Anyone Raised by a strict Fundamentalist family?

[Broomstick]

You are a fuckwit.

So can anyone on this board debate like an adult without having to result to Jr. High level name calling?

No. You haven't figured that out yet?

The Crusades where a series of defensive wars.

The hell you say -- ! Did the Muslims invade Rome? No? Then why did the Catholics invade Jerusalem?

The Holy Inquisition was a move to purge Spain of traitors trying to infultrate the Church.

Funny how many of those traitors were old women with a little property and no family with a propensity for owning a cat.

No, fuckwit, the Holy Inquisition was to judge the belief of accused people through the means of torture that either killed them outright, lead to their execution, or left them maimed for life. The fact the property of the convicted went to the church could not possibly have influenced anyone, right?

The oppression of women and homosexuals was just horrible but is mostly in the past and is rapidly moving into the past.

Sorry about the death and suffering folks - we were just kidding!

What shit. Why can't women be priests in the Catholic church? Why do denominations that technically allow women to preside over religious services still have so few women in that role?

Slavery, Manifest destiny and colonialism have more to do with capitalism than religion and you know it.

Bullshit. All of those started under feudalism. All of them were actively supported by a christian church. The rape of Central America (and part of North America) and the enslavement of millions of Africans were justified by religion, excused by the idea of "bringing" the heathen to Christ. Manifest destiny = "we're christian so we have a right to take whatever we can from others. Colonialism = "we're christian so we have the right to rule others, regardless of what they want."

An how about the fact the Catholic Church basically BUILT Western Civilization? Our Schools, Our Hospitals

What, Ancient Eqypt, Rome, and Greece didn't have schools and medical care? What about the Library of Alexandria - built by pagans, burned by monotheists. How charming.

The christian church rejected science and medicine for centuries - ancient knowledge was preserved by the Arabs. Jews. and the muslims.

and the fact it's the worlds largest and possibly oldest charity organizations on the planet?

But if you aren't willing to sell your soul for a bowl of soup forget it. The charity has strings attached most of the time.

But they all do. You will never find two priests that believe the same exact thing.

Do you mean as in important issues or little side things that have no real importance and are rather optional like vestments and candles?

Let's see... suppression of dissenting versions of christianity in the early days of the church... schism between Catholic and Orthodox... the Protestant reformation... Abligensien crusade... I seem to recall the Russians slaughtering each other over doctrinal issues from time to time...

Christians have, historically, been willing to slaughter each other over trivia such as whether to make the sign of the cross with two fingers or three fingers.

Oh, and as far as the catholic church is concerned, the corruption goes all the way up to the top, and is supported by the parishoners who refuse to believe that father O'grady likes fucking children.

An Atheist refuse to believe the Catholic Church is bringing that under control and the problem is being well fixed.

I'm not an atheist, but I don't see the Catholic Church getting any better these days. There are good individuals in the church, but overall I'm not particularly impressed with the institution as a whole.

Depends on the truth. Physical properties, scientific principles, no. Morality in so far as the moral rule is not absolutely necessary for human functioning... pretty much. They are formed by a sort of non-conscious majority vote. The rule that works best for ordering society in a given environment with the interaction of other social forces will be subject to natural selection and spread in the population.

Conceded. Although obviously I believe the Holy Spirit is at work there but still conceded.

And if I say it's the Goddess and her Consort there's no more or less evidence than your statement - which is why the atheists reject such arguments.

I stand by what I said. You got some here wanting a caste system based on intelligence just read some of the posts.

As opposed to a caste system based on gender or race or who's too holy to accuse of witchcraft... Maybe if it was based on intelligence the world would be run more intelligently, at least.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I am just an honest argument here is the same as Foreign Policy to America i.e. beaten and whimpering.

Not many of you would last long in a real debate where you had to actually act like adults.

If you were interested at all in being honest you wouldn't whine like a little bitch over being called a naughty word even though that's been board practice forever and you've been signed up here long enough to know better.

