/time than modern fogies today

orange
04-21-2011, 03:56 PM
i think the bishops are ignorant.
a bunch of jewish hebrew israelite scholars translated isaiah to greek several hundred years before christ, and they used the greek word for virgin to translate that hebrew word. they just might know a little more about what that word meant in their culture/time than modern fogies today

Virgin didn't have as tight a meaning then as it does now, though.

did I really say that?

ClevelandBronco
04-21-2011, 04:05 PM
Christianity is no different than the many religions before it.

ROFL

bowener
04-21-2011, 04:07 PM
Accurate or not, I predict this will not be well received.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/otCpCn0l4Wo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

mlyonsd
04-21-2011, 04:22 PM
That was one I could never wrap my head around.....Virgin Mary, wife of Joseph.

I see only three scenarios for that to be true:

1) She was butt ugly
2) Joseph lost a bet
3) Joseph was gay and just hadn't come out yet

I'm sure someone here will straighten me out but because Catechism was forced upon me at age 6, on Saturday's I might add, I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention.

chiefqueen
04-21-2011, 04:37 PM
Mary being a virgin is the single most important element of Christ's birth. Mary must be a virgin because if she was not there is no way anybody can know for sure she was impregnated by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit is a important fact to our salvation. This had to be accomplish through a virgin so no doubt can be cast about Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit.

The reason came to earth the first time was to offer himself as a sacrifice to pay the penalty for our sins. To do this Jesus had to be fully man and fully God. If Jesus was conceived through natural means that would mean he was only a man. This would mean he would have had a sinful nature and could only die for his own sins and would not be able to die for the sins of mankind.

Bewbies
04-21-2011, 04:58 PM
Color me shocked that people out there want to cast doubt upon Jesus origins. That's new, never happened before, probably won't ever happen again.

bowener
04-21-2011, 04:58 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/otCpCn0l4Wo" allowfullscreen="" width="480" frameborder="0" height="390"></iframe>

BTW, this was a cross thread reference to the piss pictured being smashed with a hammer.

CrazyPhuD
04-21-2011, 05:01 PM
Wait people are just now realizing this? I always knew 'burning bush' was bible code for the first STD.

chasedude
04-21-2011, 05:05 PM
LMAO Shamelessly reinventing

orange
04-21-2011, 05:12 PM
Color me shocked that people out there want to cast doubt upon Jesus origins.

"The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops ..."

HolyHandgernade
04-21-2011, 06:45 PM
From Joeph Wheless' "Is It God's Word?", written in 1926. Obviously, this isn't a new development, just the church catching up with it:

"VIRGIN" OR "YOUNG WOMAN"

Another false, or at best misleading, translation is that of
"virgin" in Isaiah. The Hebrew word used by Isaiah and translated
"virgin" is almah, which does not at all signify "virgin" in the
sense in which we understand it, of an unmarried woman who, in the
often-repeated biblical phrase, "hath not known man by lying with
him." The exegetes of the Biblical Encyclopedia thus correctly
define it: "Virgin, Heb., almah; i.e., a young woman of
marriageable age" (Vol. III, p. 117) -- not necessarily, or even
presumptively, of intact virginity. The Hebrew word for a woman
actually a virgin is bethulah; and throughout the Hebrew Bible the
two words almah and bethulah are used with a fair degree of
discrimination of sense, as shown by the instances which I think it
pertinent to cite, for a clear understanding of this important
point.

In the Hebrew texts the word almah is used seven times, always
simply in the sense of a young female, and is rendered "damsel"
once, "maid" twice, and "virgin" four times. The word bethulah
occurs fifty times, rendered "maid" seven times, "maiden" eight
times, and "virgin" thirty-five times. All fifty times it has the
technical sense of virginity. For example, Rebekah was a "bethulah,
neither had any man known her" (Gen. xxiv, 16). "He shall take a
wife in her virginity [bethulah]. A widow, or a divorced woman, or
profane, or a harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a
virgin [bethulah]" (Lev. xxi, 13, 14). "If a damsel [naarah] that
is a virgin [bethulah] be betrothed," etc. (Deut. xxii, 23). If a
husband find his new wife "not a maid [bethulah]," then on his
complaint her parents must "bring forth the tokens of the virginity
[bethulah] of the maid [naarah]" (Deut. xxii, 14, 15). Jephthah's
daughter, doomed to be a living sacrifice to Yahveh, asked time to
"bewail my virginity [bethulah]" (Judges xi, 37, 38). These
instances suffice to make clear the correctness of the definitions:
"Bethulah conveys the idea of virginity, of a young unmarried
woman; almah is used simply of a young woman of marriageable age"
(New Standard Bible Dictionary, p. 939); and they show the
befuddled folly of all the labored fictions invented by Matthew,
Luke, and the dogma-forgers to make out the wife of Joseph the
carpenter a perpetual virgin-mother of Jesus and half a dozen other
offspring. Isaiah's ha-almah need not have been, and the term did
not signify that she was, strictly a virgin. Again "the false pen
of the scribes hath wrought falsely." The gospels are all priestly
forgeries over a century after their pretended dates.

AndChiefs
04-21-2011, 07:09 PM
That was one I could never wrap my head around.....Virgin Mary, wife of Joseph.

I see only three scenarios for that to be true:

1) She was butt ugly
2) Joseph lost a bet
3) Joseph was gay and just hadn't come out yet

I'm sure someone here will straighten me out but because Catechism was forced upon me at age 6, on Saturday's I might add, I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention.

Jesus came before they were married....they were just pledged to each other (engaged).

Saul Good
04-21-2011, 07:35 PM
I had understood the meaning of "virgin" to have actually meant pre-pubescent; she hadn't had her first menstruation when she became pregnant.

Fishpicker
04-21-2011, 10:22 PM
the new New American Version of the Bible is kind of pointless. Catholic laity wont bother reading it.

Pitt Gorilla
04-21-2011, 11:44 PM
Pretty sure most people were already keen to the "virgin" thing.

bowener
04-21-2011, 11:47 PM
Pretty sure most people were already keen to the "virgin" thing.

I'm not a virgin.

When is Clayton coming back?

Raiderhater58
04-22-2011, 12:21 AM
the Bible is kind of pointless. Catholic laity wont bother reading it.

FYP :evil:

Bewbies
04-22-2011, 12:43 AM
"The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops ..."

I didn't realize they spoke for everyone.

I better check with Westboro Baptist Church to see what Christians are up to today.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-22-2011, 12:56 AM
I guess we forgot the opening dialogue of Snatch.

nstygma
04-22-2011, 01:19 AM
From Joeph Wheless' "Is It God's Word?", written in 1926. Obviously, this isn't a new development, just the church catching up with it:
i think that you are incorrect. i was going to type something, but ran across a post somewhere that addresses your claim sufficiently, so i copied it here:


For example, in this article someone claims that the concept of the virgin birth might simply be a translation mistake.
Quote:
The Old Testament talks about almah 'young woman,' not bethulah 'virgin.' However, the scholars in the 3rd century BC translated the Hebrew almah as parthenos in Greek. Thus the 'young woman' in Hebrew metamorphosed into a 'virgin' in Greek—and she has remained a virgin ever since in translations across the world. The notion of 'virgin birth' was born, thanks to a mistranslation.
I let this go in the thread in which it was originally posted (The multilingual sign over Jesus' Cross) because it was unrelated to the thread but I would like to discuss it here since I have a special interest in it, being a student of both Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew.

The verse referenced is as follows:

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14

The article referenced is extremely linguistically naive. Here are the reasons:

1. עלמה (Almah) and בתולה (Bethulah) are essentially synonyms. Both can be translated by the Greek Word παρθένος (parthenos) and the Septuagint translators did just that.

2. Isaiah 7:14 loses its meaning entirely if עלמה (Almah) is simply a "young woman." A young woman giving birth is certainly not a "sign" Hebrew = אוֹת (owth). This word means something miraculous. Young women give birth every day--nothing miraculous about it. A virgin giving birth--now that is miraculous.

3. The Septuagint translators were a group of 72 translators who were equally fluent in Greek and Hebrew. They translated the text from Hebrew to Greek individually and then their translations were compared. Thus, they were in agreement that עלמה (Almah) = παρθένος (parthenos) = a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man.

The עלמה (Almah) vs בתולה (Bethulah) argument for denying the application of Isaiah 7:14 to the virgin birth of Jesus Christ in Matthew 1:23 is, quite frankly, a ruse. It is done for religious purposes, which I will not discuss to avoid contravening the forum rules.

Dave Lane
04-22-2011, 08:40 AM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/o89iKsKw19M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Dave Lane
04-22-2011, 08:42 AM
Seriously anyone cares about the virgin birth with all the other absurdities in the bible? This one is barely a ripple of the crazy elsewhere.

Dave Lane
04-22-2011, 08:45 AM
The Bible is kind of pointless. Christians wont bother reading it.


FYP

Ebolapox
04-22-2011, 08:51 AM
I kinda wish I could invent some wild shit and get some hapless sheep to believe it. if it's powerful enough bullshit, hell--maybe they'll still believe it in a few thousand years.

AustinChief
04-23-2011, 12:18 AM
i think the bishops are ignorant.
a bunch of jewish hebrew israelite scholars translated isaiah to greek several hundred years before christ, and they used the greek word for virgin to translate that hebrew word. they just might know a little more about what that word meant in their culture/time than modern fogies today

I honestly hope you are joking here....

KILLER_CLOWN
04-23-2011, 12:39 AM
"The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops ..."

thanks for proving his point.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-23-2011, 12:42 AM
I honestly hope you are joking here....

uhhh no, lets use an example.

An act is committed by 2 individuals and stories are told for centuries. Information is passed around of what originally happened. Who would know more of it the ones closer to firsthand information? or say the 1000th person to hear of it?

AustinChief
04-23-2011, 01:18 AM
uhhh no, lets use an example.

An act is committed by 2 individuals and stories are told for centuries. Information is passed around of what originally happened. Who would know more of it the ones closer to firsthand information? or say the 1000th person to hear of it?

yes because academic standards were so high in the 3rd century BC... You are relying on a translation that may have been inaccurate due to ignorance or it was inaccurate due to willful deception... but that doesn't change the FACT.. and that is: it was inaccurate.

The word does NOT mean virgin, end of story. There is another word for virgin, pretty sure the author would have used it had he meant to say virgin.

No amount of crying is going to change that FACT.

It amazes me that you guys ACTUALLY think you know better than a group of people who have dedicated their lives to this scholarly pursuit... but of course, you don't WANT them to be right, so they must not be right!

What the fuck happened to critical thinking?

KILLER_CLOWN
04-23-2011, 01:31 AM
yes because academic standards were so high in the 3rd century BC... You are relying on a translation that may have been inaccurate due to ignorance or it was inaccurate due to willful deception... but that doesn't change the FACT.. and that is: it was inaccurate.

The word does NOT mean virgin, end of story. There is another word for virgin, pretty sure the author would have used it had he meant to say virgin.

No amount of crying is going to change that FACT.

It amazes me that you guys ACTUALLY think you know better than a group of people who have dedicated their lives to this scholarly pursuit... but of course, you don't WANT them to be right, so they must not be right!

What the **** happened to critical thinking?

Critical thinking should tell you, especially if you've read any Christian Bible, that corruption started with the fall of Lucifer and Jesus told us his kingdom was not of this world. Satan offered Jesus all the kingdoms of this world if he would fall down and worship him. In the end Knowledge will be increased but it sure won't save your soul.

If i read a collection of books whose main premise were that the world is flat, and focused my entire work looking for facts that proved it, would that make me wise?

nstygma
04-23-2011, 03:03 AM
What the **** happened to critical thinking?what sign is the writer of the passage referring to?

It amazes me that you guys ACTUALLY think you know better than a group of people(72 jews, 6 from each tribe of israel, commissioned by King Ptolemy) who have dedicated their lives to this scholarly pursuit... but of course, you don't WANT them to be right, so they must not be right!:thumb:

craneref
04-23-2011, 04:11 AM
So where in that passage does it say Mary was not a virgin? In the time of the writing of Isaiah, the word for young women contain the obvious that it was an unmarried girl, which a that time also meant virgin. I think they didn't have to state the obvious like we do now. On a second note, the word from virgin to young woman was changed in Isaiah, which was the prophecy of the Savior, not Mary herself, who according to Matthew 1:22, was indeed a virgin because the angel of the Lord assured Joseph to take the pregnant Mary as his wife because the Christ Chile was placed in her womb bythe Holy Spirit. Plain speech then for she has been with no man-- Matthew 1:20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
If people don't want to believe in Christ, virgin birth, perfect life, blameless death and resurrection, fine, that is your God given right, but why do the non-believers think they have the right to disparage or tear down the belief of the believers.

RedNeckRaider
04-23-2011, 07:08 AM
Critical thinking should tell you, especially if you've read any Christian Bible, that corruption started with the fall of Lucifer and Jesus told us his kingdom was not of this world. Satan offered Jesus all the kingdoms of this world if he would fall down and worship him. In the end Knowledge will be increased but it sure won't save your soul.

If i read a collection of books whose main premise were that the world is flat, and focused my entire work looking for facts that proved it, would that make me wise?

That would depend if your beliefs are based in faith or reasoning. A person who believed in the flat world collection of books would simply believe them on faith. A person of reasoning would research and come to the conclusion in this case that the flat world collection of books are wrong. People of the same faith would see you as wise. People of reason would see you as a fool~

HolyHandgernade
04-23-2011, 11:25 AM
what sign is the writer of the passage referring to?

It amazes me that you guys ACTUALLY think you know better than a group of people(72 jews, 6 from each tribe of israel, commissioned by King Ptolemy) who have dedicated their lives to this scholarly pursuit... but of course, you don't WANT them to be right, so they must not be right!:thumb:

If you want to believe that story, go ahead, it was concocted because 72 is an astrotheological number that adds to the mysticism of the point. According to the legend, these 72 scribes transcribed the text, separated from one another, and the authenticity and accuracy of the translation was verified because, supposedly, not a word of these 72 transcriptions differed from each other.

Probably closer to the truth is that the Alexandrian Jews, who had already incorporated many of the mystical elements of the pagan religions (including virgin births), produced this translation after the Jews in the Middle East regions had been dispersed after their revolts and subsequent defeat. Many of those Jews fled to Alexandria where the perplexing question on their minds was why the promised "Messiah" (which they believed to be a military leader), did not deliver the victory to them over the Romans. So, the Alexandrian Jews attempted to synthesize the failure of that prophecy by claiming the "Messiah" was a spiritual savior, not an earthly one, and "interpreted" the Isaiah passages to reflect that idea, basically creating a "Jewish mystery religion", which most of the orthodox Jews rejected and came to adopt the Rabbinic form of Judaism whose manifestations you see today.

stevieray
04-23-2011, 11:30 AM
If you want to believe that story, go ahead, it was concocted because 72 is an astrotheological number that adds to the mysticism of the point. According to the legend, these 72 scribes transcribed the text, separated from one another, and the authenticity and accuracy of the translation was verified because, supposedly, not a word of these 72 transcriptions differed from each other.

