This is just too funny! And to think there are millions of people still living in some religious dark age who actually believe this crap!
It's sad, really. They're simply replaying the same song as those ignorant "Christ-ians" from the days of St. Paul, when he warned that Christ was coming soon; of course, when that didn't happen, he changed his tune. That was only 2,000 years ago!
Yup! He's coming back any day now. Keep watching the sky "up" there! A dead man, resurrected ghost, in bodily form who is really God and the Holy Spirit is going to descend up the earth and gather up only those who believe the right doctrines!
Isn't that amazing?
Oh, stop laughing. No, actually, this is worth a good laugh.
18 comments:
Some people will never grow up and move out of the dark ages.
From the dawn of time man has thought that there had to be more than just this life here. Every religion teaches about an "after life".
Some people can't accept that this is it, one life and one life only. They're more comfortable with thinking some "higher power" has control of every aspect of their lives.
Too bad we won't be able to see a look on their faces when they find out there is nothing after this.
You're right, GE...but there won't be any look on their faces...
Yeh...I know...it was just a funny thought.
One thing for sure, the won't have to worry about "face - ing" the wrath of their god.
Heh...
Erhmmm, so God's a kidnapper then? Or an alien abducting innocent people?
Well, one thing's for sure. If humanists are correct; and there is no God; we all end up exactly the same. If Christians are correct; however, the humanists lose - and lose big. It's a bet Christians can't lose, but humanists can.
Only one group of those two groups seems dumb to me.
@ hmvh - Yeah, probably. Or maybe she's just lonely "up" there in the sky in the clouds sitting on some unknown planet...
Did you ever wonder why God never did provide a description of heaven? If it was so important and if that's where all those who have accepted Jesus into their hearts will spend eternity, wouldn't it be nice if we knew exactly what it was all about.
And if it's as wonderful as the born-againers say it is, then many more atheists and non-believers and all those billions who are not born-again in Jesus' blood would become instantly converted and isn't that what God is supposed to want.
Why does she make it so hard?
@ Anonymous - ah, the old Pascal's Wager argument, that has not been taken seriously for god knows how many years.
Yeah, go ahead and waste your life worrying about the next one, a delusion for which you have no one shred of evidence.
Seems to me you're the loser!
Jacob... an argument that is not taken seriously by fools is no less valid regardless of the time the fools pay no attention.
I am not worried one bit about the after-life. It's not me spending a lifetime fighing against something I claim does not exists - like you do.
Anyone thinking human being has to wonder why Christians worry you so much? If God does not exist - then let it go Big Boy. Why are you expending so much energy on that which you claim is bogus? Methinks thou dost protest too much. I think your excessive compulsion to batter Christians is masking a sense of worry - deep down - that you just might be wrong!
@ Anon - Aw, some real arm-chair psychology...boy, you're good...a whole life-time fighting, wow!
"Excessive compulsion" too! Sheesh. You know lots of big words.
You know nothing about me so everything you've written is essentially worthless.
But, keep trying..."Big Boy!"
Common Jacob, you can come up with a better reply than that - can't you?
Watching the mind-numb children on this board flail away at a Christianity they claim is irrelevant amuses me. Because they are so deeply rooted in their pop-culture secularist-religion they don’t realize how much time they devote to fighting what they claim is “nothing”. The only logical explanations are that 1) they have doubts about their own silly rhetoric and are overcompensating with volumes of attacks, or 2) they actually believe in spontaneous existence (something from nothing) and are as well rooted in idiocy as medieval man.
Either way, having you claim that everything I have written is worthless is a compliment. My degrees mean nothing because, of course, I could never hope to have the knowledge a “photographer” and a “critic” must have (end sarcasm). I know lots about you … you are spewing your clumsy thoughts all over this blog … or didn’t you notice that?
I do applaud you, however, for posting my responses. Most mindless atheists can’t bear to have anyone disagree. They tend to turn their yellow tails and run at the hint of opposition. I guess it’s easy to believe in nothing. It suits those who have trouble thinking or accepting human limitations. In the dark recesses of those tiny little minds you tell yourselves that because you can’t understand something it must not exist. If it does, oops, you missed it – you didn’t understand - and you were not as smart as you thought. Of course, I was telling you that, but you didn’t listen. It’s true that there are none as blind as those who refuse to see.
