Christians are becoming social pariahs in Britain, claims BBC presenter Jeremy Vine

reply to post by The Djin


bat mobile was added later. utility belt was deleted for future batman and other versions, Gothom? Or Arkham? or maybe space? They've already changed that.

Albert's dead or non existent in some iterations. For example, Bruce Wayne took over in future batman.

The bat signal doesn't exist in all.

It changed very fast since its conception.


And if Jesus is found in a tomb? hit me up if they ever do.

I'm gone for a few hours. See you then.

Re Gorman 03.39 PM post

You wrote:

["Weren't those perpetrated by a very power hungry church that had become more a political entity and completely ignoring their own faith? Didn't some folks in the North break off and go back to the right way after enough anger?

Not to mention most of these things you mention took place eons after the councils. I certainly do not southerners today for slavery."]

My Gormanese interpretator went home hours ago, so I'll have to do on my own.

I'm quite sure, that the atrocities I mentioned in an earlier post were committed by powerhungry individuals or organisations.

So your altenative suggestion, as a defense for whatever specific faith or denomination you belong to, is, that these guys were not true christians; whereas you are. I believe, I get that one app. once a week, and as a person who doesn't know the exact number of angels on a pin or understand the finer points of christian 'logic', I really can't say whom of all you christian claimants of being the true christians really are the true christians.

" I certainly do not southerners today for slavery."

?????

reply to post by bogomil


pretty much all non catholics, and even a few catholics, recognize that the papacy has had a bad track record, and that christians everywhere get blamed for it. non- catholics, jehovah's witnesses (these people won't go to war or even agree to give blood -- blood must not be spilled, mormons, seventh day adventists, protestants of every caliber, we're all responsible for stuff the papacy did for 1000s of years, yesterday, tomorrow, forever. it's probably the most frustrating aspect of these kinds of conversations.

i mean, i didn't get up one morning and say, i think i will become a christian so people can accuse of # i didn't do. i was an adult before i became a christian. i'm still the same person i was before i became a christian but now i can carry on a conversation with my invisible sky daddy, cause he listens to me even when no one else will. he's there, even when no one else is, and etc. it's a pretty good deal. just consider him the secret friend of all the losers and lonely people on the planet. you'll feel better about yourself, and the rest of us can go back to talking to the guy that actually likes us

reply to post by bogomil


As the poster bellow you said, A man has a bad track record. Several men, in fact. However, the religion does not. in fact, the reason why so many people abandoned the pope was for the same reason you are blaming Christians for doing. I'll go right ahead and point out the obvious. The crusades were not religious wars. They were economic. Do realize that Spain owned the Pope's behind and more or less wanted the spice trade. It wasn't alone, but it certainly held the most sway, what with Spanish troops outside Rome ready to force whatever they wanted. The pope himself was in err as well. But the point is this. The crusades were for money. Not God. God was a nice part of it, but overall it was for resources and money. When Europe could no longer own it, they went the opposite direction, found America, and repeat.

Now as for the jews, yes, it was for religious reasons fueled by a hating Pope. Again, not my fault as a Christian.

As to what defines a good Christian. You have the book. Read it. There's your answer.

Example, undo and I disagree on some issues. But the behavior by her posts that I've seen and her own beliefs tell me she is on track to becoming a good Christian. You see no one is a perfectly good Christians. Hence why we use the analogy to a path. You are either on the small path to heaven or the large path towards hell. The path is a hard one, and indeed one that many fall off. Many whom keep the title Christian. We use the term "fallen off the path" for those whom still title themselves Christian but are on the wrong path. Jesus was the only perfect "Christian" and he was Jew. It's a constant reminder that we have a friend up there guiding us.

Originally posted by bogomil

" I certainly do not southerners today for slavery."

?????

LoL. My bad.

" I certainly do not blame southerners today for slavery."

reply to post by undo


I think that if you look at most of the Xtian sects that are more than fifty years old and many who are less there is a thread of moral turpitude that threads through the movement. The jehovah witness had a big child abuse scandal in that surfaced in the 80s. There is a bug in the operating system of Xtianity. So to blame the Papacy in isolation is wrong.

