Religion: Better For Moral Health Of Community?

[NormATive]

Surrre you don't Norm, you just write things like:



And now that it's been shown you were wrong on all of your claims and assertions, you are quickly trying to do a 180 from your dumb claim because you can't admit you were wrong about anything. Don't want me to jump into a conversation, don't try to say every Christian isn't a 'true Christian' because they are not jihadists who are attempting to take over the world.



No, that isn't true at all Norm, as you said:



Do you not have the mental capacity to write what you mean or did you have a bit of a slip where you did write what you mean and now are trying to backpedal faster than a cartoon character about to fall off a cliff because you can't admit you were wrong about anything? You started this little fight Norm when you tried to claim every Christian on this forum was not a 'true Christian' and attempted to back up this claim with out of context Bible verses. Ignoring the clear application of your own words isn't going to save you from admitting you were wrong Norm. As for spending every minute on a web site, I might spend an hour here, at most, in a day. Most of my day is full of lots of other things, including volunteering for my community too. Believe it or not, I can get a lot done with the other 23 or so hours of the day. How do you know what I do in a typical day?



So what Norm? You said:



Which is an attack upon every Christian on this forum, including myself. What's the problem Norm, do you not like having to defend your words and don't like that your facts were wrong and you just can't admit to that? I don't care if you were taking to Seer or not, you attacked me as much as you did him or are you trying to wiggle your way out of your own words because you can't admit you were wrong about anything?



Surrre Norm. What actually happened is that you made a stupid comment, based upon a bad interpretation of the Bible, and now are trying to backpedal because you can't admit to an error. Besides, how are they taking their religion more seriously just because they are willing to kill and die? How does that equal 'more seriously'? Does that mean since Jesus willing went to the cross that he didn't take religion too seriously because he wasn't willing to kill for it? Does that mean Saint Peter didn't take religion seriously either since he, later in life, gave his life for his savior, but didn't kill for it? Do you have any idea how stupid and outright offensive that is, to imply that since Christians are not doing X, they can't be 'true Christians'? How about other people, of the Christian faith, who were not jhidhist and didn't take up a sword and kill in the name of Christ? Are they not 'true Christians' either? I could also point out your own words again:



No where did you say they 'appear to be' because you made a dumb comment and are quickly trying to backpedal out of it because you can't admit to what you actually said. Try harder Norm... your dodging isn't working.


No you are not Norm, what you are actually saying is that only those who are going out and plotting world domination are 'true believers' and those who are not do not 'take their religion seriously'. How did you determine that only those willing to kill for their religious beliefs are true followers? I thought it was those who faithfully followed the teachings of their faith that were 'true followers' and those who didn't were not 'true followers'. Since you can't support your assertion that Christians should be plotting world domination, how could you make the assertion that Jihadist are faithful to their religion and Seer, myself, and the rest of Christians here on tWeb are not? Admit it Norm, you said something really dumb and just can't admit you made an error.



No Norm, I'm focused on attacking you for what you actually said vs your sad attempts to warp your own words into something that you didn't say, at all because you want to dig your way out of admitting to your mistakes. I just don't like the fact that my 'reading between the lines' doesn't include your attempts to switch up your words into something else because you said:



No where did you say 'appear'. You clearly met to contrast true believers as being those willing to take over the world vs those who are not and saying only those who are willing to take over the world are 'true believers' and no where did you say otherwise, until your biblical interpretations were shot down. Nice attempted dodge, but your attempts to re-write what you clearly said and applied will not work here when your words do not back that up, at all.



When will you learn that is a public forum and I'm allowed to say what I want and jump into a conversation I want? Of course I 'ruined it' because I showed you were dead wrong and you just can't admit you made any sort of mistake. Dig that hole to China because anything is better than just admitting you were wrong, eh?


Of course you want to ignore me, you made a total jack ass out of yourself and are too full of pride to just admit you made a mistake. You could have said that you met what you said above, right at the beginning, but you didn't do that, at all. What you attempted to do is back up your position that 'true believers' were ones willing to kill for their beliefs. When that became unattainable to hold to, you tried this dodge and trying to imply that I can't 'read between the lines' when you were not using this dodge until after your interpretations were shot down. While I might be a blonde, I'm not stupid Norm and I'm not going to fall for your attempts to re write history since you didn't mean what you said above at all because if you did, you would have used that defense without having to resort to throwing up Biblical passages and changing up your story once your interpretations were shown as wrong. I'm sure you'd really love to put me on ignore because you don't want to admit you were wrong. Don't worry though, I'm sure closing your eyes and blaming me for your own words will make all that nasty evidence stuff disappear into a puff of smoke. Again, you made your bed, now sleep in it.