Probably closer to the truth is that the Alexandrian Jews, who had already incorporated many of the mystical elements of the pagan religions (including virgin births), produced this translation after the Jews in the Middle East regions had been dispersed after their revolts and subsequent defeat. Many of those Jews fled to Alexandria where the perplexing question on their minds was why the promised "Messiah" (which they believed to be a military leader), did not deliver the victory to them over the Romans. So, the Alexandrian Jews attempted to synthesize the failure of that prophecy by claiming the "Messiah" was a spiritual savior, not an earthly one, and "interpreted" the Isaiah passages to reflect that idea, basically creating a "Jewish mystery religion", which most of the orthodox Jews rejected and came to adopt the Rabbinic form of Judaism whose manifestations you see today.

Hardly.....the first Christians were Jews and knew full well the implications of rejecting Jewish Law and following Christ..even until death...men don't die for something they don't believe to be true.

go bowe
04-23-2011, 11:40 AM
damn, that is interesting stuff...

between you and dave, i've learned a lot about the history of the bible...

the original language, which is always the best translation afaic, is fascinating ...

as is the context of the times and religious/political/historical sources of the various story lines in the bible...

please continue to chime in whenever you like...

HolyHandgernade
04-23-2011, 11:41 AM
Hardly.....the first Christians were Jews and knew full well the implications of rejecting Jewish Law and following Christ..even until death...men don't die for something they don't believe to be true.

This is why your credibility on the subject is so low. This wasn't a "Christian endeavor". Here's the "Wiki" summation if you don't believe me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

These weren't "future Christian Jews" writing the Bible. These were Greek culture Jews desiring a translation of the old Hebrew Torahs into Greek because most of the Alexandrian Jews either did not speak or were very rusty with their Hebrew. (Like American Jews today, outside of a few words, most aren't fluent in Hebrew). It wasn't translated for Christianity, but it became the translation Christians would use, because, like just about everything concerned with the religion, they were Roman citizens with a Greek cultural background (the learned ones, anyway).

Bowser
04-23-2011, 11:46 AM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8YX-gqRdK_8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Barack Fan 2012
04-23-2011, 11:52 AM
Mary is a slut.

go bowe
04-23-2011, 11:52 AM
Hardly.....the first Christians were Jews and knew full well the implications of rejecting Jewish Law and following Christ..even until death...men don't die for something they don't believe to be true.there is no question that people in the time of Christ as well as christians throughout history believed that Christ's message is true...

and there is no question that men have died over the centuries because they believed that the message is true...

and there is also no question that practitioners of other religions believe that their versions are true too...

and then there are those who don't believe in any religion at all...

who's right?

who knows? :shrug:

go bowe
04-23-2011, 11:57 AM
Mary is a slut.either your sense of humor is a little strange or you are just trolling for angry responses...

i'd guess trolling...

stevieray
04-23-2011, 12:01 PM
This is why your credibility on the subject is so low. This wasn't a "Christian endeavor". Here's the "Wiki" summation if you don't believe me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

These weren't "future Christian Jews" writing the Bible. These were Greek culture Jews desiring a translation of the old Hebrew Torahs into Greek because most of the Alexandrian Jews either did not speak or were very rusty with their Hebrew. (Like American Jews today, outside of a few words, most aren't fluent in Hebrew). It wasn't translated for Christianity, but it became the translation Christians would use, because, like just about everything concerned with the religion, they were Roman citizens with a Greek cultural background (the learned ones, anyway).

wiki....ROFL...

and btw, didn't get the memo where you determine credibility.

The hellonized it because it was very precise and that was the language used to communicate for lands under Roman Rule.

Pitt Gorilla
04-23-2011, 12:09 PM
If people don't want to believe in Christ, virgin birth, perfect life, blameless death and resurrection, fine, that is your God given right, but why do the non-believers think they have the right to disparage or tear down the belief of the believers.Because they do. Do you seriously think they DON'T have that right?

Brock
04-23-2011, 12:11 PM
If people don't want to believe in Christ, virgin birth, perfect life, blameless death and resurrection, fine, that is your God given right, but why do the non-believers think they have the right to disparage or tear down the belief of the believers.

Your beliefs must be pretty weak if they're so easily torn down. Sorry bout that.

Jaric
04-23-2011, 12:27 PM
I don't really see how this would make the teachings of Jesus any more or less relevant. If you believe he's the son of God, then he's the son of God.

Seems to me to be a case of getting worked up over the details and not paying attention to the message.

HolyHandgernade
04-23-2011, 12:29 PM
wiki....ROFL...

and btw, didn't get the memo where you determine credibility.

The hellonized it because it was very precise and that was the language used to communicate for lands under Roman Rule.

You mean "Hellenized"? You're right, I'm a terrible source to determine credibility. I'll tell you what, you pull up your credible source that contradicts what the laughable wiki definition gave, OK?

Dave Lane
04-23-2011, 12:29 PM
GB here's a little more not really light reading matter but interesting. I've long held the Essenes were really the first christians.

The God Who Never Was

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." – John, 8.32.

A 'life' conjured up from mystical fantasy, a mass of borrowed quotations, copied story elements and a corpus of self-serving speculation, does not constitute an historical reality.

It constitutes a myth, a hero-myth, in essentials no different from the legends of champions that times of crisis called into existence in many cultures. "Jesus Christ Lord and Saviour" is certainly the most convoluted and enduring of such accretions but its fabrication from simple elements is no less apparent than that of any other west Asian salvation god.

For Jewish radicals of the 1st century – whether militant patriots within Palestine or proto-Christians of the Jewish diaspora – the despised and neglected masses were both audience and market place. For a century or more the battle was joined for the future of Judaism.

In the Levant, militancy had the upper hand until the final debacle of 135. In the diaspora, a repackaged piety centred on a personal saviour god eventually gained the ascendancy, advancing with each successive reversal of belligerency and the attendant flood of refugees and captive slaves into the cities of the Mediterranean.

A revised 'rabbinic' Judaism made an impressive revival in the 2nd-3rd centuries. But by then a heresy called Christianity had been commandeered by gentile pagans who saw opportunity in a hybridised oriental cult with a strong Jewish core.


Rebel with a Sword? Enter the Nazarenes

"And it was in Gessius Florus's time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper ... and to make them revolt from the Romans."

– Josephus, 18.1.6


As the 1st century unfolded a radical arm of the Essenes, the Zealots (‘zealous for the law’) and bands of assassins, known as Sicarii, actively resisted Roman occupation by aping the guerilla tactics of the Maccabees two hundred years earlier. They were part of a widening resistance movement.

Rome's removal of Archelaus and imposition of direct rule in 6AD precipitated a 'tax revolt'. Notable among the rebels was Judas the Galilean – son of the Ezekias murdered by Herod the Great a generation earlier. His followers appear to have been a particular band of fanatical Gaulonites. 4th century Bishop Epiphanius (Panarion 18-19) confirms that a sect was operating in the Bashan (the Golan Heights and east of the Sea of Galilee) and Galaaditis (the western Decapolis) called the Nasaraioi (variations on the name include "Nazorei" and "Nazarenoi"). Evidently they were orthodox Jews who had who broken away from temple sacrifice. The precise factional divide between Zealots and Nasaraioi is far from clear. Probably it depended upon the charisma of individual leaders at any given time.

The Nazarenes actually get a mention in the New Testament:

"For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes" – Acts 24.5


Judas himself appears to have been a member of a curious family dynasty of rebels who continued to lead a resistance movement at least until the defeat of 70 AD. Certainly, a century of ruthless exploitation by Rome, added to the fearsome exploitation by the priesthood and the Herodian aristocracy, created conditions which made civil war and rebellion inevitable.



Judaism's "Worthless peasants"

" A Jew must not marry a daughter of an Am ha-aretz because they are unclean animals and their women forbidden reptiles ... What God hath cleansed call thou not common!"

– Talmud (Mishnah, Tractate Demai 2


In Judaism's theocratic tyranny only the aristocracy had "holiness".

The Am ha-aretz (workers of the land, commoners), were too oppressed to say Shema night and day, wear phylacteries or fringe their garments. To the priestly aristocracy they were objects of contempt.

The poor, the disabled and the sick were all ritually unclean. Male Jews even had a morning prayer thanking God for "not being made a woman." Unwelcome in the sanctums of the Temple, those who would not, or could not, fight turned to a simple expedient: a river and a wild guru.



John the Baptist (30s AD)

Baptism in water probably originated in India on the banks of the Ganges, where the sacred waters drove out demons. Brahmans and Buddhist monks carried the idea to western Asia after the conquests of Alexander the Great.

It was adopted by groups such as the Essenes, with whom John the baptiser no doubt learned his craft. His new twist to an old idea was to replace self-baptism with an administered baptism. Doubtless, his bizarre ascetic practices gave him an aura of "other worldliness" and his sermonizing hope to those intimidated by the thought of armed resistance to Rome.

Josephus (Antiquities 18) gives a favourable report of the pacifist John, in stark contrast to his scathing comments on all the more robust rebels. John appears to have been active in Peraea – not far from Qumran itself.



Where did they get their ideas from?

The cult of John the Baptist grew up entirely independently of the Jesus cult and continued for centuries in competition with the aggressive newcomer. Christian scribes, plagiarizing from every source to hand, co-opted the Baptist for a supporting role in their own fantasy. They fabricated two links: firstly, a blood tie via a cousin of Mary; and secondly, by the tricky theology of having John baptize the sinless Jesus.

Dave Lane
04-23-2011, 12:33 PM
Jewish Gnosis: Paul's "good news" for the Essenes –


"I've seen your Messiah and He's Alive in Heaven!"

Paul appeals to the brethren of the Jewish diaspora.

The pacifist response to Roman occupation took more than one form.

The Romanisation of Palestine not only radicalised those Jews who resisted colonisation: it Hellenized the collaborators who embraced the new reality. An early Jewish Gnostic was the Samaritan "Simon the Magus" whose legacy was to inspire both the mystical "Kabala" (a refinement of Pythagorean "magic" numbers) and later Christian Gnostics – Basilides, Saturninus, Carpocrates among them.

Probably the most successful student of Simon was the apostle Paul, who would concoct a new, Jewish-oriented version of the ancient mystery cult tradition of dying and rising gods. In common with all the early Christian writers, Paul knew nothing of any human Jesus. His saviour originated (and remained!) in the ethereal world of pious imagination, both crucified by and triumphing over "Principalities and Powers":

"We speak the Wisdom of God in a mystery ... Which none of the Princes of this World knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory."
– 1 Corinthians 2:7,8

"And having spoiled Principalities and Powers, He made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it."
– Colossians 2.15


Paul justifies all this by recourse to Jewish scripture – not any appeal to an historic reality. Thus, "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures" and "he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" (Corinthians 15.3,4)

Paul's target audiences are the synagogues established in the diaspora – Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, Colossi, (the same "churches" berated in Revelation) – where he confronts rival salesmen (Apollos, followers of John, etc.) but has a "good news" message for the Essenes, whose memories of their founder are growing dim with time.

Paul has had a vision. He has seen the anointed one and he now sits at God's right hand! His death was a redemption (just like that of Adonis, Osiris, Dionysus, et al!) and his followers can look forward to salvation and an eternal life.

Paul finds The Exalted One a name… "Jesus"

It would be reasonable to suppose that in identifying their dead hero with those of the past the Essenes had accorded him the same hallowed name: Joshua/Jesus. Unfortunately, use by the Essenes of cryptic pseudonyms denies us that confirmation.

However, quoted by Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians is a hymn, perhaps one which originated with the Essenes, whose synagogues in the Diaspora were the apostle's chosen recruiting ground. Paul is hoping to win converts with his Gnosticised Judaism.

Paul is endeavouring to strengthen the faith of the brethren and in the hymn a heavenly being has "emptied himself" by taking the form of a servant of the Lord. The humiliating self-sacrifice earns the god a name "above all others":

”Therefore God has highly exalted him,
And bestowed on him the name that is above every name,

That at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow,
In heaven and on earth, and under the earth,

And every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord
To the glory of God the Father." – Philippians 2.9,11.

How did a dead Essene make it to heaven? This neat trick (by now the Zadokite founder of the Essenes had been dead for 150 years) was achieved by "raising him", like Elijah, to heaven. God, it seems, had "glorified his servant", had "exalted" him to his right hand, he had entered or been "assumed" into Heaven. And Paul could agree with the Essenes: in the imminent Last of Days the sinful world would be destroyed utterly and the "brotherhood of the righteous" would inherit the earth.



The War of Light and Darkness

"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto ... But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles."

– Luke (21.20,24), doubtless drawing on Josephus's description of the siege and famine in Jerusalem.



Paul himself passed on to heaven – or maybe just died – shortly before the violent eruption of the Jewish civil war and war against Rome.

The Jewish aristocracy was fatally split on the confrontation with Rome. Those whose ambition exceeded their judgement tried unsuccessfully to put themselves at the head of the popular movement and limit radical attacks upon all men of property. Indeed, discord was everywhere: Pharisee against Sadducee, Samaritan against Judaean, Syrian against Jew.

As the Roman war machine slowly yet relentlessly pacified the areas of rebellion, Zealots, Sicarii, Essenes and insurgents of all shades fled to the diminishing enclave around Jerusalem with the consequence that the aristocrats lost control and the 'revolution' became radicalised.

The radical factions were themselves in conflict. When the Idumean Simon bar Giora entered Jerusalem he came as "King of the Jews" yet John of Gischala continued to control most of the city. Resisting both were fanatical Zealots, who turned the Temple itself into a citadel and anticipated divine deliverance at the final hour.

Factional strife ceased only when Titus's four legions besieged the city for five months in 70 AD but by then the situation had become hopeless. Eventually breaching the formidable walls of the city, the Romans overwhelmed the hungry defenders. The Temple itself was burned to the ground and the city gutted. A few hundred Sicarii/Essene extremists continued resistance further south, in the fortress palace of Massada. But after a three year siege they, too, were defeated. Their mass suicide is renowned.