Who's whinning I find it hilarious always have even when I took part. I tend to have favorites for this, those that can very it up and keep it interesting instead of using the same old same old.

It would really help if you spoke actual english

[Imperial Overlord]

I'd like to apologize for dog-piling the dumbfuck like a newbie trying to earn street cred, but I was lurking Testing recently and his comment on the "defensive war" Crusades raised the history nerd's ire in me.

He waved the red flag in front of a lot of people's eyes, mine included. The dumbfuck tried to defend the Spanish Inquisition on this board as if we no one would question drinking the Catholic Kool-Aid.

[StarshipTitanic]

Maybe he's trying to cut himself off from this forum because he's having trouble completing the Catholic brainwashing. From his own admission, he doesn't have many friends in real life and relies on the Pope to give him meaning. I guess the constant bombardment of reasonable people has kept the Pope's voice at bay, but he knows he's so weak-minded that the only way to keep himself from the forum is to get banned.

[Invictus ChiKen]

He waved the red flag in front of a lot of people's eyes, mine included. The dumbfuck tried to defend the Spanish Inquisition on this board as if we no one would question drinking the Catholic Kool-Aid.

As a side note I have to admit there is something about the RCC that really does tilt my world views from strongly liberal to strongly conservative. Sort of sneaks up on you just one day your going "I just said WHAT!?"

[Imperial Overlord]

He waved the red flag in front of a lot of people's eyes, mine included. The dumbfuck tried to defend the Spanish Inquisition on this board as if we no one would question drinking the Catholic Kool-Aid.

As a side note I have to admit there is something about the RCC that really does tilt my world views from strongly liberal to strongly conservative. Sort of sneaks up on you just one day your going "I just said WHAT!?"

No fucking shit. It's as regressive as hell. It is opposed to homosexual rights, safe sex, progress in medical science, and refuses to treat women as equal to men. It white washes and lies about its own past. Of course its conservative as fuck and you've decided to make it your crutch. You're surprised about what comes out of your own mouth because you've stopped thinking. Congratulations. You've succeeded at diminishing your own humanity.

[Invictus ChiKen]

So if I just end up being titled think I can get "Mindless Catholic Drone"?

[JohnM81]

There are two problems with this. Nowhere is Jesus ever called Immanuel. And also, the word used in the original hebrew was Ahlma, which means Young Woman, not virgin.

Your confusion here stems from not going back to the original Hebrew.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Isa 7:14 'Adonay Nathan 'owth `almah hareh yalad ben qara' shem 'el `Immanuw'el

First point, it’s not ahlma the transliteration is ‘almah and its has several meanings. Yes it means a young woman and it also means a virgin.

Gesenius Lexicon (‘almah):
1) virgin, young woman
a) of marriageable age
b) maid or newly married

Second point Immanuel is ‘el ‘Immanuw’el it’s a name with the meaning of God like one, God with us, and with us God. Basically it means the living God with us in human form. This prophesy was fulfilled many times over by declaring Jesus was the Christ and the son of God.

Mat 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
Mat 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

The other problem with this, oft touted messianic prophecy is that if you read it in the entire context of the seventh chapter, it is not a messianic prophecy at all. It is a prophecy about a child who will be born as a sign to the king of Judah, that he will not be defeated in battle by Syrians.

Id like to see you evidence for this claim. Sure the prophesy is in the same chapter describing the war with Syria but can you find out where the prophesy actually took place before the coming of Jesus Christ?

Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 Wait... are those clonflicting geneologies?

The mat 1:1-17 is the lineage on Joseph’s line. You notice this is the only lineage that says someone begot Joseph. The lineage described in luke 3:23 is mary’s family line. It actually states Joseph of Heli. It puts son in parenthesis because that’s not there in the Greek. This has been confirmed in the “Heralds Books” which are genealogy records of the time.