It is not my fault that you can't comprehend what I am saying. I am not wrong. Your complete breakdown and foaming at the mouth tells me that you might actually feel convicted about your lack of seriousness about your religion.

When I was a believer, I went out into the streets preaching the gospel. I didn't waste my time arguing among my fellow Christians, like you guys do here at T-Web. Hell, you won't even allow non-Christians to sully your precious forum. We are delegated to this small corner where you can all gang up on anyone who challenges your thinking.

I finally saw the light when I got stabbed in a bar for proselytizing. I REALLY THOUGHT the Bible was true - that I would be protected from harm if I were preaching the Gospel of Christ. You know what the Church did? They told me I had to quit the street preaching for fear our insurance policy would be cancelled!!

So, I think you are feeling a little bit guilty. It's totally understandable. That's why I don't take your insults personally. Although, I still wish I could put you on ignore. I had to spend at least 10 seconds scrolling past your diatribe.

NORM

[NormATive]

Of course he does. He hates Christians and Christianity and just can't admit he was wrong (to me at least) because his hatred for me is almost as strong as his hatred for Christianity. At this point, he's just thrashing around like a fish caught on hook. He'll tire himself out eventually though.

I don't hate Christians. I don't hate you - I don't even know you. You are probably a 14 year old, pimply-faced kid sneaking on his Mom's computer. And I won't tire of proving you wrong.

Sorry.

NORM

[NormATive]

Thanks Tass,

That's all I was trying to point out. There is not much difference between the patriarchal, Abrahamic religions if they are taken seriously - and especially; literally. I agree with you that it is very fortunate that modern Christians do not take the more violent parts of the Bible as compelling truth.

NORM

[Cerealman]

Thanks Tass,

That's all I was trying to point out. There is not much difference between the patriarchal, Abrahamic religions if they are taken seriously - and especially; literally. I agree with you that it is very fortunate that modern Christians do not take the more violent parts of the Bible as compelling truth.

NORM

Wow you and tass just wow.
That's exactly what Pix was pointing out, you don't know what you're talking about.
I'd say you and tass are laymen when it comes to explaining the bible,but then I'd be a liar.

[Cerealman]

It is not my fault that you can't comprehend what I am saying. I am not wrong. Your complete breakdown and foaming at the mouth tells me that you might actually feel convicted about your lack of seriousness about your religion.

When I was a believer, I went out into the streets preaching the gospel. I didn't waste my time arguing among my fellow Christians, like you guys do here at T-Web. Hell, you won't even allow non-Christians to sully your precious forum. We are delegated to this small corner where you can all gang up on anyone who challenges your thinking.

I finally saw the light when I got stabbed in a bar for proselytizing. I REALLY THOUGHT the Bible was true - that I would be protected from harm if I were preaching the Gospel of Christ. You know what the Church did? They told me I had to quit the street preaching for fear our insurance policy would be cancelled!!

So, I think you are feeling a little bit guilty. It's totally understandable. That's why I don't take your insults personally. Although, I still wish I could put you on ignore. I had to spend at least 10 seconds scrolling past your diatribe.

NORM

So at the time when you were a "true christian" and I do hope you did the following or I guess you're just a hypocrite:
Live by the sword?
Try to take over the world with your "true christian" charisma?
I could make the list longer if I have to.

[Darth Executor]

That’s the logical corollary for those who truly take their religion seriously: "Kill them all. God will select those who should go to heaven and those who should go to hell." — Abbot Arnold de Citeaux, 1205 (during the Fourth Crusade)

Fortunately for civilisation, religion is not taken as seriously as it once was in the West; it has been domesticated.

Unfortunately for civilisation you mean. As I pointed out earlier (might have been aother thread) domestication just means you will be rolled over by the next group of violent ideologues. Atheistardism has ruined western civilization. Insallah, this will be you one day:



In many ways he already is.

[NormATive]

So at the time when you were a "true christian" and I do hope you did the following or I guess you're just a hypocrite:
Live by the sword?
Try to take over the world with your "true christian" charisma?
I could make the list longer if I have to.