Dave Lane
04-23-2011, 12:42 PM
Gestation of a Superhero

Was Jesus, like Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar, a real historical figure to whom legends and myths became attached? Or, rather, like Huckleberry Finn or Sherlock Holmes a purely fictional character, passed off as a genuine personage or later historicized by other hands?

Perhaps the choice is not quite so clear cut: a person (perhaps several) were certainly in the mind of Mark Twain and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle when they constructed their heroes. Twain drew inspiration from his own life. Doyle modelled much of the character of his detective on his own professor of medicine, a Dr Joseph Bell. Did that make Sherlock Holmes any less of a fiction? (Interestingly, Holmes's trademark “deerstalker” hat is never mentioned in Doyle's stories and the drop-step pipe was the contribution of actor William Gillette years later. That's how myths grow.)

With Jesus, most people feel more comfortable with the 'historical kernel' approach. It is intuitively satisfying to think that someone was behind the towering legend. We do, after all, have Christianity, and it is hard to give credence to the idea that someone "just made-up" Jesus Christ and then managed to convince anyone else to believe that he had lived and died. In fact, one can reach the conclusion that "there must have been a Jesus" without any research at all, which of course is what most people do.

Common Error

And yet, this "common sense" approach, though convenient, is a trap, a misapprehension condoned and encouraged by the priestly cohorts. They are happy to debate and discuss their hero's claims to deity ('a matter of faith') but want us all to accept Jesus of Nazareth as an historical fact. For them, the negation of that "fact" has cataclysmic implications and therefore they resist that possibility with every means within their grasp.

And yet Gods do fall, as the ruins of Upper Egypt and Greece eloquently testify. Was there ever a Horus or an Apollo? It scarcely matters if some shadowy figure was ever consciously in the mind of the original priests who concocted the fables. The Olympian gods ruled for two thousand years and the Egyptian deities for twice that time.

No one "just made-up" Jesus. If we step around the centuries of fabrication and glorification which informs everyone's perception of Jesus Christ and closely examine the two hundred year gestation period of the current Lord and Saviour we can see a perfectly plausible and, indeed, convincing process by which, upon the legacy of earlier times and from piety and scripture alone, the Christian godman emerged into the light. Beliefs created the man; the man did not create the beliefs.


Jewish History in a Nutshell –

There is something poetically repetitive in ancient Jewish history. From a state of righteousness the people offend God by apostasy and going after false gods. God punishes them, usually by the hand of a foreign invader. The people cry out to God in distress. God hears their cries and sends a saviour who leads them back to righteousness. For forty years they walk in the ways of the Lord. But then they offend God by apostasy and going after false gods ...

The notion of a periodic "saviour" goes back a long way with the Jews – at least to the religious centralisations of Hezekiah and Josiah in the 7th century BC – but then, as a marginal people the Jews were forever in the thrall of great empires.

The birth of Judaism – following the collapse of the northern kingdom of Israel – enshrined the myths of Moses, Joshua, David and Solomon as sacred race heroes. But the theocrats had hardly begun their fantasizing when they were overtaken by events. During the 6th century BC the priestly elite found itself exiled in Babylon. A generation later, with the Persian overthrow of the Babylonians, the die was cast again. Now the "saviour" of the Jews was a Persian king, Cyrus the Great, whose imperial designs were served by a theocratic colony in Judah.


"The Anointed Shepherd"

Ever-adaptable, the grateful priestly scribblers bestowed surprising epithets on the fire-worshipping king of Persia. According to the later book of Isaiah Cyrus was both the Lord's shepherd and the anointed one (and the mantle of "anointing" signalled a divine dispensation to rule).

"Thus saith the LORD ... Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut."
– Isaiah 44.24,28; 45.


Equally revealing are references to a certain High Priest who accompanies the gang of temple restorers (Zerubabel, Haggai, Ezra) and shows up in the books of Zechariah and Haggai – Jesus (Joshua bar Josedech).

A common (heroic) name, of course, but later Christian novelists will use these references to finesse a "prediction" of their own wonder-worker. Thus Justin Martyr, the first post-apostolic Christian theorist, argues in the mid-2nd century:

"The revelation made among your people in Babylon in the days of Jesus the priest, was an announcement of the things to be accomplished by our Priest, who is God, and Christ the Son of God the Father of all."

– Dialogue with Trypho, 115


The "poetry" of names and story elements will repeat ad nauseam as the legend of the universal saviour took shape.


The Maccabean Revolution – Religion in Ferment

The Greeks displaced the Persians and in the course of more than 150 years of Greek rule the theocratic stranglehold which the Judaic priesthood had held on the Jewish people was broken. Hellenized reformers were in the ascendancy and early in the 2nd century BC the reformers, in collaboration with Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes ('the Illustrious'), attempted a thorough-going Hellenization of Judaea. Maverick priests Jason and Menelaus were raised to the High Priesthood, ending the lucrative, centuries-old monopoly of Onias and the Zadok family. Traditional worship, circumcision and the sabbath were all abolished.

Religious reactionaries (the Hasidim), incensed by these developments, fermented unrest. Popular hostility to foreign rule was harnessed to priestly resistance of assimilation which rapidly became an armed struggle. At the head of the rebels stood the priest Mattathias (Matityahu) and his several sons. One of them, Judas, gained the epithet maccabi ('hammer') for his belligerency which gave the movement its name. Guerilla tactics frustrated the efforts of four successive Syrian armies to reestablish control.

Although the Maccabean rebellion eventually won for the Jews a precarious independence from the Seleucid Greeks the new 'Hasmonean' dynasty itself faced formidable domestic opposition. The new monarchy was neither "Davidic" nor drawn from the high priestly line of Aaron and quite predictably, its priest-kings devoted themselves not to "righteousness" but to aggressive wars of plunder against Arab neighbours.

I Maccabees acknowledges that although Judas Maccabeus "purified the Temple" of Syrian pollution – the basis for the Jewish festival of Hanukkah – his dynasty became intoxicated with power and thereby fell from grace.

Around 142 BC, about the time that the Greek garrison finally withdrew from the citadel in Jerusalem, Simon Maccabeus assumed the positions of both High Priest and "ethnarch" – a priest/king of unlimited power. The Zadokites were not best pleased.

Dave Lane
04-23-2011, 12:43 PM
Essenes – "Righteous Teacher, Son of Man"

Now displaced and threatened by the Hashmon family a disillusioned faction of the Zadokites fled for safety to the wilderness (a region adjoining the Dead Sea known as 'Damascus'). Retrenchment in the desert had its scriptural antecedents. Isaiah himself had directed "Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." (40.3).

In this pitiless environment the sharing of property and 'mutual love' were necessary elements of survival and became part of a code of religious honour. Initially at 'Damascus', then throughout Judaea, and later through successors in Jewish enclaves of the diaspora, these purists or 'fundamentalists' established hierarchically organized fraternities, fanatical, militant and almost exclusively male.

Outcasts hoping one day for restoration, they were particularly absorbed in soothsaying and star-gazing. From this mania they may have derived their much later name of Essenes, from the Aramaic 'assa' meaning 'physician' but also 'exorcist' or 'magician'. In their own lexicon they were called variously 'Keepers of the Covenant', 'Sons of Light' and 'Sons of Zadok.'

Their revised Judaism reflected a simplistic division of the world into two hostile camps – themselves, the force for truth and righteousness; and their antagonists, the Sons of Darkness. Hopes of future glory came from the notion of the Kingdom of God – a happy state prophesied by the Book of Daniel written about this time. In a world-cleansing apocalypse the sinful evil-doers would be vanquished.
Shock and Awe

"A Star has journeyed from Jacob, a Sceptre has arisen from Israel; and he shall crush the temples of Moab and overturn all the sons of Seth.

And he shall rule from Jacob and shall cause the survivors of the city to perish.

And the enemy shall become a conquered land and Israel shall display its valour.

And by the hand of your Messiahs, the Seers of Things ordained, You have announced to us the times of the battles of Your hands, in which You will be glorified."

– War Scroll 11.4,9.

The War Scroll recycles a more ancient bit of Jewish bile, Numbers 24.17:

" I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth."

Convinced that they were themselves the 'Elect of God' who would therefore inherit God's kingdom, the Elders took it upon themselves to interpret allegorically the Jewish scriptures hitherto understood literally.

Their anticipation and hope was that in a not too distant future a priestly messiah would arise, a sage who would correctly interpret the Law of Moses, heal the sick, and predict the future. His presence would signal the imminence of God's kingdom.

Like latter-day cadres of Al Qaeda, the Zadokite/Essenes readied themselves for this coming conflict (of "Light and Darkness") with a diet of pious devotions and military training.

From Daniel they took the phrase "one like a man" and rendered a new title for their soon-to-arrive hero "Son of Man", he who would usher in God's Kingdom and restore the rightful bloodlines.


Pharisees – "Universal King, Raising the Dead"

About the same time that the Zadokites/ Essenes fled to the badlands another faction of the priesthood also broke from the Hasmoneans – taking the name Pharisees ('separate ones'), referred to in the coded language of the Dead Sea Scrolls as 'seekers of smooth things'.

Austere, and devoted to strict religious observance, the Pharisees fiercely resented foreign influence in their land. Their sensibilities were especially offended by the impiety of the ruling house and caused these otherwise religious conservatives to augment existing scripture with contemporary reinterpretations known as "oral law."

Abandoning the Hasmonean dynasty the Pharisees declared faith in and expectation of a future ideal and even universal king, one who would act as God's special agent, a true "Son of God." (The phrase will subsequently appear 81 times in the Gospels).

Persecuted by the royalists, they also became part of the pious resistance, a movement which now awaited two saviours, just as "foretold" by Zechariah:

"Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the LORD of the whole earth."
– Zechariah 4.14.


II Maccabees, written about this time, recorded the sentiments of the Pharisees. To the Pharisees belongs the dubious honour of inventing the concept of Holy War, a conviction that faith will lead the righteous into martyrdom and that it is their martyrdom which will prompt God to act.

Again, Daniel served a purpose. The prophet's overnight stay in the lions' den (6.16) – as also the very similar "three men in the oven" story (3.19,30) – were now interpreted with a subtle scriptural inventiveness. It was not merely Israel which would be restored by the Almighty's beneficence; God had established a covenant with his "Elect". When they made the ultimate sacrifice He would deliver them of a personal resurrection.

God vouchsafed a new eternal life to his martyrs.

Pitt Gorilla
04-23-2011, 01:19 PM
I don't really see how this would make the teachings of Jesus any more or less relevant. If you believe he's the son of God, then he's the son of God.

Seems to me to be a case of getting worked up over the details and not paying attention to the message.Agree 100%. Whether or not Mary was a "virgin" is irrelevant.

AustinChief
04-23-2011, 01:24 PM
Agree 100%. Whether or not Mary was a "virgin" is irrelevant.

What's even more important... this change doesn't say Mary WASN'T a virgin... the Catholic Church WILL adopt this translation and WILL NOT change a damn thing regarding their teachings on Mary...

ClevelandBronco
04-23-2011, 02:26 PM
If people don't want to believe in Christ, virgin birth, perfect life, blameless death and resurrection, fine, that is your God given right, but why do the non-believers think they have the right to disparage or tear down the belief of the believers.

I'll tell you why I think they have that right if you'll tell me why you think they don't.

Norman Einstein
04-23-2011, 04:21 PM
Accurate or not, I predict this will not be well received.

Not accurate, your prediction is correct. Tell us all why you felt it necessary to attach Christianity yet again?

If you don't believe I fail to understand why you have a problem with those that do.

If you know it's not good, not accurate or unpopular why post it?

orange
04-23-2011, 04:25 PM
"U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops"

Argue with them, doofus.

AustinChief
04-23-2011, 04:29 PM
Guys.. this is not an attack on Christianity nor is it a change in doctrine.. it's a FIX of a mistranslated word regarding the prophecy of a messiah as told in Isaiah.. that's IT.

If the CATHOLIC CHURCH has no problem with this... why do you?

Pitt Gorilla
04-23-2011, 06:01 PM
Guys.. this is not an attack on Christianity nor is it a change in doctrine.. it's a FIX of a mistranslated word regarding the prophecy of a messiah as told in Isaiah.. that's IT.

If the CATHOLIC CHURCH has no problem with this... why do you?Nobody in their right mind has a problem with it.

Jaric
04-23-2011, 06:13 PM
One thing I always did wonder, does the bible ever tell if Mary and Joseph ever had sex?

I can take a leap of faith on the virgin birth. But if I'm expected to believe a married couple never had sex...it kinda loses me. And if that is the case, what on earth did Joseph do to deserve that? All the responsibility and stress of raising the Son of God AND sexual frustration?

go bowe
04-23-2011, 06:14 PM
Nobody in their right mind has a problem with it.
actually, if you're right-handed, you're in your left brain or something like that...

now me, otoh, i am in my right brain because i am left-handed, or something like that...

oh hell, i have a problem with it...

it's not what they taught me in sunday school, the buggers...

couldn't anybody speak aramaic or ancient hebrew until now?

it's only been around for a couple of thousand years, you'd think they would have gotten the translation right before now...

Jaric
04-23-2011, 06:17 PM
actually, if you're right-handed, you're in your left brain or something like that...

now me, otoh, i am in my right brain because i am left-handed, or something like that...

oh hell, i have a problem with it...

it's not what they taught me in sunday school, the buggers...

couldn't anybody speak aramic or ancient hebrew until now?

it's only been around for a couple of thousand years, you'd think they would have gotten the translation right before now...
Well I believe the New Testament was actually written in Greek. And it wasn't for several hundred years after the actual events happened.

go bowe
04-23-2011, 06:25 PM
Well I believe the New Testament was actually written in Greek. And it wasn't for several hundred years after the actual events happened.

greek, huh?

like fraternity row?

or belly dancing?

belly dancing sounds good...

so these guys were writing down in greek an oral history from hundreds of years earlier which was probably first told in hebrew, since the earliest christians were mostly jews, right?

have you ever played telephone? :shrug:

JohnnyV13
04-23-2011, 07:22 PM
That was one I could never wrap my head around.....Virgin Mary, wife of Joseph.

I see only three scenarios for that to be true:

1) She was butt ugly
2) Joseph lost a bet
3) Joseph was gay and just hadn't come out yet

I'm sure someone here will straighten me out but because Catechism was forced upon me at age 6, on Saturday's I might add, I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention.

Hey, there's actually a 4th possiblity.

Remember, under leviticus, an unwed pregnant woman would be presumed guilty of adultery and stoned to death.

Suppose Joseph was a middle aged guy who didn't want a girl from his village paying that price. So, he marries her to prevent that from happening. However, Joseph has ED and there's no Viagra 2000+ years ago.

Hence, Mary stays "ever virgin".