Malachi 4:5-6. This failed prophecy refers to Elijah coming before The Messiah. He did not do this. It does not refer to someone coming in the spirit of the Elijah. That would be an instance of christian revisionism of the hebrew text.

Oh?
Mat 17:12
"But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands."
Mat 17:13
Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.

Then there is the little fact that the Jewish concept of God is indivisible... so the trinity is right out.

Odd that you say that being the word used for God in the Torah is 'elohiym which is a word used in singular form however it literally means God in plural form. Secondly in Deuteronomy it says Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD. Again the word God is actually ‘elohiym so this is saying our God (gods) are one Lord. So you see the concept of the trinity is even in the OT.

Isiah 2: 4 And He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

this was supposed to be done IN HIS LIFETIME.

On the contrary he had to die to fulfill the old testament prophesy that you claim he didn’t do.

Psa 22:16
For dogs have surrounded Me;
The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced[fn3] My hands and My feet;

Psa 22:17
I can count all My bones.
They look and stare at Me.
Psa 22:18
They divide My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots.

And fulfilled here:

Mat 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

Not the same thing. For the bible to be true, one guy had to spawn both groups with different matrilines. But there is no evidence for that.

Let me get back to you on this one because I am not familiar with genetics and will have to read up on it.

If you are infallible you must also be omniscient. If you are omniscient you would have picked the course of action you knew you would intend the first time around. Also: you would have accounted for the fall of man. To be rather frank, the notion of an infallible omniscient god causes the breakdown of your entire theology, as it eliminates free will via predestination, and breaks down the idea that God did not intend sin to enter the world.

Being omniscient doesn’t mean God picked the course of action all it means is he knows which course of action is going to be picked by lesser beings with free will (us). Omniscience does cause a break down because it still allows free will as soon as we acknowledge that omniscience doesn’t mean you control every outcome rather you simply know what that outcome is.

That is just it. All the research done is either too recent (IE breaks down the different patrilineal groups in Judiasm, of which there are 8, not 12, and that includes arabs) or they go back so far you cant determine what ethnic groups are which. I did a search of the literature, the evidence is not there. The burden of proof is on you to show that one guy DID found the Semitic group.

Burden of proof? Nice try. I never set out to prove to you that Abraham is or isn’t the father of the nation of Israel. I will continue to search for primary literature that shows patrilineal groups are 8 but till then I can’t comment on it. Simply put my questions revolve around what was the sample size. What was the sample group. How did they screen out false patrilineal lines that would be generated by other ethnic groups having children with jews and arabs. If I find anything ill get back to you.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Being omniscient doesn’t mean God picked the course of action all it means is he knows which course of action is going to be picked by lesser beings with free will (us). Omniscience does cause a break down because it still allows free will as soon as we acknowledge that omniscience doesn’t mean you control every outcome rather you simply know what that outcome is.

You're a stupid cock who doesn't understand a single fucking bit of philosophy. For a quick lesson, omnipotence and free will are incompatible. It would be possible to be all-knowing without destroying free will, so omniscience is alright with free will, but to have both omniscience and free will, god must not be omnipotent. And if God is not omnipotent, what is the point of believing in him? The answer is none. He's just a space alien like Q. Assuming he exists, which of course he doesn't. Anyway, omnipotence, omniscience, and free will, are incompatible because if you know everything and you're all powerful, you'll make your thoughts into reality, thereby annihilating the free will which supposed caused that course of action in the first place.

You of course can't understand the logical contradiction in all three at once, and yet you must pick two. Calvinists and Muslims at least have the decency to deny the existence of free will, since any other combination invalidates your stupid religion.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So if I just end up being titled think I can get "Mindless Catholic Drone"?

No. I will however recommend "Catholic Fuckshit" when the thread comes up.

[JohnM81]

Hey John, does your worthless fucking false religion have any answer for what happened to ME?

What happened to you?

How the fuck do you think you have any right to come into a thread about the horrors of being raised in a fundamentalist household and defend your sickening, perverted ideology and its morbid obsession with torturing children?