No, I just thought the Bible was literally true. That's what people had told me. They were wrong. I was willing to die for my faith if that's what it took.

NORM

[RumTumTugger]

It is not my fault that you can't comprehend what I am saying. I am not wrong. Your complete breakdown and foaming at the mouth tells me that you might actually feel convicted about your lack of seriousness about your religion.

there you go again Norm accusing someone dishonestly of doing what they aren't you are not a mind reader as you have shown. infact I"m not surprised you would be so wrong about lil pixie and others since you showed below how wrong you were about what to expect if you preached the Gospel when you thought you were a Christian.

When I was a believer, I went out into the streets preaching the gospel. I didn't waste my time arguing among my fellow Christians, like you guys do here at T-Web. Hell, you won't even allow non-Christians to sully your precious forum. We are delegated to this small corner where you can all gang up on anyone who challenges your thinking.

I finally saw the light when I got stabbed in a bar for proselytizing. I REALLY THOUGHT the Bible was true - that I would be protected from harm if I were preaching the Gospel of Christ. You know what the Church did? They told me I had to quit the street preaching for fear our insurance policy would be cancelled!!

looks like to me Norm you were in a church that didn't not take the bible seriously or they would have let you know that preaching the gospel would cause the world to hate you like they hated Jesus what made you think that you would not be hated for preaching the Gospel when Jesus said you would be hmm? you ignored or your church ignored the following verses or misunderstood what was clear in them.

Luk 6:22 Blessed are you when men hate you,
And when they exclude you,
And revile you, and cast out your name as evil,

and misunderstood this one

it did not mean not to expect others to not to attack you when preaching.

if you had of taken it seriously you would have continued no matter what your church leaders said if you felt that you were called to preach like that and if your church leaders had . you would have taken the example of the apostles in the book of ACTS seriously enough not to let those who can only harm you body to stop you from preaching the TRUTH if you ever knew it.

So, I think you are feeling a little bit guilty. It's totally understandable. That's why I don't take your insults personally. Although, I still wish I could put you on ignore. I had to spend at least 10 seconds scrolling past your diatribe.

NORM

Feeling a little guilty now NORM with this dishonest passive aggressiveness of yours giving folks feelings they don't' have and haven't shown? After being called on your building up strawman to attack so you don't have to reply to the actual argument and faith of the person?

Let me clue you in NORM You are being answered on your false view that to take the bible seriously you need to read it in a wooden literal modern day English sense of meaning instead of how God meant you to read it using the brain he gave you to understand that in its True Context the language, times, and culture it was written. As well as how the author meant it to be taken and how the people the author was writing to would understand it. Something you purposely keep ignoring when others point it out.

Until you admit you that is what you are doing with your railing against those of us who are trying to show you sound doctrine and TRUTH dishonestly giving them feelings they don't have you will show yourself as a Troll who only wants to hear what tickles his ears.

[Zymologist]

It is not my fault that you can't comprehend what I am saying. I am not wrong. Your complete breakdown and foaming at the mouth tells me that you might actually feel convicted about your lack of seriousness about your religion.

When I was a believer, I went out into the streets preaching the gospel. I didn't waste my time arguing among my fellow Christians, like you guys do here at T-Web. Hell, you won't even allow non-Christians to sully your precious forum. We are delegated to this small corner where you can all gang up on anyone who challenges your thinking.

I finally saw the light when I got stabbed in a bar for proselytizing. I REALLY THOUGHT the Bible was true - that I would be protected from harm if I were preaching the Gospel of Christ. You know what the Church did? They told me I had to quit the street preaching for fear our insurance policy would be cancelled!!

So, I think you are feeling a little bit guilty. It's totally understandable. That's why I don't take your insults personally. Although, I still wish I could put you on ignore. I had to spend at least 10 seconds scrolling past your diatribe.

NORM

Are you referring to the "Christianity 201" section? Because this doesn't make any sense to me at all. AFAICT, you're posting in a forum about how you're not allowed to post in that forum....

[tabibito]

It is not my fault that you can't comprehend what I am saying. I am not wrong. Your complete breakdown and foaming at the mouth tells me that you might actually feel convicted about your lack of seriousness about your religion.

Garbage insinuations and accusations are likely to annoy anyone. ... But no-one was foaming at the mouth - you were simply being treated to a bit of well earned ridicule.