You may be a good person but not all of your religion are. I suggest that in this information era the sins of Xtianity have caught up with them and bingo the movement is in decline. Jeremy Vine is sensing this and is crying foul when he should be cleaning his church and making it ready for 21st century life.

reply to post by undo


Noticed your signature about stargates ... Isn't that the real reason George H.W. Bush has wanted Iraq??

reply to post by tiger5


nah, i'm not a "good" person. i'm just a pretty nice person. lol i give lots of room for wiggle because i need lots of room for wiggle. can't judge someone for their behavior if i'm fully aware of my own shortcomings (like i have this tendency to overdo things.. i get addicted to things real easy. i've gotten hooked on and given up, many bad habits. i use to gamble. gave it up. i use to drink. gave it up. i use to swear like a sailor, gave it up with only the occassional brief relapse. etc..

i don't think catholic people are responsible for the behavior or decisions of popes, any more than i think it's the fault of democrats for the behavior/decisions of democratic presidents, ditto for repubs, etc somebody has to realize eventually, that people are individuals and will still make free will choices and that is as it should be. forcing people to all agree will only result in many silently disagreeing, which is not how you deal with free will as it will come around and bite ya on the metaphorical hiney.

i also am aware that jehovah witnesses are human beings. so are pagans, atheists, jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus and etc. to suggest that a pedophile or rapist in a religion proves the whole thing is evil, is akin to saying, an atheist commited a crime, all atheists must be evil. when the truth is, we're all a few cans short of the heavenly six pack and that is our only similarity (morally speaking).

little known factoid:
pederasty in ancient greece
en.wikipedia.org...

it is my current theory that this "tradition" which was highly acclaimed and accepted in the pagan world, continued on in the pagan roman and holy roman empire, where it was employed in the form of the learning relationship between the altar boy and the priest. meant to be chaste, initially, apparently it didn't always stay that way. it became a generational problem after that.

i'm not saying pedophilia is correct nor pederasty, btw. just showing how such a thing could be perceived as socially acceptable, initially, and then over the years, as our understanding of medicine and psychology advanced, became associated with medical/mental problems and ruled illegal. it was also all over the ancient world, including persia and china, to name a few.

Originally posted by NellahB
reply to post by undo

 

Noticed your signature about stargates ... Isn't that the real reason George H.W. Bush has wanted Iraq??

that was one my theories in my stargates thread. later, i learned that the euphrates had created an additional 69 miles of new land out into the persian gulf as a result of silt deposition. and that it (the gate) was likely originally on the bottom of the persian gulf (during ancient sumer) that is now incorporated into the new euphrates river system, created by the silt deposition.

this was further clarified by the references to the bottomless pit/abyss (which i theorize is the gate) in revelation 9, where it also refers to it being unlocked. later, in the same chapter, 4 angels are loosed from the euphrates (which likely employ the abyss to come to earth), that i think indicates that once the abyss was opened/unlocked, an alien invasion ensues from it, and the 4 "angels" are part of that invasion. theoretically speaking, of course.

reply to post by Gorman91

And if Jesus is found in a tomb? hit me up if they ever do.

Please explain why this is not your jesus the character that appears in the new testament.

* Yeshua bar Yehosef * Maria * Yose * Yehuda bar Yeshua * Maramene e Mara * Matya

Human remains Each of the ten ossuaries contained human remains, said to be in an "advanced state of deterioration" by Amos Kloner.[3] The tomb may have been multigenerational, with several generations of bones stored in each ossuary, but no record was kept of their contents[1

Originally posted by The Djin

Please explain why this is not your jesus the character that appears in the new testament.

* Yeshua bar Yehosef * Maria * Yose * Yehuda bar Yeshua * Maramene e Mara * Matya

Human remains Each of the ten ossuaries contained human remains, said to be in an "advanced state of deterioration" by Amos Kloner.[3] The tomb may have been multigenerational, with several generations of bones stored in each ossuary, but no record was kept of their contents[1

are you referring to the ossuaries that were later found to be unrelated? can you link it up for me? i'll get back to you with any data or thoughts i have on it.

It's really simple: If religious people insist on taking doctrine and religious texts literally, they will lose!!

Jeremy was obviously exaggerating, but the fact is, if you make laughable statements like "the world is only 10k years old because scientists are tricking us with carbon dating" then yes...people will make fun of you in today's modern world as science clearly debunks crazy claims like that. The only reason they make ridiculous claims that don't have any bearing in reality is because they interpret the religious text literally.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
It's really simple: If religious people insist on taking doctrine and religious texts literally, they will lose!!