Because I was raised in such a house, a house that was filled with two dedicated parents who were caring and loving. A house where I knew my parents were always there for me, put me first at great sacrifice to themselves and have earned my respected more than I could ever give them.

Do you really think you've had a good life? Let's start talking about your childhood and picking apart how you've been abused, and we'll see how much you love your false god then when you realize just how much of who you could have been has been destroyed.

I have had a good life. Ok what do you want to know about my child hood? Pick away.

But you won't do that, because you're a stupid coward…

I just did.

…and you aren't courageous enough to stand up and face the truth that there is no heaven, no hell, and only oblivion on death, and that those who you love who have died, will never come back, and you will never see them again.

Thanks for your unprovable opinion. Would you like to hear about my unprovable opinion?

And yet I had the most brave and honourable of friends, an old and rather traditional upper class Englishman, by the name of Drake, who was staunchly and firmly a rational atheist; he was once a moderator here. And he dealt with the death of someone dear to him, when we were the closest of friends many years ago before we fell out of touch, with an incredible equanimity that drove me to the highest respect of him--he needed no god and no solace in the cloying, false promises of resurrection. He was brave to the end for her sake, and handled her death with a loving reverence.

Sounds like a fascinating person to meet.

And in doing so he proved himself more the man, more courageous, more compassionate, steadfast, and at peace with himself, than a hundred little scurrying fools like yourself who need the false ideology of a God in the sky to comfort yourselves, the delusion that you will go on to something else.

Thanks for your unprovable opinion. Would you like to hear about my unprovable opinion?

You live for death, you stupid fool, and in doing so, you're letting life pass you by.

I live for death by believing in eternal life?

Every moment that you spend in fear of your god and in fear of his wrath and his anger, and in hope of his rewards, is a moment that you have wasted, blown away like the sands of the desert, all shifting, formless clay, wasted dreams and hopes without satiation.

You’re a poet and I didn’t even know it.

Turn from your false god and live life as it may be lived, not as some wild party animal or epicurean who indulgences in material things, if you wish, but in the gentle and firm Stoicism that I had so wonderfully displayed for me in the form of my dear friend Drake, and to whom our civilization may worthily look for an example in Marcus Aurelius.

If there is no God and no life after death, why should I not live my life as a party animal drinking my fill of happiness at the expense of anyone/everyone?

And you don't even have the decency to go back to the original source--Enter the Risen Osiris, Risen Again! (do you find the words of pagans so strangely familiar? I hope so--you copied them!)--and follow a more fundamentally decent version of your myth, in which the reborn Osiris points your way to an afterlife which is exactly like our own life up here, except with all the faults removed, no more starvation and no more suffering, and entrance is judged on merit rather than the specious concept of forgiveness and the ethical and moral horrors that it entails. You are instead worshipping a God who promises you only eternal worship of Himself, in the mad desire of a lunatic being for the endless flattery of mortals, a literal eternal of despair as you endlessly repeat choruses of praise and he makes you like it. Do you really believe such a God, such a God who promises you only an eternity of the endless chanting of hymns in worship to his name, could possibly exist? That such a monstrous fantasy of the worst priests in the Near East could have created this marvelous and structured universe, which has instead unfolded according to the mechanistic precision demanded by its component parts? A God who fancies to save people according to their worship for him rather than any ethical or moral standards?

To be honest, I have heard this story a hundred times before only from different people and different claims of other cults that Christianity is a copy from.

If you are to persist in your delusional religious beliefs, you could at least have the decency to turn your prayers to Osiris, who both came first and offers a more decent and humane afterlife and an ethical means for judging your entry to it--and for the condemned offers not an eternity of torture, but rather the mere oblivion of the consumption of the Soul. Yet you don't even have the courage to realize that your religion is a pastiche farce based on older faiths, and turn to them instead. No, you will instead persist in the comforting delusion that you are the chattel slave of a mad Deity, out of fear of his wrath and systematic inoculation from the day you were born into a belief that there was nothing better out there. But there is, and each second that ticks while you remain Christian is another second that you have let it all pass you by.