Ebolapox
04-23-2011, 08:12 PM
Hey, there's actually a 4th possiblity.

Remember, under leviticus, an unwed pregnant woman would be presumed guilty of adultery and stoned to death.

Suppose Joseph was a middle aged guy who didn't want a girl from his village paying that price. So, he marries her to prevent that from happening. However, Joseph has ED and there's no Viagra 2000+ years ago.

Hence, Mary stays "ever virgin".

except it's biblical that jesus had brothers and sisters. yeah. she kept being impregnated by a deity, not possibly her husband.

orange
04-23-2011, 08:19 PM
except it's biblical that jesus had brothers and sisters. yeah. she kept being impregnated by a deity, not possibly her husband.

This, too, is controversial. From some other site:

Did Jesus have any siblings?

The scriptures suggest that this is the case: "Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?" (Matthew 13.54-56). Matthew 1.25 also implies the married couple assumed a normal relationship following the birth of Jesus: "but [Joseph] knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus." Emphasis on the word "until". The Roman Catholic church explains away these and other statements as being metaphorical, referring to cousins and disciples. With such reliance placed upon metaphors, one could equally argue then that "son of God" is also a metaphor.

Terence Hollingworth, Blagnac France

...

While this answer may be treated with suspicion by some who love to disagree with anything the Catholic Church teaches, it is the case that the Church affirms definitively that Mary was a perpetual virgin. This means (1) she was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, (2) she remained a virgin despite childbirth, (3) she did not have sexual relations, and therefore no other children. The Bible does not comment on this question specifically, but the saints and the tradition of the church have been very clear on this matter. The Bible certainly does not say that Mary had other children - references to brothers and sisters of Jesus must be understood in context. In many ancient languages, such words were used as synonyms for "kinsmen", "cousins", etc. I'm sure this answer will be virulently attacked, but the perpetual virginity of Mary is a defined dogma of the Catholic church.

Kurt Barragan, London

much more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,,-11906,00.html

nstygma
04-23-2011, 11:32 PM
If the CATHOLIC CHURCH has no problem with this... why do you?because the catholic church has a history of being wrong and goofy about stuff; they are not an authority on much, IMO. just for the record, i reject religion
except it's biblical that jesus had brothers and sisters. yeah. she kept being impregnated by a deity, not possibly her husband.i fully believe that joseph and mary had natural children(one of whom is james)... after jesus was born, joseph put in work as any man would. isn't it also interesting that james did not believe jesus was the messiah until some time after the resurrection?
apparently all the disciples went in to hiding after the crucifixion and would have been forgotten in history, except for some event that really lit a fire in them.

JohnnyV13
04-24-2011, 03:07 AM
except it's biblical that jesus had brothers and sisters. yeah. she kept being impregnated by a deity, not possibly her husband.

Hey, that only applies if you're a protestant. If you're a catholic, Mary is "ever Virgin" and all of those biblical brothers and sisters are just metaphorical like you call someone your frat brother.

Now, the Church decided this 300 years later at the Council of Nicea; but, since the Church's teaching authority is infallible, well only protestants can question such things.

Dave Lane
04-24-2011, 08:00 AM
greek, huh?

like fraternity row?

or belly dancing?

belly dancing sounds good...

so these guys were writing down in greek an oral history from hundreds of years earlier which was probably first told in hebrew, since the earliest christians were mostly jews, right?

have you ever played telephone? :shrug:


Here's a really interesting history of the evolution of the early bible. I think you will enjoy it and hopefully learn a thing or two.


A Work in Progress

"Do not add to these words lest He reprove you and you be proved a liar." – Proverbs 30.6.


There are many Christian bibles. Several hundred in fact (and this number excludes the thousand-plus foreign language editions). Every group that has ever claimed the title ‘Christian’, from gnostic sects of the second century, through countless ‘heresies’ of the Middle Ages, to Mormons of the twentieth century, has had recourse to its own version of the holy testament.

This fine tuning of God’s word, which began at the very inception of Christianity, continues even in our own day. Though this plethora of bibles share a common core, many contain material omitted by others, and vice versa. Even where the content is ostensibly the same, verses have been removed or added, words transposed, rearranged or rephrased. Evidently, God, as the ultimate ‘author’ is endlessly searching for that fine nuance, that pithy turn of phrase.

What is not apparent, when we pick up the holy book, is the extensive editing that has prepared that volume for public consumption, and this editing applies just as much to the central story and its main characters as to any subsequent tinkering – more so, in fact. In the first two centuries of the Christian era, when a ‘Bible’ as such did not exist and the proselytes of the new faith were scouring the Jewish scriptures for confirmation of their heresy, many scribes turned their hand to ‘gospel’ writing. These publications were severely ‘limited editions’, painstakingly written by hand. Often untitled and unsigned these texts passed from hand to hand, in time acquiring the authority and aura of an antique and blurring the distinction between fiction, history and scripture.


Director's Cut

It was well into the 2nd century before a number of these ‘testimonies’ were collected together and bound into a single volume. From the mass of available material ecclesiastical editors selected what would and what would not be included in the Good Book. But of course different editors made different choices.

Search the Bible in vain for the gospels of Thomas, Matthaias or the ‘The Twelve’; for the Acts of Andrew or Acts of John; for the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache; for the Shepherd of Hermas or the Apocalypse of Peter. Yet for the first two centuries of Christianity all of these were holy scripture, the revealed Word of God.

On the other hand rejected by the early church fathers were Paul’s letter to Philemon, the second and third letters of John, the second letter of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude, all part of the canon after Christianity became the state religion!

Clearly the Big Guy had had a major rethink. Roman bibles after the fourth century hedged their bets and included ‘doubtful’ and previously rejected material at the end as ‘Apocrypha’ (‘hidden’). Clearly this was God’s rough draft, not really meant for publication. Luther kept the apocrypha in his bible whereas Calvin and most other Protestant reformers excluded them.

To regard this wholesale editorial selection and censorship, and the rewriting which accompanied it, as a function purely of the human mind, influenced by considerations of ambition and wealth, power and politics, is, of course, to lose sight of the hand of god; the divine, beavering away in overdrive in central Europe and the eastern Mediterranean centuries ago!

*

*
*

Keeping Current

In truth, if scripture were not to be regularly revised no one alive would understand a word of it. Through the centuries, vocabulary, word usage, syntax and grammar continuously change. The ‘Great Bible’ of 1539 was the first English ‘national’ bible, appearing after the break with the Pope and his Latin Vulgate. Though written in ‘English’, little of it would be intelligible to the twenty first century English speaker. A tad more digestible is the ‘Authorised’ King James Version, the earliest bible to introduce the numbering of sentences. Its magisterial tone, with all its ‘begats’ and ‘art thous’, merely ossifies the appealing authority and grandiose language of monarchical England in 1611. It was followed by a series of subsequent revisions including the Revised Version of 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901, the Revised Standard Version of 1952, etc., etc.

The revisionist claim has always been made of ‘capturing the essential truth’ of the Greek and Hebrew originals – a neat trick when one considers that the originals were actually written entirely in capitals and without the benefit of punctuation or even spaces between words. Because of the high cost of vellum many words were truncated or abbreviated to squeeze more in – but at a cost of even greater ambiguity. As the original scrolls were copied, generation by generation, marginal notes, added by later clerics as personal interpretations or amplifications of obscure points, were written into the body of scripture itself. In this centuries’ long process of revision, many gospels fell completely by the wayside, not even making the apocrypha and known to us today only by chance survival.

*

Deceptive Arrangement

For the most part, each of the two ‘testaments’ of the Bible is made up of chapters, grandly styled ‘books’, with each ‘book’ set out in groups of paragraphs, confusingly called ‘chapters.’ Some ‘books’ are very brief indeed. The book of Ruth, for example, is barely two pages, 2,578 words in fact. The longest, Jeremiah, at 42,659 words, would make a pamphlet of reasonable length. Authorship of the Old Testament was largely a 5th/6th century BC affair (with the ‘Chronicler’ not writing until the mid-fourth century); authorship of the New Testament primarily occurred in the 2nd century AD. With all the revisions and re-writes the effort involved a good many people. Arguably, some of them wrote inspiring words – but in no sense is that the same as the words being inspired by a deity. The total compendium, though impressive and at times entertaining, makes torturous reading.

The ‘books’ are arranged in a particular order, one that appears to be an unfolding story – from Jews to Jesus, from Jesus to Church, from birth of the Messiah to a vision of the Day of Judgement yet to come.

It appears to be chronological. It is not.

The order is largely reversed. Exodus was written before Genesis. ‘Prophesies’ written after events are reassigned to an earlier authorship in order to establish their veracity. An ancient and heroic ‘history’ reflects the contingencies of a much later time. The final book, the ‘Revelation of St. John’ is the earliest, not the latest, part of the New Testament, save for the correspondence of St Paul, which itself pre-dates all the gospels – and not one of the favoured gospels took on their present form before 150 AD.

Similar liberties have been taken within the individual books themselves, with later additions used to preface or addend the original work. Mark is earlier than Matthew, yet its ending has been extended by borrowings from the later work. The ‘Revelation of St. John’, in its original draft a composite of several Jewish apocalyptic dramas, was later Christianized by a preface of ‘letters to the churches of Asia’.

*

*
*

No more true is this process of time-reversal or ‘back projection’ than of the life and times of the Jesus character himself, who began his existence as a celestial superhero, acquired an earthly death; subsequently was given an adulthood; and completed his career with a spectacular nativity!

The Church, in the sense of organisation, authority, assets and membership preceded rather than followed the justifying doctrine. As the organisation and its needs changed so the ‘testament of god’ adapted accordingly. Shuffling the confused jigsaw of stories back into the chronology of authorship proves very revealing.

*

Business Begets Bibliolatry

What becomes very obvious when the parts of the book are rearranged into the order in which they were written is that the story grew with the telling. For example, if we look at the central mystery of Christianity, the ‘Resurrection’, we find that in Mark’s gospel (the earliest) the visitors to the tomb find a sitting figure, ‘a young man in a white robe’ (Mark 16.5). He could have been anybody. Thirty years later the story is rather different: we can choose between the sudden appearance of ‘two men’, standing in ‘shining garments’ (Luke 24.4); or ‘a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven … His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow’ (Matthew 28.2,3).

Often an anachronism within the gospels provides a clue to the true authorship of the text. For example, all three synoptic gospels have Jesus use the phrase ‘take up his cross’. This is Mark:

"And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." (Mark 8.34)

*

Matthew (16.4) and Luke (9.23) use almost identical words.

What’s ‘wrong’ here is that the crucifixion has not yet happened – the phrase belongs to a Christian Church a century or more into the future!

Each and every verse of the Bible is a testament to the needs and purposes of a particular time or place, whether to restate a gem of folk wisdom, upstage a rival story, assimilate a popular pagan myth, quash an opponent’s arguments or serve a current political purpose. Necessarily, and unavoidably, the compendium is rife with contradictions and inconsistencies.

Which (if either!) is correct, for example, in the fishy bread story?

"And when he had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all. And they did all eat, and were filled. And they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments, and of the fishes. And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men."

"And he commanded the people to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples to set before them; and they did set them before the people. And they had a few small fishes: and he blessed, and commanded to set them also before them. So they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets. And they that had eaten were about four thousand: and he sent them away."


The first quotation is from Mark 6.41,44: the second only a page or so later from Mark 8.6,9!

Did Jesus go ‘immediately' into the desert after baptism, as Mark tells us:

"And immediately the Spirit drove him into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him." (Mark 1.12,13)


Or did he take himself off to a wedding as John would have it?

"And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him... The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and find Phillip... And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage." (John 1.32;43: 2.1.2)


Was Mark correct when he quoted Jesus that there would be ‘no signs’:

"And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation." (Mark 8.12)


Or was John nearer the truth when he says:

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book." (John 20.30)

*

Creationism

By a convoluted process of interpolation, accretion and redaction, the whole compendium of fables and fancy was brought into being. The four Gospels had a precedent in the ‘sayings of Jesus,’ epithets of wisdom attached to a shadowy Christ figure. Progressively anthropomorphized into a human figure, a series of anecdotes, ‘reminiscences’ and stories were attached to his name.

What follows is a retracing of this great work of fiction, this history of a fake history; not the legend of a birth but the birth of a legend.


*

*



Apollonius (Commemorative medallion)


Where Did They Get Their Ideas From?

Apollonius of Tyana.

Apollonius was born during the reign of Augustus Caesar in the year 3 BC at Tyana, in Asia Minor. His parents were wealthy and Apollonius was educated first at Tarsus, and then at the Temple of Asclepius at Aegae. At sixteen he became an adherent of Pythagoras and a wandering ascetic. In his desire for knowledge he travelled to most of the known world. According to legend he performed miracles wherever he went and was listened to by adoring crowds.

Apollonius claimed to receive revelations from the gods. In truth, he probably learnt techniques of mystical deception from the Brahmins of India and the Magi of Babylon. In Ephesus he correctly warned of a plague and also claimed to have had a vision of the assassination of the Emperor Domitian. In Rome he supposedly brought the daughter of a consul back to life. Nero apparently expelled him from the city but Vespasian, Titus and Nerva all sought his advice. Hadrian collected his letters and writings. The great Emperor-philosopher Marcus Aurelius admitted that he owed his philosophy to Apollonius:

AndChiefs
04-24-2011, 08:24 AM
One thing I always did wonder, does the bible ever tell if Mary and Joseph ever had sex?

I can take a leap of faith on the virgin birth. But if I'm expected to believe a married couple never had sex...it kinda loses me. And if that is the case, what on earth did Joseph do to deserve that? All the responsibility and stress of raising the Son of God AND sexual frustration?

to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary.

Luke 1:27

Norman Einstein
04-24-2011, 03:25 PM
"U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops"

Argue with them, doofus.

THEM didn't post it, you did doofus.

They did what they did, but you "felt it necessary to attach Christianity yet again." Why is it that you find such joy attacking the beliefs of others?

AustinChief, he is always throwing up crap like this. Not one time has he taken anything, newsworthy or not, and sided with Christian beliefs. He is always on the attack.

My question stands, why do those that don't believe have such heartburn with those that do? I've not seen anyone try to convert him here.

Count Zarth
04-24-2011, 03:32 PM
slut

Chiefshrink
04-24-2011, 03:46 PM
My question stands, why do those that don't believe have such heartburn with those that do? I've not seen anyone try to convert him here.

This is an annual tradition performed 'especially' on this special Sabbath Passover W/E on Chiefsplanet by our CP atheistic Marxists and agnostics.