Jeremy was obviously exaggerating, but the fact is, if you make laughable statements like "the world is only 10k years old because scientists are tricking us with carbon dating" then yes...people will make fun of you in today's modern world as science clearly debunks crazy claims like that. The only reason they make ridiculous claims that don't have any bearing in reality is because they interpret the religious text literally.

far as i can tell, the world is extremely ancient and the 10k date is related to the arrival of new civilizations after the prior global cataclysm (an ice age?). personally, i don't think the 10k civ was homo sapian. at least, not based on the artifacts, which don't suggest homo sapians but amphibian-mammalians and bipedal reptilian-mammalians. because they are so close to us physically, anthropologists assumed them to be earlier versions of homo sapians, which i am not convinced of at this point. none of the statuary or cave art depict homo sapians, prior to 3900 BC

reply to post by undo


WRONG!

We have homo-sapiens remains that are 23-27,000 years old!!

Source

Either way, we know we evolved from a creature that was also the ancestor of today's apes. Given that, and Genesis' claim that humans popped up on earth in their current form, we can safely conclude that the Genesis account is rubbish if you take it literally. It's pretty clear the first woman didn't come from the rib of a man

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by undo

 

WRONG!

We have homo-sapiens remains that are 23-27,000 years old!!

Source

Either way, we know we evolved from a creature that was also the ancestor of today's apes. Given that, and Genesis' claim that humans popped up on earth in their current form, we can safely conclude that the Genesis account is rubbish if you take it literally. It's pretty clear the first woman didn't come from the rib of a man

edit on 22-1-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

doesn't look human to me. i think they are reptilian-mammalians and amphibian-mammalians, like i said before, and this isn't just supported by artifacts, but by other forms of ancient art, and even texts written once writing was introduced in sumer.

look at this doozy.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/23a8c40a541cea31.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by undo


What makes you claim they're part amphibian or reptilian??? They have none of those characteristics??

I mean, we can analize their DNA...and guess what, not a single amphibian/reptilian trait.

As for the fellow you posted, sorry to disappoint, but he got NO amphibian/reptilian traits whatsoever...just to prove my point
Source

reply to post by The Djin


The Jesus title and Mary title were not blood linked and therefor either married or part of the same "family" tomb.

Key word there being family tomb. Jesus was buried in a stranger's tomb, donated.

In fact, this would further credit the bible, as the man whom donated his tomb was named Joseph. And if he married a marry and named his son Jesus, it would be for obvious belief reasons. A la the same reason many Hispanics name their son Jesus. In fact seeing as Spanish culture is a derivative of Middle Eastern culture, it would make ever more sense.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by undo

 

What makes you claim they're part amphibian or reptilian??? They have none of those characteristics??

i added pic of fossil above. i just looked at your link. that looks like an ape skull. i think they started mixing and matching the fossils, particularly if they were found in proximity, adding simian heads to reptilian mammalian or amphibian mammalian bodies, concluding they had found a link between monkeys and man. i have a few ancient artifact photographs if you're interested, that seem to support this theory. i don't think homo sapians are from this particular planet. i think this planet was inhabited by the aforementioned races for much longer than homo sapians has been here. this seems to be supported by every ancient text on the planet, including even the tibetan and chinese texts.

reply to post by undo


Eh, not so far. There is no missing link between human and our ape-cousin ancestor. nor any proof that they were reptilain whatever-you-call-it. In fact, from a purely scientific perspective, the only thing of reptile that had the potential to become humanoid were dinosaurs. And the closest member of their species to look human were brain-dead penguins and therizinosaur. In fact, the smartest members of the reptile family, and their bird descendants, do not look humanoid at all, nor do they show any inclinations to becoming humanoid.

Now, while supposed experts say they would, real science says they would not change into humanoids.

reply to post by undo


But we have no OBJECTIVE evidence that would lead us to that conclusion. Not one scientific finding would support the claim you're making. In science, witness testimony is the LOWEST FORM of evidence. Just look at how much hogwash you can find in ancient texts, stuff that's been debunked by science decades ago...like the Genesis account.

And lets not forget that we can trace the DNA development back for hundred of thousands of years. It's not just fossils, we have DNA backup

There's really no doubt in the scientific community that homo sapiens (modern human) evolved from ape-like creatures...