Tell you what, when I die and if awake to find Osiris I owe you 10 bucks. If I find God as described in the bible you owe me 10 bucks. If there is nothing but worm food after death then we will call it even ok? I have no fear of death, it is a simple eventuality that I have accepted. My belief in God isn’t based on fear of the unknown or the desire to comfort myself. My belief is based on a desire to be with a being who has reached out to me and brought me to him.

[JohnM81]

Every Christian picks and chooses which parts of the bible to follow and which not to. Or they let their church pick and choose for them. Some pick the good parts, some pick the bad. Or are you denying this claim?

I would deny that claim

[Gandalf]

Every Christian picks and chooses which parts of the bible to follow and which not to. Or they let their church pick and choose for them. Some pick the good parts, some pick the bad. Or are you denying this claim?

I would deny that claim

Why?

There's plenty of contradictory material in that wacky book. Unless the church is promoting doublethink, you need to pick and choose.

[Lusankya]

If there is no God and no life after death, why should I not live my life as a party animal drinking my fill of happiness at the expense of anyone/everyone?

Seriously, this sentence is exactly why atheists are more moral than Christians like you.

I don't filly my happiness at the expense of others, because they too have no life after death. I can't justify being cruel to others by saying, "Well, at least they'll have it better in heaven." That's right. I treat others well, because I feel a basic concern for them and I don't want them to suffer. I don't believe in an afterlife, I don't believe in judgement, but I have enough generosity to be kind to others. Can you even comprehend that? I seriously doubt it, since you felt the need to ask such a question.

.. that, and living my life as a party animal would probably shorten my life drastically, and since there's no life after death, I wouldn't want that, now, would I?

[Darth Wong]

Funny how anyone that disagrees with you becomes a liar Mike...

If you think my point-by-point rebuttal is not valid, then find some flaw with it. Otherwise, you're making a claim you can't back up, and I'm calling you out on it right now, fucktard. Back it up or get the fuck off my forum.

He claims that Galatians 3:28 decisively ends any ethnic restrictions on marriage, even though it says nothing about marriage. He's a liar. If you think my only justification for calling him a liar is the fact that he disagrees with me, then back that up. Explain yourself, asshole. Or I'll ban you by supper and trust me, nobody will miss you.

Well Galatians more or less does. If there are no races or no differences how can you justify interracial marriage except by picking and choosing your words?

So you subscribe to Idiot Boy's interpretation that the sentence is to be taken literally, so that we actually no longer recognize any distinction between Jew and gentile, male and female, slave and freeman? Even though Paul himself, who wrote Galatians, ranted elsewhere about how women should keep their heads down and shut the fuck up in the church?

There are only two ways to subscribe to this interpretation, asshole: liar or idiot. Which one are you?

PS. You show no interest in retracting your bullshit claim that I automatically accuse anyone who disagrees with me of being a liar. Apparently, I didn't spell it out clearly enough last time. I'm spelling it out now: either you back up this claim, retract it, or say goodbye.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

What happened to you?

Just, fuck off, seriously. You're so consumed with your pathetic little religion that you can't even read the goddamned thread, na klar.

Because I was raised in such a house, a house that was filled with two dedicated parents who were caring and loving. A house where I knew my parents were always there for me, put me first at great sacrifice to themselves and have earned my respected more than I could ever give them.

Pity they didn't teach you english, and you've certainly proved yourself to be a worthless idiot in terms of your education and capabilities, so, they didn't do so good of a job after all.

I have had a good life. Ok what do you want to know about my child hood? Pick away.


I just did.

Oh, it's alright. The whole polemical was an effort at shocking you for a moment, but since it didn't take, you're hopeless to that sort of approach, and I'll leave you be--no reason to drag dirty laundry through the streets. The dogs might get sick.