Grandpa Eddie says: "Some people will never grow up and move out of the dark ages."
That's rich - and ignorant. The "dark ages" were named because the Holy Roman Catholic Church used church/state authority to replace the Bible with their religious traditions. The actual words of the Bible were kept “in the dark” – away from the people – much as Grandpa Eddie would love to see occur again, but his cure would be to remove the Bible completely.
And he thinks I am living in the “dark ages”. Get a clue (and an education), Eddie.
This is to the fool who is afraid to identify himself/herself/itself.
Never once did I say that the bible should be completely removed from society, that was your insinuation not mine. If you, or anyone else, wishes to blindly follow the writings of several men, that is your choice. You DO NOT have the right to demand that I live by your rules.
You infer that you are more intelligent than Jacob or I because of the "degrees" you hold. Your "degrees" do not mean that you are more intelligent than either of us. Common sense trumps "degrees" in daily life.
People are ignorant when they accept the words of a few, especially when those few refer to a book as the word of "their god" and therefore must be true and must be obeyed.
Once you and your ilk follow ALL of the laws in your bible, then come to me and talk to me about where and why I am wrong, and also identify yourself. Until then, take your troll attitude and leave.
@ Anonymous - It seems you are quite proud of your "degrees". Would you be willing to tell us what degrees you have and the schools that awarded them to you?
It would help me/us to better understand where you are coming from.
You also might mention the branch of fundamentalist Christianity to which you give allegiance.
Do you believe the Bible is the inerrant, holy word of God, infallible in all respects?
Do you believe in the usual fundamentalist Christian doctrines such as the Virgin Birth of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, the need to be "born-again," etc.?
Let us know where you're coming from. You can even continue to do it anonymously.
Sure, no problem Jacob. I hold three degrees from two colleges. I have a Bachelor’s Degree in both Computer Science and Economics; both attained at SUNY. I have a Masters in Computer Information Systems from UNC Chapel Hill. If you’d care to get off religion at some point and discuss fiat economies and why the DemoRepub party is taking us down the primrose path to global governance and a future failed facist state – I’d be happy to go there, too.
I was raised a Lutheran, but left the church before I was 16. I am not a member of any organized church, nor have I been since that age – more than 30 years ago.
Yes, I believe the Bible is the inerrant and inspired word of God. I also believe that most people are awfully lazy and cling to tradition, accepting flawed translations instead of suffering through the work of studying the original Word as written in Greek or Hebrew. I also believe many Christians (through tradition) believe in things that the Bible does not actually teach – such as Hell being a place of eternal damnation. That’s great if you love Dante, but it’s not a biblical teaching. Hell is mentioned only 56 times in the Bible. In all but one the original word used was “sheol” or “hades” both meaning “the grave”. The other word (used once) was Gehenna, which was a place where refuse was destroyed utterly – not for eternity. That’s a Dante fiction.
The same confusion exists over the supposed Rapture, which is another fiction. People who actually read the Bible – study the Bible – are not swayed by popular fables like this one.
People often get confused because flawed English translations often use terms like “forever”, which, in reality, was written to mean “for as long as the nature of the item exists”. For example, the Bible says Jonah lived “forever” in the belly of the whale, yet in the next verse says he got out after three days. The same holds true for the smoke rising from Sodom “forever”. They both actually mean they had eternal consequences, but have been mistranslated. Humans are quite prone to error in anything they try. The Bible has been misused and misshapen for years, but the actual Word in no less true.
Thanks. But I think I'm going to drop this conversation...
With regard to inerrancy, you might wish to read any major biblical scholar writing in the past 300 years. Not one accept the concept of inerrancy for very good reasons. The only people accepting inerrancy these days are fundamentalist Bible teachers, who know not whereof they speak.
You might be interesting in reading Bart Ehrman. His latest book, "Jesus, Interrupted," is quite good, but all of this books are good. And, incidently, he teaches at the Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill!
You might also look at Dan Barker's "Godless."
