 |
|
Ethelred
|
|
Jack Chick is one of the reasons its hard to tell a religious parody from someone that really is that filled with hate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
I wonder why all of the Bible experts here do not bother to read the Bible? Jesus is the one who warned of false religion that would use his name in vain. How does it prove true christianity to be false when the words of Jesus were proved to be true?
A rose by any other name smells just as sweet and a festering wound has a bad smell regardless of what you call it. As usual the "moderate" left shows themselves to be radicals. No, sorry, I never put anyone on a rack in order to torture them. You will have to blame the hypocrites who did that themselves.
Mk:13:6: For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Lk:21:8: And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.
Mt:24:11: And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Mt:24:12: And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
By the way, Jesus never told his followers to form any government or be involved in any political movement so the point of a "Christian" government is moot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
I wonder why all of the Bible experts here do not bother to read the Bible? Jesus is the one who warned of false religion that would use his name in vain. How does it prove true christianity to be false when the words of Jesus were proved to be true? |
When we see the Second Coming then SOME of the words will be proved true and I will assume the ones look otherwise at present will be found true as well. Till then they simply haven't been proved true.
quote:
A rose by any other name smells just as sweet and a festering wound has a bad smell regardless of what you call it. As usual the "moderate" left shows themselves to be radicals. No, sorry, I never put anyone on a rack in order to torture them. You will have to blame the hypocrites who did that themselves. |
They were Christian hypocrites. Frankly I suspect many of them weren't hypocrites and were quite sincere in their hate. Much like Jack Chick.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
The problem Lincooln, is that there are plenty of people, honets and faithful, who would claim that by installing a government of Christian values, they aren't coming in Christs name but helping spread his message so that more would be prepared once the phalse ones came: again, its a matter of interpretation. If the Bible were so crystal clear, there wouldn't be:
Catholics, Baptists, Presbetyrians, Lutherans, Greek Orthodox, Russia Orthodox, Armenian orthodox, Episcopalians, Mormons, so forth and so on, not even counting roups like the Hussites that once were and were wiped out.
For me, the very fact that we have both Christinans who adore the pope,and Christians who call him the anti-Christ, and yet they all read the same book is proof of the omnipotence of interpretation in relegion, not the imnipotence of ther word.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
When we see the Second Coming then SOME of the words will be proved true and I will assume the ones look otherwise at present will be found true as well. Till then they simply haven't been proved true.
They were Christian hypocrites. Frankly I suspect many of them weren't hypocrites and were quite sincere in their hate. Much like Jack Chick. |
Yes, I am sure that both Jack Chick and you are sincere.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The problem Lincooln, is that there are plenty of people, honets and faithful, who would claim that by installing a government of Christian values, they aren't coming in Christs name but helping spread his message so that more would be prepared once the phalse ones came: again, its a matter of interpretation. If the Bible were so crystal clear, there wouldn't be:
Catholics, Baptists, Presbetyrians, Lutherans, Greek Orthodox, Russia Orthodox, Armenian orthodox, Episcopalians, Mormons, so forth and so on, not even counting roups like the Hussites that once were and were wiped out.
For me, the very fact that we have both Christinans who adore the pope,and Christians who call him the anti-Christ, and yet they all read the same book is proof of the omnipotence of interpretation in relegion, not the imnipotence of ther word. |
The followers of Jesus were always a minority among hypocrites. That was and is to be expected. If you sort through history you will find this non-violent minority that abhored involvement in government. Today you can find the Amish and the Quakers among many others who do not call themselves anything in particular. The teachings of Jesus are quite clear and he even pointed out who Judas was. He wanted to make Jesus a king so that he could have power and money himself. Nothing has changed really.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
I don't hate. Jack does.
Its just plain false to put me in the same area as Jack simply because you don't like what I say. This is not the first time that you have attacked me as a person rather than respond to what I said.
I am not into hate except towards the hate filled. Heck I don't even hate Jack since I don't have to deal with him. He simply is more evidence that A-holes will find any excuse they can to make their actions look right and proper. His excuse is the Bible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
I said that you were sincere like he is. You are both firmly convinced that you have the truth and can ridicule others who do not see it your way. You are the most antichristian poster I have seen on this forum with one exception. I suppose that your motivation is love.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
It is called the evade and confuse tactic. I think some very loving posters wanted to counter the hate they find in the world by hating Christians. |
I think it was more like someone claimed a christian state wouldn't act that way. Lars was the culprit, so you can blame him for this path of discussion.