Thanks for your unprovable opinion. Would you like to hear about my unprovable opinion?

No, because mine isn't an unprovable opinion, it is the best theory to fit the known facts. Whereas your's, I have heard plenty of times, thanks kindly.

Sounds like a fascinating person to meet.

He is! He'd eat a little twerp like you up like chopped liver, but do it with a politeness to put to shame a saint.

Thanks for your unprovable opinion. Would you like to hear about my unprovable opinion?

Not an unprovable opinion, but the best theory to fit the known evidence.

I live for death by believing in eternal life?

Correct. Your mortal life is spent preparing for your death; ergo, you live for death.

You’re a poet and I didn’t even know it.

You know, my sister once said that any person who used that phrase was an unreflective idiot, and though that is not proof that you are an unreflective idiot, since you have already proved yourself to be one earlier in this thread, it is confirmation that she is correct.

If there is no God and no life after death, why should I not live my life as a party animal drinking my fill of happiness at the expense of anyone/everyone?

Because it's not right. Because there is much work to be done in the world--and there is life to be lived rightly and beautifully. Each life is a painting, and death is but the last and finishing brush-stroke. The idea that the lack of a god absolves us from all moral responsibility was decisively disproved by Kant in the 18th century, and the fact that inherent morality exists, governed and divined by the nature of our bodies and development as sapient primates, is unquestionable. We need no God to behave in a righteous and ethical fashion, and if you do, then you're a sociopath who should be shot for the safety of the rest of us.

To be honest, I have heard this story a hundred times before only from different people and different claims of other cults that Christianity is a copy from.

It's a pity you didn't listen to them, since they're all right.

Tell you what, when I die and if awake to find Osiris I owe you 10 bucks. If I find God as described in the bible you owe me 10 bucks. If there is nothing but worm food after death then we will call it even ok? I have no fear of death, it is a simple eventuality that I have accepted.

That you have accepted by deluding yourself into believing there is an afterlife. No need for a bet--I will be more interested in how the Scales judge you if Osiris is there waiting for us.

My belief in God isn’t based on fear of the unknown or the desire to comfort myself. My belief is based on a desire to be with a being who has reached out to me and brought me to him.

Reached out to you and brought you to him? Where did he provide his miraculous proofs of this? Is it just a feeling inside of you? It surely is, I know, a feeling created by decades of brainwashing by your parents and your church. No, no, my good fellow, you are not important enough for the supposed creator of the universe to care about. And it is the height of human arrogance to think otherwise--born-again Christians are the most arrogant people who have ever lived, and we may be reasonably assured that if beings of the power of Yahweh exist that they are more along the lines of Yog-Sothoth than your precious Jesus the Christ.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Your confusion here stems from not going back to the original Hebrew.

Except that no one uses Ahlma like that. It has that meaning, but it is an uncommon usage. The most common ancient word for virgin is Betula(sp)

Second point Immanuel is ‘el ‘Immanuw’el it’s a name with the meaning of God like one, God with us, and with us God. Basically it means the living God with us in human form. This prophesy was fulfilled many times over by declaring Jesus was the Christ and the son of God.

Kind of like someone claiming to be Napoleon? What is your source for the Hebrew? If you are using a lexicon, you may want to try a native speaker. I have a Pocket Jew I might be able to recommend to you.

7thus says the Lord GOD: "(O)It shall not stand nor shall it come to pass.

8"For the head of Aram is (P)Damascus and the head of Damascus is Rezin (now within another 65 years Ephraim will be shattered, so that it is no longer a people),

9and the head of Ephraim is Samaria and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah. (Q)If you will not believe, you surely shall not last."'"
The Child Immanuel
10Then the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying,

11"Ask a (R)sign for yourself from the LORD your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven."

12But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD!"

13Then he said, "Listen now, O (S)house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will (T)try the patience of (U)my God as well?