I refuse to call it Easter which is actually a pagan label among other things like the bunnies and their eggs:thumb:

orange
04-24-2011, 03:47 PM
My question stands, why do those that don't believe have such heartburn with those that do? I've not seen anyone try to convert him here.

I posted it because it's interesting. The fact that you take it as an "attack" on your beliefs is because you're a dried up, bitter piece of dung who feels EVERYTHING is a personal "attack" on you.

This is how you keep getting banned from the widest-open forum on internet.

Dave Lane
04-24-2011, 04:02 PM
Tom,

Watch this then reply back. Its not really an attack. This is worth the couple minutes it lasts.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iLaazXqrGls" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Norman Einstein
04-24-2011, 04:58 PM
I posted it because it's interesting. The fact that you take it as an "attack" on your beliefs is because you're a dried up, bitter piece of dung who feels EVERYTHING is a personal "attack" on you.

This is how you keep getting banned from the widest-open forum on internet.

You are a narrow minded bigot. I didn't say anything about this being an attack on me, it is an attack against Christianity by you. You take every chance to take pot shots at the Christian religion. Because you obviously don't believe you feel it's your place to ridicule those that do?

I pity your outlook on life and I thoroughly enjoy the fact that you can see no further than my posts, it just supports my belief you are a bigot.

Norman Einstein
04-24-2011, 05:03 PM
Tom,

Watch this then reply back. Its not really an attack. This is worth the couple minutes it lasts.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iLaazXqrGls" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[url]I have no desire to read your beliefs or your commentary on the planet. Your history prevails.

whoman69
04-24-2011, 08:14 PM
Frankly this is just another attempt by the media to stir up attention. Those who don't believe will use it to attack Christianity, while those who do will believe it an an attack on Christianity. Orange is guilty of that same sensationalism. There are certainly other sections of the bible that make it clear that Mary was a virgin, however one section which has an incorrect translation of the word virgin is being changed. That does not, as Orange leads us to believe, make the case that Mary is not a virgin. The bishops should have realized they would run into this controversy and have made it clear that this does not change centuries of belief in the virgin birth.

AustinChief
04-24-2011, 09:41 PM
Frankly this is just another attempt by the media to stir up attention. Those who don't believe will use it to attack Christianity, while those who do will believe it an an attack on Christianity. Orange is guilty of that same sensationalism. There are certainly other sections of the bible that make it clear that Mary was a virgin, however one section which has an incorrect translation of the word virgin is being changed. That does not, as Orange leads us to believe, make the case that Mary is not a virgin. The bishops should have realized they would run into this controversy and have made it clear that this does not change centuries of belief in the virgin birth.
Thank You!

KCBOSS1
04-24-2011, 10:02 PM
Christianity is no different than the many religions before it.

Once again, ignorance and inexperience speaks out

orange
04-24-2011, 10:32 PM
One thing is clear - no one must ever say anything remotely daring in their articles about Christianity in this land of free speech:

Original title of article: Bible edits: Mary a 'virgin' or a 'young woman'?
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GPTB_enUS288US288&q=bible+edits%3a++mary+a+%27virgin%27+or+a+%27young+woman%27%3f

New post-bruhaha title of article: Bible edits leave some feeling cross
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42215497/ns/us_news-life/

ROFL

THIS I mock, definitely!

Hurrah, Christian Soldiers! Another great victory in the War On Christianity!!

Norman Einstein
04-25-2011, 03:59 AM
One thing is clear - no one must ever say anything remotely daring in their articles about Christianity in this land of free speech:

Original title of article: Bible edits: Mary a 'virgin' or a 'young woman'?

ROFL

THIS I mock, definitely!

Hurrah, Christian Soldiers! Another great victory in the War On Christianity!!


Once again you take offense at being called out, not about free speech - if that was an issue your commentary would most likely be wiped out by government moderators.

You have always used any controversy regarding religion as an attack on religion and then get all hot and bothered when someone of faith replies. You don't post the information because you think it is worthwhile, you post it to stir up crap. THEN when someone comments you go flying off on your left wing agenda and then mount your defense.

You lose in the attempt to nullify religion, those that believe will believe. You may someday find that God is real, or not. That is your choice, if you've already made your choice to not believe in God why do you find it necessary to constantly harangue those that do believe?

You stir up crap and then whine when someone stands up for their belief. If you can't handle the onrush of criticism why do you post? You say because it is "Interesting", :BS: you post to substantiate your disbelief.

Good luck with whatever comes your way.

P.S. If you ever want someone to proselytize in the manner you now disdain there are plenty of people around that do believe and would walk you to it. If not that is your choice and one that you will always have the option to change.... right up to your last breath ... it says so in the bible.

Jaric
04-25-2011, 08:46 AM
to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary.

Luke 1:27

To clarify, I was refering to what happened post immaculate conception. I was raised catholic and the impression I got from Sunday school was that Mary's "virgin status" remained unchanged her entire life. I always thought that was a lot to ask people to accept that a married couple NEVER had sex their entire lives.

ClevelandBronco
04-25-2011, 10:03 AM
To clarify, I was refering to what happened post immaculate conception. I was raised catholic and the impression I got from Sunday school was that Mary's "virgin status" remained unchanged her entire life. I always thought that was a lot to ask people to accept that a married couple NEVER had sex their entire lives.

It's no harder for me to accept than the idea that some unmarried people might go through life without having sex. In fact, in some ways an agreement between two married people never to have sex might be more successful than an individual resolution never to have sex. The other celibate partner might be strong when the other is weak.

But I'm not a Catholic, so it really doesn't matter whether I can accept the perpetual virgin thing.

Jaric
04-25-2011, 10:11 AM
It's no harder for me to accept than the idea that some unmarried people might go through life without having sex. In fact, in some ways an agreement between two married people never to have sex might be more successful than an individual resolution never to have sex. The other celibate partner might be strong when the other is weak.

But I'm not a Catholic, so it really doesn't matter whether I can accept the perpetual virgin thing.

My interest is more curiousity than crisis of faith for the record. I don't read the bible literally so it's not an issue one way or the other. I am curious though about what the church says (to those who do read it literally.)

orange
04-25-2011, 11:57 AM
Once again you take offense at being called out, not about free speech - if that was an issue your commentary would most likely be wiped out by government moderators.

You have always used any controversy regarding religion as an attack on religion and then get all hot and bothered when someone of faith replies. You don't post the information because you think it is worthwhile, you post it to stir up crap. THEN when someone comments you go flying off on your left wing agenda and then mount your defense.

You are completely full of shit. I take offense at BULLSHIT being ascribed to me. What exactly do you think I've posted about religion? Where are all these "any controversy" topics? You imagine them, that's where they are. Just as you've imagined there was any "attack on religion" in this article.

The last religious topic I recall posting was when the Pope was taking heat about offering to welcome back schismatics - heat that led him to withdraw the offer. An outcome I was entirely satisfied with, by the way.

Go on chewing your tongue and spitting up bile. I'm sure we'll be missing you again in a few weeks.

go bowe
04-25-2011, 12:01 PM
You are completely full of shit. I take offense at BULLSHIT being ascribed to me. What exactly do you think I've posted about religion? Where are all these "any controversy" topics? You imagine them, that's where they are. Just as you've imagined there was any "attack on religion" in this article.

The last religious topic I recall posting was when the Pope was taking heat about offering to welcome back schismatics - heat that led him to withdraw the offer. An outcome I was entirely satisfied with, by the way.

Go on chewing your tongue and spitting up bile. I'm sure we'll be missing you again in a few weeks.a few weeks???!??

arghhhh... my eyes... my eyes...

AndChiefs
04-25-2011, 12:51 PM
To clarify, I was refering to what happened post immaculate conception. I was raised catholic and the impression I got from Sunday school was that Mary's "virgin status" remained unchanged her entire life. I always thought that was a lot to ask people to accept that a married couple NEVER had sex their entire lives.

Well that makes more sense. I really don't know much about Catholic's beliefs and the like. I understood you to be meaning that they were married but never had sex before Jesus was born.

Staying a virgin while married seems like a ridiculous stretch to me.

Jaric
04-25-2011, 01:09 PM
Well that makes more sense. I really don't know much about Catholic's beliefs and the like. I understood you to be meaning that they were married but never had sex before Jesus was born.

Staying a virgin while married seems like a ridiculous stretch to me.

I would like to make clear I am in no way shape of form an expert on the teachings of the Catholic Church, so if I've misrepresented anything on the subject, I promise it was not intentional. That was however the impression I got from sunday school. I always assumed it was because for some reason many people equate "virgin" with "pure" and they wanted Mary to appear as pure as possible.

Norman Einstein
04-25-2011, 03:19 PM
You are completely full of shit. I take offense at BULLSHIT being ascribed to me. What exactly do you think I've posted about religion? Where are all these "any controversy" topics? You imagine them, that's where they are. Just as you've imagined there was any "attack on religion" in this article.

The last religious topic I recall posting was when the Pope was taking heat about offering to welcome back schismatics - heat that led him to withdraw the offer. An outcome I was entirely satisfied with, by the way.

Go on chewing your tongue and spitting up bile. I'm sure we'll be missing you again in a few weeks.

Care to show me where I've violated any of the rules of the site?

Things ascribed to you are observations of your activity over the past few years. You can claim innocence all you want, but that does't change your attitude nor your approach.

Sorry if you are offended ....... NOT.

Dave Lane
04-25-2011, 03:39 PM
I posted it because it's interesting. The fact that you take it as an "attack" on your beliefs is because

They (Tom included) are losing. They know it. They can feel it. They are going away much like the followers of Zeus. It won't be right away but the day is quickly coming where they will be a scarce as followers of Wotan.

Its why there is such a fanatical reaction to any discussion of religion. They view it as an attack because they can feel their world crumbling in around them and they are scared. Anyone that knew there religion was right and winning hearts and souls would be unmoved.

Their only hope is to stop knowledge somehow. Because knowledge is the death of their ideology.

vailpass
04-25-2011, 03:53 PM
They (Tom included) are losing. They know it. They can feel it. They are going away much like the followers of Zeus. It won't be right away but the day is quickly coming where they will be a scarce as followers of Wotan.

Its why there is such a fanatical reaction to any discussion of religion. They view it as an attack because they can feel their world crumbling in around them and they are scared. Anyone that knew there religion was right and winning hearts and souls would be unmoved.

Their only hope is to stop knowledge somehow. Because knowledge is the death of their ideology.

:LOL: Loon prattles on happy as if he had good sense.
Not mad that he was sodomized by a travelling minister as a youth, rather mad that the minister never called him. That searing experience of rejection has forever colored the life of Loon, driving him to lash out at organized religion for depriving him of the first man he ever loved.
And though he has tried to fill the gaping hole since then with a thousand different dicks from a thousand different men, Loon's gaping emotional butthole can never be filled.

ClevelandBronco
04-25-2011, 04:01 PM
:LOL: Loon prattles on happy as if he had good sense.
Not mad that he was sodomized by a travelling minister as a youth, rather mad that the minister never called him. That searing experience of rejection has forever colored the life of Loon, driving him to lash out at organized religion for depriving him of the first man he ever loved.
And though he has tried to fill the gaping hole since then with a thousand different dicks from a thousand different men, Loon's gaping emotional butthole can never be filled.

He's no threat unless he chooses not to care at all.

vailpass
04-25-2011, 04:03 PM
He's no threat unless he chooses not to care at all.

LMAO

Dave Lane
04-25-2011, 04:26 PM
There is a psychological term for this...

Now what was it again....


Oh yeah, projection! :thumb:

:LOL: Loon prattles on happy as if he had good sense.
Not mad that he was sodomized by a travelling minister as a youth, rather mad that the minister never called him. That searing experience of rejection has forever colored the life of Loon, driving him to lash out at organized religion for depriving him of the first man he ever loved.
And though he has tried to fill the gaping hole since then with a thousand different dicks from a thousand different men, Loon's gaping emotional butthole can never be filled.

stevieray
04-25-2011, 04:34 PM
They (Tom included) are losing. They know it. They can feel it. They are going away much like the followers of Zeus. It won't be right away but the day is quickly coming where they will be a scarce as followers of Wotan.

Its why there is such a fanatical reaction to any discussion of religion. They view it as an attack because they can feel their world crumbling in around them and they are scared. Anyone that knew there religion was right and winning hearts and souls would be unmoved.

Their only hope is to stop knowledge somehow. Because knowledge is the death of their ideology.

:LOL:

losing? 2000 years later and you think you're stance is somehow original? Why don't you compare Jesus to Zeus in the amount of literature and art devoted to the two men.

No Dave, the only one who is scared is you....that's why you are the one who always has a fanatical reaction every time it's brought up....stop trying to pawn off your actions onto others.

Norman Einstein
04-25-2011, 05:14 PM
They (Tom included) are losing. They know it. They can feel it. They are going away much like the followers of Zeus. It won't be right away but the day is quickly coming where they will be a scarce as followers of Wotan.

Its why there is such a fanatical reaction to any discussion of religion. They view it as an attack because they can feel their world crumbling in around them and they are scared. Anyone that knew there religion was right and winning hearts and souls would be unmoved.

Their only hope is to stop knowledge somehow. Because knowledge is the death of their ideology.

You feel Christians are losing? How do you figure that, because you don't believe or is it that you have to not believe to justify your life?

You err in your commentary about the longevity of Christianity, but the proof of that is only in death unless you've been a Christian and have witnessed first hand what it is all about.

There is no fear in me regarding my faith or the existence of Jesus Christ. Your kind have been attempting to deny the existence of Christ since 33 A.D. So far it's not worked, I don't see that changing.

My question to you is that if you don't believe, why do you have such heartburn with those that do? You expect more of us because we have a path to redemption and you do not?

I honestly feel sorry for people like you that have nothing and are doing everything you can to make sure that others have it as shitty as you do. Sorry dude, it isn't going to work.

If you don't believe, so be it. Lay off of those that do, they are doing you no harm - other than to live a life on a level far above the one you are currently mired in.

Dave Lane
04-25-2011, 05:17 PM
You know it. Down deep, you know its true. Buddha lasted 3,000 years and counting, Judaism 2,800 years and counting, Zeus lasted 2500 years the Egyptian gods 5,000 years. You still have a way to go to make it to the big leagues

The age of magic is slowly coming to an end...

Norman Einstein
04-25-2011, 05:24 PM
You know it. Down deep, you know its true. Buddha lasted 3,000 years and counting, Judaism 2,800 years and counting, Zeus lasted 2500 years the Egyptian gods 5,000 years. You still have a way to go to make it to the big leagues

The age of magic is slowly coming to an end...

