How To Get To Heaven When You Die (2 Viewers)

[shader]

So you don't believe it's God's word. Well then, that settles it. But then if it's not God's word, what good is the "message of Jesus life", since we really don't even know if the gospels are true? In the end, it's just a bunch of stories of a good guy.

So you don't see any good in what Jesus taught? Thank you for proving my point that Christians miss the message of his life.

Look, I have no love for the church throughout the centuries. I believe they started going bad pretty quick, and got away from the message that Jesus preached, and the way that the church operated in the first few decades after Jesus death.

But random documents that have been unearthed don't prove that Paul was false. They prove that there were those against Paul. Which we already know...from reading Paul himself.

When archaeologists uncover copies of books of the Bible dated to 2nd and 3rd century that lack stories that exist in today's copies of the same books, we have evidence of when certain stories were added to the books well after the original authors wrote the letters. Some parts were added nearly nine centuries after the original author lived. The question of the Bible's inerrancy extends well beyond the issue of Paul. It's a situation where the evidence shows much interpolating, plagiarism and forgeries, where as Christians say it's inerrant because God inspired the authors. If that's the case, then God also needed to inspire the interpolators, the plagiarizers, and the forgers.

How that relates to Paul is that the evidence of these things being done in the writings were being done by those who believed in Paul's Gentile Christianity as opposed to those who believed in the Jewish Christianity of the twelve apostles and 70 disciples. When one understands this, then Paul's letters become much easier to read, as it was the gospel of the twelve apostles that was the "different gospel" Paul spoke of, and it was the Jewish Christians in the early Jerusalem church founded by the 12 apostles and the 70 disciples that were against Paul. So yes, even the Bible itself shows much evidence of Paul being false. This is hardly just a case of some random documents, like you want to marginalize it to be.

What you've done is open yourself up to the idea that the bible isn't God's Word, and begun investigating it from that perspective. Once you've done that, it's all over. Pretty soon you'll start questioning the gospels, then you'll question Jesus, then you'll give up on God. It's a slope without hope. All because you believe scholars who try and pick apart the "flaws" from a human perspective.

Yes. When I began on this journey over two years ago, it was a very scary thought to think I would let go of everything I believe in. That was motivation for me to NOT pursue these answers. But my motivation for truth was greater than my fear of having to let go of what I believe. And you are very correct. I view the Gospels as letters plagiarized from Jewish Christian sources of Jesus teachings, and modified to provide an argument for Paul's Gentile Christianity. Given the Roman Empire's war on heresy, writings that were not written to support Paul's christianity, or altered to support Paul's Christianity, were destroyed whenever they were found, leaving us to learn about what Jesus taught through the eyes of Pauline Christianity. Obviously that's not ideal, but what else are we left with thanks to what Christians did? And I can testify that my desire to NOT let go of my beliefs is why it took me two years to finally accept it. It's not something I wanted to let go of. I still want it to be true. There's just too much evidence showing it's not.

Take a step back, and think about the road you're on, and realize that there really isn't much value in the road you're headed down. Jesus believed in the authenticity of the bible, and quoted from the bible (It is written...) numerous times.

The entire new testament was written after Jesus died. Please do not use ridiculous logic if you want to discuss this with me. If you want to talk about what Jesus thought about scriptures that existed when he was alive, feel free, but neither you, nor anyone, can say they know what Jesus thought about writings that hadn't been written yet.

He obviously felt differently than you've begun to feel. Unless of course, he never really said those things...but if that's the case, then why do you care about the message of his life?

Again, it's hard to know what Jesus felt and even said. The Roman Empire pretty much screwed anyone from learning the facts when they went on a fact destroying mission when Paul's Christianity became Rome's religion. So please quit with absolutes like "obviously" when nothing can be obvious anymore.

I'm quite aware that the NT was written after Jesus' life. But the OT wasn't. I think it's quite obvious that is what I was referring to.

I wish you the best in your journey, but it looks like you've made your mind up.

 

[shader]

Jesus believed in the authenticity of the bible, and quoted from the bible (It is written...) numerous times.

Jesus said: “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." -- Luke 24:46-47.

Where is this quote found in the Hebrew scriptures?

He wasn't quoting one particular passage. He was giving an overview of different things that were written. There are scriptures that point to the suffering, the resurrection, the forgiveness of sins, etc. They aren't summed up in one quote, however.