14"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, (V)a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name [a](W)Immanuel.

15"He will eat (X)curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.

16"(Y)For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, (Z)the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.

THis is a local prophecy. Not one that takes place far in the future. But one that takes place in the present. Basic reading comprehension gives you this.

Isaiah 8
Damascus and Samaria Fall
1Then the LORD said to me, "Take for yourself a large tablet and (A)write on it in ordinary letters: (B)Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey.

2"And I will take to Myself faithful witnesses for testimony, (C)Uriah the priest and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah."

3So I approached the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. Then the LORD said to me, "Name him [a](D)Maher-shalal-hash-baz;

4for (E)before the boy knows how to cry out 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of (F)Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria."

In the next chapter, the prophecy is fulfilled. Again, basic reading comprehension.

Psa 22:16
For dogs have surrounded Me;
The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced[fn3] My hands and My feet;

Psa 22:17
I can count all My bones.
They look and stare at Me.
Psa 22:18
They divide My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots.

There is no indication anywhere of this Psalm being prophetic. Also. I have spoken with a rabbi on this not long ago. It is not Pierced hands and feet, it is Like Lions at my hands and feet. Translated from the hebrew. Bear in mind, I am parroting from a native speaker who has a copy of this very psalm in a copy of the complete Tanach in hebrew that he teaches from...

Being omniscient doesn’t mean God picked the course of action all it means is he knows which course of action is going to be picked by lesser beings with free will (us). Omniscience does cause a break down because it still allows free will as soon as we acknowledge that omniscience doesn’t mean you control every outcome rather you simply know what that outcome is.

Idiot, if the outcome is known there is no power of contrary choice. The outcome was decided by one real choice. Gods. When he created the universe taking into account all of the infinite information at his disposal (assuming for the sake of argument that he exists at all) And because he knows the outcome, nothing that happens as a result of what he sets in motion can be unintended.

God intended the fall of lucifer, he also intended the fall of man (even setting it up, knowing the outcome). Everything. Your theology breaks down.

The mat 1:1-17 is the lineage on Joseph’s line. You notice this is the only lineage that says someone begot Joseph. The lineage described in luke 3:23 is mary’s family line. It actually states Joseph of Heli. It puts son in parenthesis because that’s not there in the Greek. This has been confirmed in the “Heralds Books” which are genealogy records of the time.

Do you think I am an idiot? I read the geneologies. The one in Mat is the geneology of Jesus through Joseph going forward. The one in Luke is the same geneology, of jesus via joseph going backward, with different people in each one. Dont try to bullshit me.

Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.

I am pretty sure the OT meant a literal Elijah returning as a herald. You know you are a pretty terrible literalist...

Odd that you say that being the word used for God in the Torah is 'elohiym which is a word used in singular form however it literally means God in plural form.

Not according to the rabbi I know.... I am pretty sure he knows his hebrew better than you or your christian lexicon

Burden of proof? Nice try. I never set out to prove to you that Abraham is or isn’t the father of the nation of Israel.

You were the one making claims about the heritage of semites.

[Saxtonite]

but check out Rapture Ready of Teens 4 Christ.

do you mean these? Googling the whole thing turns nothing, with quotes only the quote you made on this site. Breakign up the quote turns up this for 'Rapture Ready'
http://www.raptureready.com/rap2.html

and for 'Teens 4 christ' thing
http://www.teens-4-christ.org/

do you mean these sites?

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Every Christian picks and chooses which parts of the bible to follow and which not to. Or they let their church pick and choose for them. Some pick the good parts, some pick the bad. Or are you denying this claim?

I would deny that claim

Are you seriously claiming that you follow the Bible word for word, even ignoring the contradictions?

[Saxtonite]

What the fuck?

The hell you say -- ! Did the Muslims invade Rome? No? Then why did the Catholics invade Jerusalem?

The Muslims took "the holy land" first and begin invading into Turkey and conquering Christian lands, forcing the Christians to fight back.