But my favorite is Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle."
One flaw in your argument is the assumption that there is an unflawed Bible. Not so. We have no original documents of any book; we don't know who wrote most of them, or even when exactly they were written. Contradictions, errors, mistakes abound.
Archaeological discoveries over the past 30-40 years clearly indicate that the patriarchs, the Exodus, Moses, the "conquering" of Canaan are mythological and are not historical in any sense.
I can give you a list of texts with regard to that subject also, if you're interested.
It is really hard for me to think that you, have a scientific bent, would accept the mythological creations stories, for example, as historical.
Perhaps we should leave it at that.
Jacob … It was my non-acceptance of the church that led me to read many of the people you mention. Not being one to accept anything at face value I looked for reasons not to believe. I was a skeptic – and I am a skeptic when it comes to the church. When it comes to God and His word, however; I find no flaw … unless I am being lazy and accepting other people’s interpretations or translations. The books you mention have glaring discrepancies and stretch the word to the breaking point.
Arguing that we have no “original documents” is a bit of a straw man. Anyone who knows Bart Ehrman knows he is a hack, but a useful hack. He has caught onto exactly what I mentioned in my last letter – that the church teaches many things the Bible does not. His book “Jesus Interrupted”, for example, intertwines the fact that the Bible does not teach about hell with the fact that the church does; and somehow that makes the Bible errant? Go figure. His efforts, like many, go to extremes to attempt to uncover inaccuracy. I’d almost expect him to find a misprint in some edition and claim it proof there is no inerrant God.
Nobody believes that God poked his finger out of the sky and wrote the Bible; but that people, under inspiration of God, wrote the Bible. That being the case, it makes no difference if John the Revelator or some scribe made any contextual changes. Inspiration is inspiration, no matter who is inspired. Dan Barker's work (or should I say agenda driven effort?) actually caused a good friend of mine to accept God as fact. Have you noticed that most ardent atheists were former preachers or theologians? Barker is one of the many who cannot separate God from human church and falls into a trap. He’s another ex-preacher who becomes disillusioned (for whatever reason), fails to note the strength of the accuracy of one of the oldest document known to man, and becomes an atheist. He falls away from what he used to believe and then attempts to place his “failure” to believe on God. If any person applied his method to any other discipline he’d be scoffed at.
I beg any person to explain how Daniel, in the original Torah, writing before Media-Persia or Greece became nations, by name described both as Persia’s conquerors; and then went on to perfectly describe Rome as the third kingdom? How did Daniel perfectly timeline the years from the Israeli exodus of Persia to the baptism of Christ? It was not a close count, but perfect – even down to a half year. If people actually study the Bible themselves, instead of relying on the half-baked, agenda filled work of others; they would find compelling evidence that is too specific to be coincidence.
They would also find that God is not a blood-thirsty tyrant who demands sacrifice; that there is no hell; that there is no rapture; and a myriad of other facts would be exposed as the truth emerges. But that means putting aside agenda for a moment and, with an open mind, looking for the truth. Atheists love to tell Christians to have an open mind, but I never see them stray from their doctrine and look for what might contradict their theory.
Closing now, it is my scientific, mathematical mind that led me to my conclusions. It was not quick, nor was it easy, but it did happen. Popular culture demands that scientists tow the “party line” if they want funding, but there are myriads of scientists (including archeologists) who are proclaiming that science and fact support the Bible, not the other way around. In the 1970’s the scientists were afraid of the new ice age; now it’s global warming. 150 years ago scientists told us to bleed people to heal them. 200 years ago scientists believed that mice were spontaneously created from dirty rags.
Not one shred of evidence exists to support Darwin’s theory of evolution, such that Darwin himself admitted that very fact. In fact, Darwin, the darling of the atheists, wrote: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” Admitting that while things change, they originated with God.
The simple Bombardier Beetle creates a quandary that no evolutionist can explain, yet we cling to the theory. Why? While we poke the Bible hoping to find some tiny error we are willing to overlook the glaring inaccuracy and failure of modern science? Why? Because it is a new, false religion that many people, including atheists, have grown to worship and we dare not question that.
Post a Comment