This resulted in people pointing out that Christian states have done hatefull things also. This is not a sign of people hating christians. It is simply the truth. If you must respond to the truth by claiming people are being hateful perhaps you should notice that is the truth that you don't like and perhaps that is what has led you to attack the messengers by claiming they hate christians when they do not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
You have just as much evidence of love as Jack Chick does. Your "truth" means as much as his.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
I said that you were sincere like he is. You are both firmly convinced that you have the truth and can ridicule others who do not see it your way. |
Who did I ridicule on this thread? No one. Not even you and you call me things frequently. Like putting me in the same class as Jack Chick. Or your present claim seen below.
quote:
You are the most antichristian poster I have seen on this forum with one exception. I suppose that your motivation is love. |
I am not anti-chrisitian. I simply am not a christian and don't see any reason besides inertia or wishfull thinking for anyone being a christian. I don't think wishfull thinking is a good reason. Even inertia is better.
You seem to think there is something awfull in my disagreeing with you on pretty much anything. Too bad. If you say something questionable like claiming the words of Jesus have been proven when they haven't I will point it out. If you want to pretend that it somehow constitutes hate towards christians when I point out your errors there is nothing I can do about except call you on it. Which is what I am doing.
I dare you to show one post of mine that shows hate towards christianity. Even one. I bet you think you can do it. I know you can't because I don't hate christianity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Thanks for the Bible lesson Etheired. You have given as much evidence as Jack Chick has for his views. You are on one extreme and he is on the other. I will leave you two to sort out your differences. If you don't hate then good for you. Neither does Jack Chick then. You accused of him of hate for telling what he sees as the truth. Now I turned the tables on you and you are offended. Why? Because you are just as convinced as he is that you have the truth. He says that he is not hateful either. Maybe you are both right but you are both in the same boat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
It was che that jacked the thread on this anoying tangent. I blame him. |
OK. Maybe Lars was responding to something Che said. It was Lars that stood out in my mind.
What Che said was
quote:
I am getting tired of the "that's not really Islam" ****. Yes it is. Just as much as the Jerry Falwell's and the Torquemada's are really Christian.A religion is not defined by a particular (and happy liberal) subset of the religion, but by all the variations of it. Christianity is both a wonderful liberating force in people's lives, and a barbaric, murdereous force. Islam is the same. Judaism is the same. Hinduism is the same. And so on.
All religion is equally invalid. |
I don't think that is quite a thread jack. Maybe the last line counts as one. The rest was simply an example based on history.
I think it was this line that sent the thread into another direction.
Lars:
quote:
It's absolute nonsense saying that a christian theocracy or government would impose sharia-like laws. |
Its the line I was thinking of. It certainly flew in the face of historical reality and deserved to be rebutted.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
You have just as much evidence of love as Jack Chick does. Your "truth" means as much as his. |
I never claimed love. I only said I didn't hate. You are still trying to put me at Jack Chick's level. That is pretty hatefull right there. Not much love in your action now is there?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Meanwhile the theadjack marches on...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
I never claimed love. I only said I didn't hate. You are still trying to put me at Jack Chick's level. That is pretty hatefull right there. Not much love in your action now is there? |
I don't think that telling the truth is being hateful unless it is done with a hateful motive. What evidence do you have that Jack Chick is motivated by hate? He is firmly convinced that the truth is on his side as are you. Like I said in the previous post, maybe neither one of you are hateful but you are in the same boat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Thanks for the Bible lesson Etheired. You have given as much evidence as Jack Chick has for his views. |
Far more then he or you but in other threads. I don't see you justifying your claim of proof. Instead you resorted to this ad-hominym attack. Which is becoming standard for you. You didn't used to do this. You used to actually try to discuss the issues.
quote:
You are on one extreme and he is on the other. I will leave you two to sort out your differences. If you don't hate then good for you. Neither does Jack Chick then. |
Except that Jack clearly does hate and you can't show hate on my part. You do this all the time lately. Instead of dealing with what I said you attack me as a person.
quote:
You accused of him of hate for telling what he sees as the truth. Now I turned the tables on you and you are offended. Why? |
Because he clearly does hate. His comics drip with hate and loads of falsehoods, inuendo, strawmen, and just plain lies.
quote:
Because you are just as convinced as he is that you have the truth. He says that he is not hateful either. Maybe you are both right but you are both in the same boat. |
I am waiting for you to back up that claim of hate on my part. I dare you again. Show it. Or back off and drop this evasive tactic you have engaged in. You had no answer for what I said so you accused me of hate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Meanwhile the theadjack marches on... |
Yes you are still doing it. You have turned the thread into a personal attack.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-10-2002 02:31
How did I know you or one of your ilk was going to try and spoof or troll me on that. Already answered above in response to a comment from Dr. Strangelove. I don't play the "that's not really communism" card, especailly since no Communist ruled country has ever claimed to communist. At best they claimed to have been building socialism. 
The only societies I say aren't socialist are the welfare capitalist ones. The revolutionary socialist experirments, for good or for ill (mostly ill) are socialism, just very bad examples of it.
And what is amazing about this thread is that I agree with Mr. Fun!
|