When I was a believer, I went out into the streets preaching the gospel. I didn't waste my time arguing among my fellow Christians, like you guys do here at T-Web. Hell, you won't even allow non-Christians to sully your precious forum. We are delegated to this small corner where you can all gang up on anyone who challenges your thinking.

So sad. You're on a Christian site that allows other faiths (and non faiths) to discuss things openly subject to certain restrictions. Your presence here (and that of anyone else) is permitted by way of the generosity of the site owners - and you set to whinging about how they don't pander to your every whim, or run it the way you want them to.

I finally saw the light when I got stabbed in a bar for proselytizing. I REALLY THOUGHT the Bible was true - that I would be protected from harm if I were preaching the Gospel of Christ.

You got that wrong in spades. You THOUGHT the Bible was true? No you didn't - if you had thought that the Bible was true, you would have understood that proselytising puts your life on the line - anywhere, anywhen. If you didn't understand that basic and glaringly obvious scriptural point, you didn't know even the elementary principles. What were you preaching? In all probability, not the gospel. You obviously didn't know what it was.

You know what the Church did? They told me I had to quit the street preaching for fear our insurance policy would be cancelled!!

Based on your account, smart move by the Church concerned.

So, I think you are feeling a little bit guilty. It's totally understandable. That's why I don't take your insults personally. Although, I still wish I could put you on ignore. I had to spend at least 10 seconds scrolling past your diatribe.

You think there was something in your post to make a person feel guilty? Your hypocrisy won't have that effect on anyone.

[Cerealman]

No, I just thought the Bible was literally true. That's what people had told me. They were wrong. I was willing to die for my faith if that's what it took.

NORM

So you're a hypocrite then.
And there's your problem you thought wrong.

[RumTumTugger]

No, I just took the bible in a wooden literal modern day englishreading instead of looking at the orginal language, times wriiten(ANE), Genre, how the author of the writing meant it to be taken and how the people it was being written to orignally would have taken it thought the Bible was literally true. That's what people had told me to do. They were wrong. I was willing to die for my faith if that's what it took.

NORM

Fixed it for you.

Your problem is you did not use the brain God gave you. Norm, you just accepted that the fundy church you went to was using sound scholarship and doctrine when it wasn't, Instead of finding out that the bible is to be taken as a whole in it's True Context. Language written in, Times it was written in, Culture of the poeple it was written to genre of each writing in it, author what he meant, how the people of the time it was written in would have taken it(in light of thier culture). it would behoove you to do so before you start saying others are not taking thier faith seriously and putting on them feelings they do not have in order to ignore thier sound teaching of the TRUTH becuase it does not tickle your ear. If you refuse to then you are the one guilty of not taking God seriously not us.

[lilpixieofterror]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, especially in Protestant countries) the Church. According to this doctrine, only God can judge an unjust king. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is often expressed in the phrase "by the Grace of God," attached to the titles of a reigning monarch.

© Copyright Original Source

Some countries like Costa Rica maintain that the Roman Church is the state religion, even though they are democratic republic.

Hummm:

1. You're really having to stretch the Bible to make your argument work. Paul is talking about people submitting to the authority of the government and isn't saying to take over the world or attempt to take control though means of the sword, is he? In fact, Paul is most likely trying to stress the legality of Christianity so that the authorities see stuff like this and decided that Christians are not attempt to format rebellion. The exact opposite of your claims.
2. Constantine came to power in the early 4th century. Christianity got its start in the mid 1st century. That is over 250 years apart, greater than the distance between the founding of our own country and the modern day. Do you think the US has changed in 220 or so years? So what makes you think the church of the 4th century was the same as the church of the 1st century? Your second problem you are running into is Constantine seems to be reacting to political realities vs a real zeal to conquer in the name of Jesus. His behavior should tell us this. Why did he call a church council after he took over? Was it to establish Christianity as the official religion? No. Was it to take over the church? No. His goal was to just for them to agree and get along with one another since that made his empire stable. He didn't care what they agreed to, as long as they agreed. Does that sound like somebody conquering with a zeal for Christ or somebody using religion for political gain?
3. Divine theory came about centuries later and was primarily used as a new excuse for leaders to be in charge. Remember, in pre Christian days the kings and emperors claimed to be divine figures who were somehow gods among men. You can't claim to be a god among men if there is only one God, can you? So they needed a new excuse and that excuse is that you were somehow put into that position because God wanted you in charge.