I think it would be interesting to be near when you leave this life and listen to all of the double speak you throw out when trying to explain why you turned down the offer of salvation. ROFL

You do have the opportunity to seek God up until your last breath, I just hope your last breath doesn't come at a time when you can't cry out for help. Your name is written in the lambs book of life until the time you reject God for the final time.

Even if you don't believe in God you can rest assured that he believes in you.

RedNeckRaider
04-25-2011, 05:29 PM
You feel Christians are losing? How do you figure that, because you don't believe or is it that you have to not believe to justify your life?

You err in your commentary about the longevity of Christianity, but the proof of that is only in death unless you've been a Christian and have witnessed first hand what it is all about.

There is no fear in me regarding my faith or the existence of Jesus Christ. Your kind have been attempting to deny the existence of Christ since 33 A.D. So far it's not worked, I don't see that changing.

My question to you is that if you don't believe, why do you have such heartburn with those that do? You expect more of us because we have a path to redemption and you do not?

I honestly feel sorry for people like you that have nothing and are doing everything you can to make sure that others have it as shitty as you do. Sorry dude, it isn't going to work.
If you don't believe, so be it. Lay off of those that do, they are doing you no harm - other than to live a life on a level far above the one you are currently mired in.

Although I am not as aggressive Dave is and have no issue with people believing things I see as silly. I do find it somewhat amusing you think people who do not believe in your chosen mythology have shitty lives~

Norman Einstein
04-25-2011, 06:04 PM
Although I am not as aggressive Dave is and have no issue with people believing things I see as silly. I do find it somewhat amusing you think people who do not believe in your chosen mythology have shitty lives~

I don't believe I said everyone that doesn't have faith in God have shitty lives, I said Dave Lane has a shitty life. Have you read his posts? I have no idea what you are like and have no desire to know you.

I've personally witnessed the hand of God in miracles, you can do your best in calling my faith what you will. When you personally have witnessed a miracle it's no longer faith, it's fact.

But with you as with Dave, it matters not that you don't believe in God, he believes you. Don't shut him out when the time comes.

RedNeckRaider
04-25-2011, 06:36 PM
I don't believe I said everyone that doesn't have faith in God have shitty lives, I said Dave Lane has a shitty life. Have you read his posts? I have no idea what you are like and have no desire to know you.

I've personally witnessed the hand of God in miracles, you can do your best in calling my faith what you will. When you personally have witnessed a miracle it's no longer faith, it's fact.

But with you as with Dave, it matters not that you don't believe in God, he believes you. Don't shut him out when the time comes.

I unlike Dave do not have the urge to attack those who do not see things as I do. I would be more than happy to discuss our differences if you would like. It does not matter one way or another to me. And as far as your "fact" comment that is just silly. Something that happened in your life may have validated your beliefs to you but that does not make it fact. If we are going to play the miracles card than we will have to play the tragedy card. It cuts both ways. You cannot give credit for good things and give a pass when it goes the other way in the "fact" world~

Norman Einstein
04-25-2011, 08:11 PM
I unlike Dave do not have the urge to attack those who do not see things as I do. I would be more than happy to discuss our differences if you would like. It does not matter one way or another to me. And as far as your "fact" comment that is just silly. Something that happened in your life may have validated your beliefs to you but that does not make it fact. If we are going to play the miracles card than we will have to play the tragedy card. It cuts both ways. You cannot give credit for good things and give a pass when it goes the other way in the "fact" world~

I neither have the time nor the interest in telling you of what I've seen that validates my miracle. You have a negative predisposition regarding the situation, and I quote: "And as far as your "fact" comment that is just silly".

My situation was not something I saw, for the record it was validated by a doctor, but you will explain that away due to your unbelief.

You can play all of the tragedy cards you want to play. The rules of life are that sometimes good people die, get killed in crashes or get killed in a drive-by.

As I said, It's OK if you don't believe in God - he still believes in you and you have the freedom of choice to take it from there. If you weren't living a life with something lacking you wouldn't be engaging people in this conversation. I don't know what you are searching for, but I hope you find it.

Norman Einstein
04-25-2011, 08:20 PM
I unlike Dave do not have the urge to attack those who do not see things as I do. I would be more than happy to discuss our differences if you would like. It does not matter one way or another to me. And as far as your "fact" comment that is just silly. Something that happened in your life may have validated your beliefs to you but that does not make it fact. If we are going to play the miracles card than we will have to play the tragedy card. It cuts both ways. You cannot give credit for good things and give a pass when it goes the other way in the "fact" world~

I neither have the time nor the interest in telling you of what I've seen that validates my miracle. You have a negative predisposition regarding the situation, and I quote: "And as far as your "fact" comment that is just silly".

My situation was not something I saw, for the record it was validated by a doctor, but you will explain that away due to your unbelief.

You can play all of the tragedy cards you want to play. The rules of life are that sometimes good people die, get killed in crashes or get killed in a drive-by.

As I said, It's OK if you don't believe in God - he still believes in you and you have the freedom of choice to take it from there. If you weren't living a life with something lacking you wouldn't be engaging people in this conversation. I don't know what you are searching for, but I hope you find it.

nstygma
04-25-2011, 08:23 PM
I unlike Dave do not have the urge to attack those who do not see things as I do. I would be more than happy to discuss our differences if you would like. It does not matter one way or another to me. And as far as your "fact" comment that is just silly. Something that happened in your life may have validated your beliefs to you but that does not make it fact. If we are going to play the miracles card than we will have to play the tragedy card. It cuts both ways. You cannot give credit for good things and give a pass when it goes the other way in the "fact" world~hi. could you elaborate on that?

RedNeckRaider
04-26-2011, 05:28 AM
I neither have the time nor the interest in telling you of what I've seen that validates my miracle. You have a negative predisposition regarding the situation, and I quote: "And as far as your "fact" comment that is just silly".

My situation was not something I saw, for the record it was validated by a doctor, but you will explain that away due to your unbelief.

You can play all of the tragedy cards you want to play. The rules of life are that sometimes good people die, get killed in crashes or get killed in a drive-by.

As I said, It's OK if you don't believe in God - he still believes in you and you have the freedom of choice to take it from there. If you weren't living a life with something lacking you wouldn't be engaging people in this conversation. I don't know what you are searching for, but I hope you find it.

I do find it as silly but that is neither here nor there. I am glad you have found a belief that brings you happiness. As far as the reason for engaging people on the topic, it has nothing to do with something missing in my life. It is the attitude of people that insist on proclaiming than if everyone in the world does not agree with their chosen beliefs they are doomed to a terrible fate~

RedNeckRaider
04-26-2011, 05:36 AM
hi. could you elaborate on that?

All I am saying is that a person cannot pick and choose. Example if someone survives an illness that has a 97% fatality rate and says that was the hand of God and makes his existence a fact. Then we must dismiss the other 97% who died. There is a huge difference between faith and fact~

vailpass
04-26-2011, 10:47 AM
All I am saying is that a person cannot pick and choose. Example if someone survives an illness that has a 97% fatality rate and says that was the hand of God and makes his existence a fact. Then we must dismiss the other 97% who died. There is a huge difference between faith and fact~

For some it isn't hard cold logic that feels right but the inward sense that there is more than we know to life. That there is mystery, and grace. That there is more to life than carbon functions and that maybe we as a whole we are greater than the sum of our parts.

Personally I can see both sides. I find those people I meet that are open to a spiritual side much more intersting than those hard liners like Dave Loon. People like Loon turn off people of all persuasions, like a fart in church he is disliked and avoided.

Norman Einstein
04-26-2011, 10:47 AM
I do find it as silly but that is neither here nor there. I am glad you have found a belief that brings you happiness. As far as the reason for engaging people on the topic, it has nothing to do with something missing in my life. It is the attitude of people that insist on proclaiming than if everyone in the world does not agree with their chosen beliefs they are doomed to a terrible fate~

Where did I say that you will have a terrible fate if you don't believe? If you feel I said that you are wrong, you have no hope for redemption if you don't believe.

I do believe you are missing something in your life, otherwise there are far more topics that you could discuss without attempting frequently to tell someone they are silly because they believe in the Supreme Being - God.

You still have the choice, I've made mine. I wish for all to know God, to reject him is, again, your choice. You are born a free moral agent, free to do what you want and to take the path you want. I'm just amazed that someone that is as "enlightened" as you feel you are has a problem with the way others believe.

RedNeckRaider
04-26-2011, 11:29 AM
For some it isn't hard cold logic that feels right but the inward sense that there is more than we know to life. That there is mystery, and grace. That there is more to life than carbon functions and that maybe we as a whole we are greater than the sum of our parts.

Personally I can see both sides. I find those people I meet that are open to a spiritual side much more intersting than those hard liners like Dave Loon. People like Loon turn off people of all persuasions, like a fart in church he is disliked and avoided.

I identify myself as agnostic. My thoughts and beliefs fall close to what I have read about Deism~

Norman Einstein
04-26-2011, 11:44 AM
I identify myself as agnostic. My thoughts and beliefs fall close to what I have read about Deism~

You can't have it both ways, the two are pretty much in direct contradiction with each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Useful Idiot
04-26-2011, 11:54 AM
You feel Christians are losing? How do you figure that,

Your kind have been attempting to deny the existence of Christ since 33 A.D.

every state in the nation has seen an increase in atheism since 1990. granted it's still a small percentage overall.....but even 50 years ago, I imagine the totals were closer to zero.

just over 100 years ago.....you'd be killed for not believing. and it was that way for centuries.

what is my issue with those that believe?

http://societalsickness.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/god-hates.jpg

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/kkk1.jpg

http://doctorbulldog.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/pledge-of-allegiance-in-school.jpg

and general lunacy that people like you spew on a daily basis about hell. I also have a serious issue with believers who retard the growth of our existence. outward denial of scientific data, historical facts and common sense because it doesn't fit your 'belief'.

Most people like you don't even know the first thing about their own religion. you cherry pick verses from the bible, ignore a gajillion other sources that contradict everything in the bible, including rejected books/letters of the original canon and blah blah blah....everyone is going to hell.

christianity is the most glued together pile of jargon in the history of mankind and you are mad at us for not believing in those torn seams? hahaha.

your kind hasn't done a single thing to prove christs existence since 33 ad.

RedNeckRaider
04-26-2011, 12:14 PM
You can't have it both ways, the two are pretty much in direct contradiction with each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Why yes Norm I can.
Agnostic
somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood.


I also believe in a creator.
Deism
a belief in God based on reason rather than revelation and involving the view that God has set the universe in motion but does not interfere with how it runs.

I unlike you am somewhat conflicted on the subject and not so arrogant as to be certain to the answer. I have read the Bible more than once two versions. I have also read writings about religions of the Mediterranean that existed before Christ that have striking similarities. I have started reading writings from the Koran to gain an insight on those that follow that religion. So yeah Norm I can~

nstygma
04-26-2011, 12:22 PM
I have read the Bible more than once two versions. I have also read writings about religions of the Mediterranean that existed before Christ that have striking similarities. what do you think about paul's revelation?

RedNeckRaider
04-26-2011, 12:29 PM
what do you think about paul's revelation?

Specifically what are you wanting to know and why do you ask? I am at work and doing a poor job of it playing on here~

Norman Einstein
04-26-2011, 01:23 PM
Why yes Norm I can.
Agnostic
somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood.


I also believe in a creator.
Deism
a belief in God based on reason rather than revelation and involving the view that God has set the universe in motion but does not interfere with how it runs.

I unlike you am somewhat conflicted on the subject and not so arrogant as to be certain to the answer. I have read the Bible more than once two versions. I have also read writings about religions of the Mediterranean that existed before Christ that have striking similarities. I have started reading writings from the Koran to gain an insight on those that follow that religion. So yeah Norm I can~

Whatever, the Wiki definition put the two in diametric opposition.

I figure by the time you finsih doing your exhaustive study of the Quaran you will be a devotee of Mohammad - the warlord that wrote the book.

vailpass
04-26-2011, 01:28 PM
[QUOTE=Useful Idiot;7592399]every state in the nation has seen an increase in atheism since 1990. granted it's still a small percentage overall.....but even 50 years ago, I imagine the totals were closer to zero.

just over 100 years ago.....you'd be killed for not believing. and it was that way for centuries.

what is my issue with those that believe?

[christianity is the most glued together pile of jargon in the history of mankind and you are mad at us for not believing in those torn seams? hahaha.
QUOTE]

Dumbest post I've seen in awhile. Go away.

Jaric
04-26-2011, 01:41 PM
Whatever, the Wiki definition put the two in diametric opposition.

I figure by the time you finsih doing your exhaustive study of the Quaran you will be a devotee of Mohammad - the warlord that wrote the book.

How did you come to that conclusion? If reading the bible twice didn't turn him into a Christian, why would reading the Koran turn him into a Muslim?

nstygma
04-26-2011, 01:46 PM
Specifically what are you wanting to know and why do you ask? I am at work and doing a poor job of it playing on here~it shows you why religion and philosophy are overall pointless, and why/how jesus is the solution.

RedNeckRaider
04-26-2011, 01:59 PM
it shows you why religion and philosophy are overall pointless, and why/how jesus is the solution.

Yeah ok~

nstygma
04-26-2011, 02:04 PM
Yeah ok~guess you missed the new testament epistles when you read the bible twice?

Norman Einstein
04-26-2011, 02:13 PM
How did you come to that conclusion? If reading the bible twice didn't turn him into a Christian, why would reading the Koran turn him into a Muslim?

He's read more than one version of the bible with no impact, he is searching for something otherwise he wouldn't be spending so much time studying something he doesn't believe in. Athiests do that, they can argue the bible and the quaran equally, they study to try to disprove their "enemies" (believers). He claims to be an agnostic/diest, he's searching....

But in the big picture I don't care, he's had his chance. Many in the world have not had that freedom.

Jaric
04-26-2011, 02:18 PM
He's read more than one version of the bible with no impact, he is searching for something otherwise he wouldn't be spending so much time studying something he doesn't believe in. Athiests do that, they can argue the bible and the quaran equally, they study to try to disprove their "enemies" (believers). He claims to be an agnostic/diest, he's searching....

But in the big picture I don't care, he's had his chance. Many in the world have not had that freedom.

Sounds to me like you're making a lot of assumptions.

Perhaps his interest in the Koran stems from the fact that our country is engaged in several conflicts with Muslim countries? If we somehow managed to get into a war with the ancient greeks, wouldn't it make sense to take a look at the Illiad to see what is shaping the way they look at the world?

RedNeckRaider
04-26-2011, 02:18 PM
Whatever, the Wiki definition put the two in diametric opposition.

I figure by the time you finsih doing your exhaustive study of the Quaran you will be a devotee of Mohammad - the warlord that wrote the book.