[Gandalf]

Every Christian picks and chooses which parts of the bible to follow and which not to. Or they let their church pick and choose for them. Some pick the good parts, some pick the bad. Or are you denying this claim?

I would deny that claim

Are you seriously claiming that you follow the Bible word for word, even ignoring the contradictions?

Obviously not, given that in Romans they seem to advise shunning people of differing beliefs.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What the fuck?

The hell you say -- ! Did the Muslims invade Rome? No? Then why did the Catholics invade Jerusalem?

The Muslims took "the holy land" first and begin invading into Turkey and conquering Christian lands, forcing the Christians to fight back.

The byzantines and the catholics did not get along very well, and this "defense" did not stop the crusaders from sacking jewish settlements, and constantinople

[Darth Wong]

Of course the Nazis are racist. They define the term for themselves and then proceed to hate those groups. But even they use the term improperly just as you do. They advance a superiority of white people as if that was a pure line and even by your own words whites are most definitely very mixed.

Race is a loosely defined social construct of similar looking people with a similar heritage. Historically, Jews and Arab say they are brothers due to they both are decedents from Abraham. Genetically they are closely related with Palestinians and Syrian Arabs. If you want to claim racism then you have to say they are being racist against their own race. In Nigeria, sometimes a girl from one tribe can’t marry a guy in another tribe. Is that racism? Is it that the two tribes that lived together for hundreds of years are black and racist against blacks? If they would marry would it be an inter-racial marriage being they define themselves in distinct groups? Of course not.

So according to you, it is impossible for Jews and Arabs to have any racist feelings toward each other? It is impossible to even consider them distinct ethnicities, just because they have some common ancestry? Do you have any idea what an obviously dishonest little twat you are? What the fuck is your idea of racism? Since when is it necessary for the two races to have no shared genetic ancestry whatsoever?

Nothing about that line says anything about marriage. It is YOU who thinks that it means equal treatment between races in ANY respect other than worship, and if you interpret it that way, then you must also interpret it to mean equal treatment between sexes and the elimination of slavery.

No no no. You totally miss understood what I was trying to say. I wasn’t saying that we can’t learn about slavery and equality of sexes from that verse. I was trying to say that “I” wasn’t making any claims about it. As in I wasn’t addressing that issue when using that verse. Look where you plucked that line from when you quoted me. It was in the paragraph where I was talking about how we are changing the subject of marriage restrictions to slavery and equality of the sexes.

OK, this is getting irritating, so I'm going to stop this right here and demand that you go back, actually read my objection to your statement, and try to understand what I'm saying. Because your rebuttal does not seem to have anything at all to do with what I said. It honestly looks like you were answering something that someone else wrote.

[Darth Wong]

Every Christian picks and chooses which parts of the bible to follow and which not to. Or they let their church pick and choose for them. Some pick the good parts, some pick the bad. Or are you denying this claim?

I would deny that claim

Are you seriously claiming that you follow the Bible word for word, even ignoring the contradictions?

He's a "sola scriptura" fundie. These idiots believe that there are no contradictions in the Bible. When confronted with an obvious contradiction (hell, the gospels don't even agree on Jesus' last words), they spin like mad trying to concoct rationalizations for it.

[Duckie]

I would deny that claim

Are you seriously claiming that you follow the Bible word for word, even ignoring the contradictions?

He's a "sola scriptura" fundie. These idiots believe that there are no contradictions in the Bible. When confronted with an obvious contradiction (hell, the gospels don't even agree on Jesus' last words), they spin like mad trying to concoct rationalizations for it.

Jesus had a pair of mouths. One of them said something different, and only one of the gospel-writers was listening.

The reason why he heard something different is because one of the mouths was on a different temporal axis, and that explains why John was written hundreds of years after the other Gospels.

Or something.

Seriously, how would one rationalise Jesus's last words being different? I can't even think of a method.