 

[Jayrok]

Jesus believed in the authenticity of the bible, and quoted from the bible (It is written...) numerous times.

Jesus said: “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." -- Luke 24:46-47.

Where is this quote found in the Hebrew scriptures?

He wasn't quoting one particular passage. He was giving an overview of different things that were written. There are scriptures that point to the suffering, the resurrection, the forgiveness of sins, etc. They aren't summed up in one quote, however.

Oh. So it doesn't say that the messiah will suffer, die and rise from the dead in 3 days. Just different scattered passages sort of elude to it with a little new testament styled interpretation?

 

[Politician Spock]

Jesus believed in the authenticity of the bible, and quoted from the bible (It is written...) numerous times.

Jesus said: “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." -- Luke 24:46-47.

Where is this quote found in the Hebrew scriptures?

He wasn't quoting one particular passage. He was giving an overview of different things that were written. There are scriptures that point to the suffering, the resurrection, the forgiveness of sins, etc. They aren't summed up in one quote, however.

Oh. So it doesn't say that the messiah will suffer, die and rise from the dead in 3 days. Just different scattered passages sort of elude to it with a little new testament styled interpretation?

Which logic suggests Jesus didn't say that at all.

 

[Jayrok]

Jesus believed in the authenticity of the bible, and quoted from the bible (It is written...) numerous times.

Jesus said: “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." -- Luke 24:46-47.

Where is this quote found in the Hebrew scriptures?

He wasn't quoting one particular passage. He was giving an overview of different things that were written. There are scriptures that point to the suffering, the resurrection, the forgiveness of sins, etc. They aren't summed up in one quote, however.

Oh. So it doesn't say that the messiah will suffer, die and rise from the dead in 3 days. Just different scattered passages sort of elude to it with a little new testament styled interpretation?

Which logic suggests Jesus didn't say that at all.

I don't think he said it either. In the same conversation it says that Jesus opened the minds of the disciples so that they could understand the scriptures. Yet they still practiced Mosaic law and adhered strictly to Jewish rituals and dietary restrictions long after Jesus' death. These are the same disciples that had the Holy Spirit inside them guiding them after the ascension. But it isn't until Paul's preaching that circumcision and keeping kosher became obsolete. He seemed to be the only one who got the 'secret' that grace replaced the antiquated law. And all gentiles rejoiced.

 

[matuski]

Jesus believed in the authenticity of the bible, and quoted from the bible (It is written...) numerous times.

Jesus said: “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." -- Luke 24:46-47.

Where is this quote found in the Hebrew scriptures?

He wasn't quoting one particular passage. He was giving an overview of different things that were written. There are scriptures that point to the suffering, the resurrection, the forgiveness of sins, etc. They aren't summed up in one quote, however.

Send a few our way if you don't mind.

 

[dgreen]

I don't think he said it either. In the same conversation it says that Jesus opened the minds of the disciples so that they could understand the scriptures. Yet they still practiced Mosaic law and adhered strictly to Jewish rituals and dietary restrictions long after Jesus' death. These are the same disciples that had the Holy Spirit inside them guiding them after the ascension. But it isn't until Paul's preaching that circumcision and keeping kosher became obsolete. He seemed to be the only one who got the 'secret' that grace replaced the antiquated law. And all gentiles rejoiced.

So you think the "understanding scripture" has to do with rituals and diet? The verse about Jesus opening their minds to understand scripture is the sentence immediately before the quote you posted above, so I assumed they would be linked. I read the end of Luke 24 as verses 46-49 explain that which Jesus opened their minds to. Verse 45 says he opened their minds so they could understand scripture and verses 46-49 show what it is they now understood.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[timschochet]

And all the things you've done will soon be swept away

You'll begin to matter more than the things you say

 

[Jayrok]

I don't think he said it either. In the same conversation it says that Jesus opened the minds of the disciples so that they could understand the scriptures. Yet they still practiced Mosaic law and adhered strictly to Jewish rituals and dietary restrictions long after Jesus' death. These are the same disciples that had the Holy Spirit inside them guiding them after the ascension. But it isn't until Paul's preaching that circumcision and keeping kosher became obsolete. He seemed to be the only one who got the 'secret' that grace replaced the antiquated law. And all gentiles rejoiced.