That is just silly. I am not reading the Koran/Kuran/Quran to find answers for my personal beliefs. I desire to be informed on their beliefs. I have found from what little I have read is it as fairytale filled as most religions/mythologies. I have yet to see the 72 virgins quote that I took as fact for a while. It made me curious to see where these wack jobs are justifying their actions. I don't like relying on tribal knowledge. Oh and is Wiki the end all, I referenced the dictionary~

RedNeckRaider
04-26-2011, 02:19 PM
He's read more than one version of the bible with no impact, he is searching for something otherwise he wouldn't be spending so much time studying something he doesn't believe in. Athiests do that, they can argue the bible and the quaran equally, they study to try to disprove their "enemies" (believers). He claims to be an agnostic/diest, he's searching....

But in the big picture I don't care, he's had his chance. Many in the world have not had that freedom.

You are an idiot~

Jaric
04-26-2011, 02:20 PM
He's read more than one version of the bible with no impact, he is searching for something otherwise he wouldn't be spending so much time studying something he doesn't believe in. Athiests do that, they can argue the bible and the quaran equally, they study to try to disprove their "enemies" (believers). He claims to be an agnostic/diest, he's searching....

But in the big picture I don't care, he's had his chance. Many in the world have not had that freedom.

Sorry for the double post, but wanted to address the bolded part specifically.

One can no more prove the existance of "God" (be it the Hebrew god or otherwise) than one can prove the non-existance of "God"

Jaric
04-26-2011, 02:20 PM
That is just silly. I am not reading the Koran/Kuran/Quran to find answers for my personal beliefs. I desire to be informed on their beliefs. I have found from what little I have read is it as fairytale filled as most religions/mythologies. I have yet to see the 72 virgins quote that I took as fact for a while. It made me curious to see where these wack jobs are justifying their actions. I don't like relying on tribal knowledge. Oh and is Wiki the end all, I referenced the dictionary~

According to Joe Rogan, (he mentions it in his standup) that 72 virgins thing isn't in the Koran anywhere.

RedNeckRaider
04-26-2011, 02:22 PM
Sorry for the double post, but wanted to address the bolded part specifically.

One can no more prove the existance of "God" (be it the Hebrew god or otherwise) than one can prove the non-existance of "God"

Well said~

Useful Idiot
04-26-2011, 02:43 PM
Dumbest post I've seen in awhile. Go away.


excellent rebuttal.

dave lane/orange whoever said it is correct.

you are losing. and you know it. there is no more christian state. church government. it won't be long until this fantasy created 2000 years ago is completely washed away and laughed at. which it deserves to be.

the one thing that the people didnt think about when they were writing all these 'inspired' books and letters was the advent of modern science.

more and more everyday christians have to adapt their religion to the world around them because they have realized that they can no longer adapt the world around them to their religion.

it's hocus pocus and it's being exposed. deal with it.

nstygma
04-26-2011, 02:55 PM
I have yet to see the 72 virgins quote that I took as fact for a while. they go by koran + hadith. look there

Norman Einstein
04-26-2011, 03:16 PM
excellent rebuttal.

dave lane/orange whoever said it is correct.

you are losing. and you know it. there is no more christian state. church government. it won't be long until this fantasy created 2000 years ago is completely washed away and laughed at. which it deserves to be.

the one thing that the people didnt think about when they were writing all these 'inspired' books and letters was the advent of modern science.

more and more everyday christians have to adapt their religion to the world around them because they have realized that they can no longer adapt the world around them to their religion.

it's hocus pocus and it's being exposed. deal with it.



There are none so blind as those who will not see.

The good news is that you will eventually see, but sadly for you too late to do anything about it other than to say OOPS!

You've apparently had your chances and rejected redemption ...

ROFL

ClevelandBronco
04-26-2011, 03:21 PM
I'd suggest that you should resist the urge to climb down into the muck in an attempt to save Idiot, Norman.

Jaric
04-26-2011, 03:22 PM
excellent rebuttal.

dave lane/orange whoever said it is correct.

you are losing. and you know it. there is no more christian state. church government. it won't be long until this fantasy created 2000 years ago is completely washed away and laughed at. which it deserves to be.

the one thing that the people didnt think about when they were writing all these 'inspired' books and letters was the advent of modern science.

more and more everyday christians have to adapt their religion to the world around them because they have realized that they can no longer adapt the world around them to their religion.

it's hocus pocus and it's being exposed. deal with it.
This post reminds me of a T-shirt a girl I went to highschool with used to wear.

Just had two qoutes

"God is dead" - Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is dead" - God.

orange
04-26-2011, 03:31 PM
This post reminds me of a T-shirt a girl I went to highschool with used to wear.

Just had two qoutes

"God is dead" - Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is dead" - God.

"Neither Nietzche nor God directly contributed to this T-shirt" - the T-shirt company

Useful Idiot
04-26-2011, 04:56 PM
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

The good news is that you will eventually see, but sadly for you too late to do anything about it other than to say OOPS!

You've apparently had your chances and rejected redemption ...

ROFL

youre appealing to pascals wager. false dichotomy. You have no way of proving that your deity is the one true god. you really have no way of proving his existence at all.

even if you are correct, if your god is right and Muhammed is wrong, or Zues is wrong or the Jews or Apollonius of Tyana or a billion other religions are wrong and I do have to face your god. I will not just say oops.

if your god put us here with a mind capable of rational reasoning and purposely made himself inconspicuous, only believable through leaps of faith....and now will torment me for 700 septillion years and more because I didnt believe in illogical thought for 25 years or so....well, I dont want to spend an eternity with your god because he is a prick.

Norman Einstein
04-26-2011, 05:06 PM
youre appealing to pascals wager. false dichotomy. You have no way of proving that your deity is the one true god. you really have no way of proving his existence at all.

even if you are correct, if your god is right and Muhammed is wrong, or Zues is wrong or the Jews or Apollonius of Tyana or a billion other religions are wrong and I do have to face your god. I will not just say oops.

if your god put us here with a mind capable of rational reasoning and purposely made himself inconspicuous, only believable through leaps of faith....and now will torment me for 700 septillion years and more because I didnt believe in illogical thought for 25 years or so....well, I dont want to spend an eternity with your god because he is a prick.

The only thing right on this whole rant is the second half of your name:

IDIOT

Your undisguised hate is apparent. I totally would hate to have to exist in the same 10 square mile radius as you.

Good luck with whatever it is that you are preaching.

Frankie
04-26-2011, 05:12 PM
TomCash is back? Under the same user name? So it was all a rumor.

Useful Idiot
04-26-2011, 05:31 PM
The only thing right on this whole rant is the second half of your name:


it's all correct. are you disputing pascal's wager? or the fact that you can't prove your god's existence? or his authority?

all of these religions cannot possibly right. but they all can most certainly be wrong.

I don't know why I even bother with you though. You think 'believing' in hocus pocus gives you some sort of free pass to be an asshole and willfully ignorant.

I know that you have no desire for intellectual honesty. Shame on me.

vailpass
04-26-2011, 06:25 PM
excellent rebuttal.

dave lane/orange whoever said it is correct.

you are losing. and you know it. there is no more christian state. church government. it won't be long until this fantasy created 2000 years ago is completely washed away and laughed at. which it deserves to be.

the one thing that the people didnt think about when they were writing all these 'inspired' books and letters was the advent of modern science.

more and more everyday christians have to adapt their religion to the world around them because they have realized that they can no longer adapt the world around them to their religion.

it's hocus pocus and it's being exposed. deal with it.

LMAO As if I'm going to read a single word you post. I dub thee "Craftsman".

Norman Einstein
04-26-2011, 06:48 PM
TomCash is back? Under the same user name? So it was all a rumor.

I've never been gone you mental midget.

Time for you to fuck **f!

Jaric
04-26-2011, 06:53 PM
I've never been gone you mental midget.

Time for you to f*** **f!

I'm really struggling to think which naughty word is three letters and ends in f.

Norman Einstein
04-26-2011, 06:56 PM
it's all correct. are you disputing pascal's wager? or the fact that you can't prove your god's existence? or his authority?

all of these religions cannot possibly right. but they all can most certainly be wrong.

I don't know why I even bother with you though. You think 'believing' in hocus pocus gives you some sort of free pass to be an asshole and willfully ignorant.

I know that you have no desire for intellectual honesty. Shame on me.



You wouldn't know intellectual honesty if it slapped you on the face.

I believe in God, you don't. Since you don't you feel it necessary to do your best to demean my belief. If you aren't searching for something spiritual why do you argue religion? My guess is that your priest porked you in the butt and colored your outlook. Let me ask you this, is he still porking you?

Jaric
04-26-2011, 07:00 PM
You wouldn't know intellectual honesty if it slapped you on the face.

I believe in God, you don't. Since you don't you feel it necessary to do your best to demean my belief. If you aren't searching for something spiritual why do you argue religion? My guess is that your priest porked you in the butt and colored your outlook. Let me ask you this, is he still porking you?

Is this post real?

Brock
04-26-2011, 07:03 PM
Is this post real?

Meet the dozen times banned (at least) Tom Gash.

Jaric
04-26-2011, 07:04 PM
Meet the dozen times banned (at least) Tom Gash.

Wow.

So he's like DC Jesus? He keeps rising from the grave?

Useful Idiot
04-26-2011, 08:32 PM
Tom Cash's humble christian attitude and kind spirit has made me reconsider my position. I can tell that Jesus is truly in his heart. He exudes passion and kindness.

wonderful ambassador for christ.

go bowe
04-26-2011, 11:42 PM
That is just silly. I am not reading the Koran/Kuran/Quran to find answers for my personal beliefs. I desire to be informed on their beliefs. I have found from what little I have read is it as fairytale filled as most religions/mythologies. I have yet to see the 72 virgins quote that I took as fact for a while. It made me curious to see where these wack jobs are justifying their actions. I don't like relying on tribal knowledge. Oh and is Wiki the end all, I referenced the dictionary~dictionary???

HERETIC!!!!1!!!

go bowe
04-26-2011, 11:51 PM
Wow.

So he's like DC Jesus? He keeps rising from the grave?he's sorta like gochiefs, you just can't keep a good man down...

ClevelandBronco
04-27-2011, 12:35 AM
Damn, Norman. You did it again, man.

So how long is he banned this time? Mods?

go bowe
04-27-2011, 12:49 AM
Damn, Norman. You did it again, man.

So how long is he banned this time? Mods?what did he do this time?

anybody have a link to the thread where he got canned?

RedNeckRaider
04-27-2011, 05:49 AM
dictionary???

HERETIC!!!!1!!!

I use it all the time because I don’t know what most words mean. What did Norman get canned for this time? He is an interesting guy. For a short time I think he wanted to save me but later seemed to be leaning towards burning me at the stake~

Jaric
04-27-2011, 06:41 AM
I use it all the time because I don’t know what most words mean. What did Norman get canned for this time? He is an interesting guy. For a short time I think he wanted to save me but later seemed to be leaning towards burning me at the stake~

Don't feel bad. He went from professing his belief in Jesus to making accusations that Idiot's priest sexually abused him in the same paragraph. I think he's unstable.

RedNeckRaider
04-27-2011, 06:54 AM
Don't feel bad. He went from professing his belief in Jesus to making accusations that Idiot's priest sexually abused him in the same paragraph. I think he's unstable.

That might have been the reason for the ban hammer~

stevieray
04-27-2011, 07:06 AM
Tom Cash's humble christian attitude and kind spirit has made me reconsider my position. I can tell that Jesus is truly in his heart. He exudes passion and kindness.

wonderful ambassador for christ.

ah, so it does have validity.

nice defense.

stevieray
04-27-2011, 07:08 AM
I use it all the time because I don’t know what most words mean.

What do the words on the Liberty Bell mean?

Dave Lane
04-27-2011, 07:11 AM
I do find it as silly but that is neither here nor there. I am glad you have found a belief that brings you happiness. As far as the reason for engaging people on the topic, it has nothing to do with something missing in my life. It is the attitude of people that insist on proclaiming than if everyone in the world does not agree with their chosen beliefs they are doomed to a terrible fate~

That.

Is a huge part of it.

Jaric
04-27-2011, 07:12 AM
That might have been the reason for the ban hammer~
I'm not sure that Norman isn't the atheist version of The Colbert report. I honestly hope it's just parody, because if he's serious...

Wow..

Ebolapox
04-27-2011, 07:16 AM
in other news, how can we be sure that the virgin mary didn't take it in the ass? there's a good chance that it happened (50%, ahthankyou). what would those of the catholic persuasion have to say about joseph buttfucking mary?

Dave Lane
04-27-2011, 07:16 AM
That too.

every state in the nation has seen an increase in atheism since 1990. granted it's still a small percentage overall.....but even 50 years ago, I imagine the totals were closer to zero.

just over 100 years ago.....you'd be killed for not believing. and it was that way for centuries.

what is my issue with those that believe?

http://societalsickness.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/god-hates.jpg

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/kkk1.jpg

http://doctorbulldog.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/pledge-of-allegiance-in-school.jpg

and general lunacy that people like you spew on a daily basis about hell. I also have a serious issue with believers who retard the growth of our existence. outward denial of scientific data, historical facts and common sense because it doesn't fit your 'belief'.

Most people like you don't even know the first thing about their own religion. you cherry pick verses from the bible, ignore a gajillion other sources that contradict everything in the bible, including rejected books/letters of the original canon and blah blah blah....everyone is going to hell.

christianity is the most glued together pile of jargon in the history of mankind and you are mad at us for not believing in those torn seams? hahaha.

your kind hasn't done a single thing to prove christs existence since 33 ad.

luv
04-27-2011, 07:19 AM
What's even more important... this change doesn't say Mary WASN'T a virgin... the Catholic Church WILL adopt this translation and WILL NOT change a damn thing regarding their teachings on Mary...

Maybe, but changing it allows more people to question the teachings, doesn't it?

Dave Lane
04-27-2011, 07:20 AM
He's read more than one version of the bible with no impact, he is searching for something otherwise he wouldn't be spending so much time studying something he doesn't believe in. Athiests do that, they can argue the bible and the quaran equally, they study to try to disprove their "enemies" (believers). He claims to be an agnostic/diest, he's searching....

But in the big picture I don't care, he's had his chance. Many in the world have not had that freedom.

Actually I read the bible for grins and giggles. Especially parts of the old testament just totally crack me up.

Jaric
04-27-2011, 07:21 AM
Maybe, but changing it allows more people to question the teachings, doesn't it?

Isn't that a good thing? Religion without questioning is little more then dogma. True faith requires the strength to ask questions one might not have the answer to.