So sorry Shuny, still not proof that Christianity is about using the sword for conquest and pointing out history from centuries later does not make your case work. If anything, that sort of proves that rulers adopted because Christianity came to be a major religious force, not because they made it into one. There is a difference.

[lilpixieofterror]

It is not my fault that you can't comprehend what I am saying. I am not wrong. Your complete breakdown and foaming at the mouth tells me that you might actually feel convicted about your lack of seriousness about your religion.

My, your projector is running full steam, isn't it? I comprehend what you are saying just fine. You're attempting to warp your words into something new because you can't refute what I actually said because you never met your words to mean your new interpretation that you invented from thin air. If so, why did you not say that and instead attempted to defend your view by saying the Bible agreed with you when it didn't? No Norm, what really is happening is your are breaking down and foaming at the mouth because you hate me so much that you can't admit you were wrong, to me, in any way. Why do you hate me so much Norm? Do I remind you of your fundy past and how badly you misunderstood the Bible?

When I was a believer, I went out into the streets preaching the gospel. I didn't waste my time arguing among my fellow Christians, like you guys do here at T-Web. Hell, you won't even allow non-Christians to sully your precious forum. We are delegated to this small corner where you can all gang up on anyone who challenges your thinking.

And you suppose that we don't do that ourselves? I've been a Sunday school teacher, in my church for years. I've also done defense of the faith, in public too. I remember taking on some kid when I was in college about his poor understanding of the Bible and boy was he angry when his views were shown as being wrong (much as you are doing right now). I also recall the Bible saying that body of Christ contains many parts and people are called to different things. Are the non Christians on the web that are need of saving that might not run into somebody otherwise that would help them along? You seem angry and bitter at people here on tWeb, why is that Norm? Why are you so angry and bitter towards anybody who defends the faith? Does that remind you of your fundamentalist past?

BTW tWeb and the Apologetics 301 forum specifically is a DEBATE FORUM about atheist vs Christian and the point of debate is to challenge your opposition. What's the problem, do you not want anybody to challenge you and instead what your words to go unchallenged and unrefuted because you can't handle critical challenges to your position. Do you know how I could tell somebody has a very weak position? They don't want it criticized, so your position must be very weak indeed.

I finally saw the light when I got stabbed in a bar for proselytizing. I REALLY THOUGHT the Bible was true - that I would be protected from harm if I were preaching the Gospel of Christ. You know what the Church did? They told me I had to quit the street preaching for fear our insurance policy would be cancelled!!

That's nice and where did Jesus promise to protect people, who preached the gospel, from harm? My Bible says something to the effect of, "In this world you will find trouble, but take heart, I have overcome the world." I seem to also recall that one of the disciples (James) was beheaded in the book of Acts. So how does the Bible say you'll be protected from harm when preaching the Gospel of Christ when the disciples found themselves in trouble all the time and even died in some pretty horrible and painful ways for their preaching of the Gospel? So again, it seems your root problem is in your bitterness towards your past and you project this bitterness onto us. Why are you so bitter and hateful Norm? Is that one of the reasons why? You hate us because of your former church and project this hatred and bitterness onto us?

So, I think you are feeling a little bit guilty. It's totally understandable. That's why I don't take your insults personally. Although, I still wish I could put you on ignore. I had to spend at least 10 seconds scrolling past your diatribe.

More of your projection I see. When you can't refute what is said... blame others instead of taking responsibility for your errors. Your bitterness and hate for anybody who reminds you, in any way, of your former fundamentalist life seems to attract such hatred and dislike. Why do you hate us so much?

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't hate Christians. I don't hate you - I don't even know you. You are probably a 14 year old, pimply-faced kid sneaking on his Mom's computer. And I won't tire of proving you wrong.

Does that make you feel better to pretend your opposition are teens vs adults that end up proving you're a moron that doesn't understand what he's talking about. If I'm only 14, does that mean I was only 6 when I started posting here on tWeb? My my... your dumb logic just shows itself as being worse and worse as time moves on and you just keep showing how much bitterness and hate you really hold for your former fundamentalist past. Too bad you can't prove me wrong and just end up making a jack ass of yourself and proving that I'm dead right every time you post. Hope you someday overcome your hatred towards Christians. Harboring that much hate and bitterness is never good for anybody.