So you think the "understanding scripture" has to do with rituals and diet? The verse about Jesus opening their minds to understand scripture is the sentence immediately before the quote you posted above, so I assumed they would be linked. I read the end of Luke 24 as verses 46-49 explain that which Jesus opened their minds to. Verse 45 says he opened their minds so they could understand scripture and verses 46-49 show what it is they now understood.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

No, I wasn't saying it had anything to do with rituals and diet. Just commenting about the statement in general. Their minds were opened to scripture. Not just the quotes about the messiah suffering and rising from the dead. Just the whole idea of now understanding the difference in the old and the new testaments (e.g. the new covenant apart from the old).

If Paul interpreted the OT as pointing to the gospel of grace and how it replaced the laws/restrictions, and he is correct... then how do the disciples, who had their own minds opened to understanding of the old scriptures by Jesus himself, not see things as Paul sees? They continued on status quo when it came to the requirements of being a convert.. until Paul came onto the scene.

 

[Politician Spock]

I don't think he said it either. In the same conversation it says that Jesus opened the minds of the disciples so that they could understand the scriptures. Yet they still practiced Mosaic law and adhered strictly to Jewish rituals and dietary restrictions long after Jesus' death. These are the same disciples that had the Holy Spirit inside them guiding them after the ascension. But it isn't until Paul's preaching that circumcision and keeping kosher became obsolete. He seemed to be the only one who got the 'secret' that grace replaced the antiquated law. And all gentiles rejoiced.

So you think the "understanding scripture" has to do with rituals and diet? The verse about Jesus opening their minds to understand scripture is the sentence immediately before the quote you posted above, so I assumed they would be linked. I read the end of Luke 24 as verses 46-49 explain that which Jesus opened their minds to. Verse 45 says he opened their minds so they could understand scripture and verses 46-49 show what it is they now understood.Or am I misunderstanding you?

Jesus spent three and a half years teaching that Israel needs to return to its roots. He taught that Israel is suffering from that which was added to scripture by men and their traditions. Understanding scripture isn't about rituals and diet. It's about love. Love for God, and love for neighbor. Without that love, keeping the law of the scriptures is meaningless.

Paul on the other hand came up with the idea that understanding scripture is about seeing in it that Jesus came to end the death and slavery that the law of the scriptures produces. He turned Jesus into a son of god and a savior, which were concepts he stole from other religions at the time, many of which had those concepts for many centuries and was easy for the gentiles he was converting to understand. He tied the "secret" of knowing god and salvation (a gnostic concept) to belief that Jesus was God when he was born, and paid for sins when he died. The belief that the twelve apostles had, and the 70 disciples had, and all the other followers had, is that Jesus was anointed to be the next King of Israel, the one who would end the gentile occupation of their land, and restore th twelve tribes to it. That's the messiah Jews believed would come. These people believed it was Jesus. It had nothing to do with belief that he was god, or that he would pay for sins and bring an end to the law. All of that came from Paul's visions. And the early church in Jerusalem rejected that, once they realized Paul had been preaching that for years on his missions. By then it was too late to stop what Paul had started, and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and end of Judea in 135 AD left Paul's version of Jesus essentially unopposed from that point on as believers in Jewish Christianity were scattered with all the Jews.

 

[dgreen]

I don't think he said it either. In the same conversation it says that Jesus opened the minds of the disciples so that they could understand the scriptures. Yet they still practiced Mosaic law and adhered strictly to Jewish rituals and dietary restrictions long after Jesus' death. These are the same disciples that had the Holy Spirit inside them guiding them after the ascension. But it isn't until Paul's preaching that circumcision and keeping kosher became obsolete. He seemed to be the only one who got the 'secret' that grace replaced the antiquated law. And all gentiles rejoiced.

So you think the "understanding scripture" has to do with rituals and diet? The verse about Jesus opening their minds to understand scripture is the sentence immediately before the quote you posted above, so I assumed they would be linked. I read the end of Luke 24 as verses 46-49 explain that which Jesus opened their minds to. Verse 45 says he opened their minds so they could understand scripture and verses 46-49 show what it is they now understood.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

No, I wasn't saying it had anything to do with rituals and diet. Just commenting about the statement in general. Their minds were opened to scripture. Not just the quotes about the messiah suffering and rising from the dead. Just the whole idea of now understanding the difference in the old and the new testaments (e.g. the new covenant apart from the old).