Dave Lane
04-27-2011, 07:23 AM
Maybe, but changing it allows more people to question the teachings, doesn't it?

And some how that is wrong?

Faith = belief despite the fact there isn't any evidence.

Jaric
04-27-2011, 07:26 AM
And some how that is wrong?

Faith = belief despite the fact there isn't any evidence.

Which is not neccesarily a bad thing.

luv
04-27-2011, 07:35 AM
I've already been put in my place once this week for speaking out on things that I know little/nothing about. I'm not falling into that trap again by "discussing" my view.

My simple view is that people should change to fit the teachings of the Bible, not the other way around. I think religion should be dogmatic. If someone studies and disagrees, then they can find a religion that better suits their beliefs, if that is their wish.

Ebolapox
04-27-2011, 07:37 AM
so we should essentially let our lives be controlled by bronze age sheep herders? eh, no thanks.

Saulbadguy
04-27-2011, 07:38 AM
I've already been put in my place once this week for speaking out on things that I know little/nothing about. I'm not falling into that trap again by "discussing" my view.

My simple view is that people should change to fit the teachings of the Bible, not the other way around. I think religion should be dogmatic. If someone studies and disagrees, then they can find a religion that better suits their beliefs, if that is their wish.

So if irrefutable evidence contradicts something in the bible, the bible shouldn't change, the person should?

Ebolapox
04-27-2011, 07:40 AM
So if irrefutable evidence contradicts something in the bible, the bible shouldn't change, the person should?

if it contradicts the bible, it's NOT irrefutable according to most christians I've come across. faith is the evidence of things not seen. in other words, close your eyes, plug your ears and loudly go LALALALALA to yourself; it's not possible that 'the good book' is wrong, EVER.

RedNeckRaider
04-27-2011, 07:40 AM
What do the words on the Liberty Bell mean?

PROCLAIM LIBERTY THROUGHOUT ALL THE LAND UNTO ALL INHABITANTS THEREOF LEV XXV X

BY ORDER OF THE ASSEMBLY ON THE PROVINCE OF PENSYLVANIA FOR THE STATE HOUSE OF PHILADA

PASS AND STOW John Pass and John Stow recast the bell

MDCCLIII
It is inspired by Leviticus 25:10 (King James Version)
And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.

All of which I am reasonably certain you already know ;)

luv
04-27-2011, 07:41 AM
So if irrefutable evidence contradicts something in the bible, the bible shouldn't change, the person should?

If the Bible needs to change, then wouldn't that make it fallible?

Ebolapox
04-27-2011, 07:44 AM
If the Bible needs to change, then wouldn't that make it fallible?


bum bum BUUUUUUUUM. nope, it's not at all possible that it was misinterpreted by the MEN (who are inherently fallible) who transcribed it countless times. it's not possible that it was changed by MEN (fallible) to better reflect their thoughts/needs of the time. it's not possible that it wasn't the inspired word of god, but merely the words and thoughts of a group of sheep herders 2-5000 years ago who had a need to control the populous. nope. not at ALL possible. LALALALALALALALALA

RedNeckRaider
04-27-2011, 07:45 AM
I'm not sure that Norman isn't the atheist version of The Colbert report. I honestly hope it's just parody, because if he's serious...

Wow..

Yes he is a strange cat and nothing like the Christians I know and most of those I have encountered~

luv
04-27-2011, 07:45 AM
bum bum BUUUUUUUUM. nope, it's not at all possible that it was misinterpreted by the MEN (who are inherently fallible) who transcribed it countless times. it's not possible that it was changed by MEN (fallible) to better reflect their thoughts/needs of the time. it's not possible that it wasn't the inspired word of god, but merely the words and thoughts of a group of sheep herders 2-5000 years ago who had a need to control the populous. nope. not at ALL possible. LALALALALALALALALA

Why are you following me around?

Ebolapox
04-27-2011, 07:46 AM
Why are you following me around?

actually, I posted here first this morning with my trolling post about mary and buttsechs. why are you following me around?

Saulbadguy
04-27-2011, 07:48 AM
If the Bible needs to change, then wouldn't that make it fallible?

Yes.

luv
04-27-2011, 07:55 AM
Yes.

And, if the Bible is fallible, then who's to say that any of it is true? If it's not true, then I have no basis for my faith.

Jaric
04-27-2011, 07:55 AM
If the Bible needs to change, then wouldn't that make it fallible?

I'd argue that it would be less the book itself but more the people who wrote it.

Saulbadguy
04-27-2011, 07:57 AM
And, if the Bible is fallible, then who's to say that any of it is true? If it's not true, then I have no basis for my faith.

Why take it that far? Of course the Bible is fallible. All religions hold claims that have been proven false yet peoples structures of faith aren't rocked.

Jaric
04-27-2011, 07:57 AM
And, if the Bible is fallible, then who's to say that any of it is true? If it's not true, then I have no basis for my faith.

The point of having faith is accepting that you don't know if the answer is true or not.

luv
04-27-2011, 07:58 AM
I'd argue that it would be less the book itself but more the people who wrote it.

Even then, where is our faith based? If my faith is based on a bunch of guys not being truly inspired by God, what have I got to believe in?

Dave Lane
04-27-2011, 07:58 AM
I've already been put in my place once this week for speaking out on things that I know little/nothing about. I'm not falling into that trap again by "discussing" my view.

My simple view is that people should change to fit the teachings of the Bible, not the other way around. I think religion should be dogmatic. If someone studies and disagrees, then they can find a religion that better suits their beliefs, if that is their wish.

Wow. You might read one of my earlier posts about the history of the changing bible. It's been changed so many times it's almost without count.

Saulbadguy
04-27-2011, 08:00 AM
Even then, where is our faith based? If my faith is based on a bunch of guys not being truly inspired by God, what have I got to believe in?

Faith in all of the other stuff.

Jaric
04-27-2011, 08:02 AM
Even then, where is our faith based? If my faith is based on a bunch of guys not being truly inspired by God, what have I got to believe in?

Until you accept the possibility that the Bible's explaination for the unknown might not be correct you can never have true faith. That's what faith is. It's accepting that you don't "know" something, but believing it anyway.

Dave Lane
04-27-2011, 08:03 AM
And, if the Bible is fallible, then who's to say that any of it is true? If it's not true, then I have no basis for my faith.

Do you believe in slavery? Stoning people to death for doing work on the sabbath? Women being isolated from society during their period of uncleanliness?

Do you take two turtle doves to the temple one for sin sacrifice and the other for burnt offering during each day of your uncleanliness as commanded by the bible?

If not apparently you find the bible fallible yourself.

Frankie
04-27-2011, 10:37 AM
I've never been gone you mental midget.

Time for you to **** **f!

Ahhhh, such anger and hate. One wonders what I must have done to you. Oh wait, does rubbing your nose in the dirt in every conversation count?

|Zach|
04-27-2011, 10:38 AM
This turned into one of those idiotic conversations stoned freshman in college have.

Brock
04-27-2011, 11:30 AM
what did he do this time?

anybody have a link to the thread where he got canned?

It was this thread, and he was banned because of profanity filter.

Pitt Gorilla
04-27-2011, 12:15 PM
It was this thread, and he was banned because of profanity filter.I'm not sure why, but that cracks me up. Perhaps it was the whole mod thread on the main board, but that's still kind of awesome.

Frankie
04-27-2011, 12:26 PM
It was this thread, and he was banned because of profanity filter.

So it was a temporary ban. It's no fun this way. The fun thing is the process of recognizing his next user name when he sneaks back in.

nstygma
04-27-2011, 12:55 PM
Do you believe in slavery? Stoning people to death for doing work on the sabbath? Women being isolated from society during their period of uncleanliness?

Do you take two turtle doves to the temple one for sin sacrifice and the other for burnt offering during each day of your uncleanliness as commanded by the bible?

If not apparently you find the bible fallible yourself.is she a jew that lived thousands of years ago & agreed to a contract requiring those things? :doh!:

orange
04-27-2011, 01:24 PM
What do the words on the Liberty Bell mean?

Do you mean the ones in fine print? - "detrimentum may praecessi ex sustineo utor"

Dave Lane
04-27-2011, 11:20 PM
is she a jew that lived thousands of years ago & agreed to a contract requiring those things? :doh!:

No but if she truly believed the bible was infallible then she would have to believe these are all true and hence abide by them. Its the Christian bible.

nstygma
04-27-2011, 11:28 PM
No but if she truly believed the bible was infallible then she would have to believe these are all true and hence abide by them. Its the Christian bible.you really have no understanding of the bible do you? :LOL:
let me help you, google the sinai covenant and see if you can figure out why its not applicable to Luv

ClevelandBronco
04-28-2011, 12:22 AM
Here's the deal guys, and I know this is going to appear to be way too convenient for us believers and all, but without the holy spirit, the words in Bible will mean very little to any person. It really will appear to be mostly archaic nonsense. If you're a person that does not have Jesus Christ as a part of your life, we just can't explain the Bible to you.

|Zach|
04-28-2011, 12:59 AM
Here's the deal guys, and I know this is going to appear to be way too convenient for us believers and all, but without the holy spirit, the words in Bible will mean very little to any person. It really will appear to be mostly archaic nonsense. If you're a person that does not have Jesus Christ as a part of your life, we just can't explain the Bible to you.

And why the hell are some so hell bent on making believers prove shit. If it isn't your cup of tea thats fine what is it to you if someone holds religion close to their hearts.

Why these two separate spheres are always trying to interfere and sell the other one is completely ridiculous and maddening to me. What a waste of time.

BigCatDaddy
04-28-2011, 09:56 AM
And why the hell are some so hell bent on making believers prove shit. If it isn't your cup of tea thats fine what is it to you if someone holds religion close to their hearts.

Why these two separate spheres are always trying to interfere and sell the other one is completely ridiculous and maddening to me. What a waste of time.

An inferiority complex would be my guess.

Molitoth
04-28-2011, 10:37 AM
It doesn't matter, all metaphoric symbolism for astronomy.

Useful Idiot
04-28-2011, 12:27 PM
And why the hell are some so hell bent on making believers prove shit. If it isn't your cup of tea thats fine what is it to you if someone holds religion close to their hearts.

Why these two separate spheres are always trying to interfere and sell the other one is completely ridiculous and maddening to me. What a waste of time.

if the religious nutjobs in this country didnt have so much damned power, then I wouldn't give a shit. but they do. so I fight on.

I don't want my kids pledging allegiance to a stupid flag 'under god'. That's why I waste my time.

ClevelandBronco
04-28-2011, 12:30 PM
if the religious nutjobs in this country didnt have so much damned power, then I wouldn't give a shit. but they do. so I fight on.

I don't want my kids pledging allegiance to a stupid flag 'under god'. That's why I waste my time.

Why are you okay with them pledging allegiance to a flag and the republic? IMHO, maybe you should start there.

Useful Idiot
04-28-2011, 03:07 PM
I'm not okay with it. I think it's a crock of shit. add god into it and....irritation overload.

Jaric
04-28-2011, 03:11 PM
if the religious nutjobs in this country didnt have so much damned power, then I wouldn't give a shit. but they do. so I fight on.

I don't want my kids pledging allegiance to a stupid flag 'under god'. That's why I waste my time.

If it makes you feel any better, by the time kids actually learn what the pledge means, they don't have to say it anymore.

stevieray
04-28-2011, 07:35 PM
if the religious nutjobs in this country didnt have so much damned power, then I wouldn't give a shit. but they do. so I fight on.

I don't want my kids pledging allegiance to a stupid flag 'under god'. That's why I waste my time.
...sounds like you are fighting against something...


....that exists.

....quite the speed bump, eh?

Useful Idiot
04-28-2011, 08:57 PM
...sounds like you are fighting against something...


....that exists.

....quite the speed bump, eh?

yep. legalize satan.

stevieray
04-29-2011, 10:55 AM
yep. legalize satan.

or in other words, make God illegal?

RedNeckRaider
04-29-2011, 11:30 AM
or in other words, make God illegal?

Freedom of religious choice was set in place to insure you are protected from persecution for your beliefs~

Useful Idiot
04-29-2011, 01:59 PM
or in other words, make God illegal?

I certainly would not have any qualms with religion being outlawed.

ClevelandBronco
04-29-2011, 02:07 PM
I certainly would not have any qualms with religion being outlawed.

Ooooooo. So edgy.

RedNeckRaider
04-29-2011, 02:18 PM
I certainly would not have any qualms with religion being outlawed.

That concession of rights for something you disagree with is mind boggling to me. The founding fathers formed this country with freedom of religious choice. I would defend the right to the end. I am a supporter of separation of church and state but cannot fathom why someone would take your stance. You are joking or are living up to the second part of your username~

stevieray
04-29-2011, 02:39 PM
Freedom of religious choice was set in place to insure you are protected from persecution for your beliefs~

:spock:

stevieray
04-29-2011, 02:44 PM
I certainly would not have any qualms with religion being outlawed.

...kind of hard to outlaw something you say doesn't exist.


...the comedic relief of your conundrum is that Revelation predicts that relgions of today will be eliminated.

Huffmeister
04-29-2011, 03:02 PM
I certainly would not have any qualms with religion being outlawed.

Wow, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. How would you even go about outlawing it?

ClevelandBronco
04-29-2011, 03:17 PM
Wow, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. How would you even go about outlawing it?

Attempt to repeal the first amendment and hope like hell the people don't rise up as one and flay alive the people responsible for attempting it.

Useful Idiot
04-29-2011, 03:21 PM
I said I would have no qualms if it were outlawed. I'm not campaigning for it to be outlawed. Religion does more harm than good as a whole. That's not even really debatable.

I have no idea how to outlaw it. 'one nation under god'. tax cuts for religious institutions would be a good place to start.

I say this as a volunteer for The Gabriel Project. An abortion alternative program. I am anti-abortion. Has nothing to do with religion. obv.

ClevelandBronco
04-29-2011, 03:28 PM
I am anti-abortion.

I'm anti-you.

orange
04-29-2011, 03:30 PM
Wow!

Tags get around text substitutions. You learn something every day, here.

Huffmeister
04-30-2011, 01:26 PM
Religion does more harm than good as a whole. That's not even really debatable.
Of course it's debatable. Whether it's real or just a fantasy, giving people some kind of comfort or solace so that they don't turn into despairing, depressed nutjobs is a pretty good thing. And that doesn't even count the charitable good that churches and religious communities do every day.

Sure, there are some people that get messed up in the head over religion. But you said 'as a whole', and I just don't see it.

RedNeckRaider
04-30-2011, 07:05 PM
:spock:

Unsure as to why the spock was used here~