If Paul interpreted the OT as pointing to the gospel of grace and how it replaced the laws/restrictions, and he is correct... then how do the disciples, who had their own minds opened to understanding of the old scriptures by Jesus himself, not see things as Paul sees? They continued on status quo when it came to the requirements of being a convert.. until Paul came onto the scene.

But I don't understand why you think "opening their minds to understand the scripture" is about more than what is in the surrounding quotes. Based on the context, I don't think it's trying to say that Jesus opened their minds to things not hinted at in the quotes. I don't take verse 45 to be all encompassing. Why Jesus waited for Paul, I don't know. But the Bible (and life) is full of "Why doesn't God do things this way or that way" type of questions.

 

[Politician Spock]

But the Bible... is full of "Why doesn't God do things this way or that way" type of questions.

There's a reason for that.

 

[Jayrok]

I don't think he said it either. In the same conversation it says that Jesus opened the minds of the disciples so that they could understand the scriptures. Yet they still practiced Mosaic law and adhered strictly to Jewish rituals and dietary restrictions long after Jesus' death. These are the same disciples that had the Holy Spirit inside them guiding them after the ascension. But it isn't until Paul's preaching that circumcision and keeping kosher became obsolete. He seemed to be the only one who got the 'secret' that grace replaced the antiquated law. And all gentiles rejoiced.

So you think the "understanding scripture" has to do with rituals and diet? The verse about Jesus opening their minds to understand scripture is the sentence immediately before the quote you posted above, so I assumed they would be linked. I read the end of Luke 24 as verses 46-49 explain that which Jesus opened their minds to. Verse 45 says he opened their minds so they could understand scripture and verses 46-49 show what it is they now understood.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

No, I wasn't saying it had anything to do with rituals and diet. Just commenting about the statement in general. Their minds were opened to scripture. Not just the quotes about the messiah suffering and rising from the dead. Just the whole idea of now understanding the difference in the old and the new testaments (e.g. the new covenant apart from the old).

If Paul interpreted the OT as pointing to the gospel of grace and how it replaced the laws/restrictions, and he is correct... then how do the disciples, who had their own minds opened to understanding of the old scriptures by Jesus himself, not see things as Paul sees? They continued on status quo when it came to the requirements of being a convert.. until Paul came onto the scene.

But I don't understand why you think "opening their minds to understand the scripture" is about more than what is in the surrounding quotes. Based on the context, I don't think it's trying to say that Jesus opened their minds to things not hinted at in the quotes. I don't take verse 45 to be all encompassing. Why Jesus waited for Paul, I don't know. But the Bible (and life) is full of "Why doesn't God do things this way or that way" type of questions.

I see what you're saying. Opening their minds to scripture and giving them the Holy Spirit helper to guide them, presumably also in understanding... just seems like the perfect opportunity for the Apostles to 'get it'.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

What you've done is open yourself up to the idea that the bible isn't God's Word, and begun investigating it from that perspective. Once you've done that, it's all over. Pretty soon you'll start questioning the gospels, then you'll question Jesus, then you'll give up on God. It's a slope without hope. All because you believe scholars who try and pick apart the "flaws" from a human perspective.

Am I reading too much into this? That an open, inquisitive mind has no hope believing this stuff?

 

[joffer]

What you've done is open yourself up to the idea that the bible isn't God's Word, and begun investigating it from that perspective. Once you've done that, it's all over. Pretty soon you'll start questioning the gospels, then you'll question Jesus, then you'll give up on God. It's a slope without hope. All because you believe scholars who try and pick apart the "flaws" from a human perspective.

Am I reading too much into this? That an open, inquisitive mind has no hope believing this stuff?

welcome to presuppositional apologetics

 

[Paddington]

[SIZE=12pt]THIS VIDEO WILL EXPLAIN HOW THE NEW TESTIMENT OF THE BIBLE WAS CANONIZED (CAME TO BE):[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]WHOLE VIDEO:

http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=D76LD7NXhttp://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=8adaf8fda7c348271151[/SIZE]

 

[Politician Spock]

[SIZE=12pt]THIS VIDEO WILL EXPLAIN HOW THE NEW TESTIMENT OF THE BIBLE WAS CANONIZED (CAME TO BE):[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]WHOLE VIDEO:[/SIZE]

http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=D76LD7NX

Leaves a lot out. Never even mentioned "Q".... Or maybe it did. I got bored watching it so maybe I missed it.

 

[Politician Spock]

What you've done is open yourself up to the idea that the bible isn't God's Word, and begun investigating it from that perspective. Once you've done that, it's all over. Pretty soon you'll start questioning the gospels, then you'll question Jesus, then you'll give up on God. It's a slope without hope. All because you believe scholars who try and pick apart the "flaws" from a human perspective.

Am I reading too much into this? That an open, inquisitive mind has no hope believing this stuff?

welcome to presuppositional apologetics

Yes. It just goes to show that humans are capable of going to great lengths within their thought process to believe what they want to believe, even going so far as to set boundaries of thought, as to not even consider that which does not support the belief.

I will say it again that I want Christianity to be true. I've wanted it to be true for over three decades. My desire for it to be true is stronger today than it has ever been. But I had to be willing to consider that it might not be true in order to stop limiting my thought process by my desire for it to be true. After doing so, I can now see that without my desire for it to be true, I would not believe it to be true, even purely on faith, because even with a purely faith based belief, I have to ignore evidence that it's not true. That makes it not just faith, but ignorant faith.

I believe that Jesus existed, and that there was a significant movement of people who believed he was the next anointed King of Israel, and that he taught amazing concepts, focused on returning Israel to its Abrahamic roots, and that he was killed to bring an end to the division he was causing, not only in Judaism, but also in the Roman ranks given the belief that the Messiah (the next anointed King of Israel) would end the gentile occupation of the Holy Land. I believe his brother James was made the leader of the movement following Jesus death because the thrown is passed by Royal family lines. This movement was very, VERY Jewish, as it was about belief in the next King of Israel and returning Israel to its Abrahamic roots. I believe they accepted gentiles into the movement, under the understanding that they became Jews, as the movement is about who the King of Israel is and returning Israel to its roots.

I believe Paul created a gentile religion, and used Jesus as the focus. Why I don't know. Maybe it was a conscious conspiracy, as a way to undermine the very movement he was fighting. A 'trojan horse" strategy so to speak. Or maybe he really believed that he had visions of Jesus where he got "his" gospel from (and admits it's not a gospel he got from other men, like the 12 apostles). He wouldn't be the first insane person to create a HUGE religion around visions given to just one person. Mohammed did it. Joseph Smith did it. Ellen White did it. Others have done it. Paul's just happens to be the biggest (at least this year... Mohammed's has been bigger than Paul's in the past). Paul's version of Jesus just took many concepts of pagan religions and applied them to Jesus. Like a man being the son of god, a savior of the world (not just a savior of Israel), secret knowledge (belief) that determines eternity (heaven or hell), etc.... These concepts were very easy for gentiles to understand and appealing. The thought of having to become Jewish and obey the Torah was very unappealing. Hence we have a very pagan like religion based on the Jewish Messiah that isn't Jewish at all.

I believe God exists. I'm not certain though that Israel is his "special people" though. I guess this makes me a diest. I don't know enough about diesm though to know for sure though. Belief in God is faith. Is it ignorant faith? I don't know. If someone could show me what I have to ignore to have faith that God exists, then I would consider that. I've concluded Judaism is ignorant faith, if being a Jew requires belief that the earth is only 6000 years old, as well as other things. Christianity is an even worse ignorant faith given one has to ignore how the religion came into existence in order to believe it.

 

[timschochet]

Most religious Jews I know don't believe the Earth is 6000 years old.

 

[Mister CIA]

This might as well be the official Dungeons and Dragons thread.

Lightning Bolt!

Lightning Bolt!

Lightning Bolt!

 

[cstu]

Most religious Jews I know don't believe the Earth is 6000 years old.

This was an interesting article on how many Americans are young earth creationists

In 2005, when the Harris Poll asked people “Do you think human beings developed from earlier species or not,” 38% agreed that humans did develop from early species, but in the same survey, 49% agreed with evolution when asked: “Do you believe all plants and animals have evolved from other species or not?” So explicitly mentioning human evolution led to 11% of people switching from pro-evolution to anti-evolution. In a 2009 survey, Harris asked a Gallup-like question, in which only 29% agreed that “Human beings evolved from earlier species,” but in a separate question from the same poll, 53% said that they “believe Charles Darwin’s theory which states that plants, animals and human beings have evolved over time.” Placing the issue in a scientific context, with no overt religious context, yields higher support for evolution.

In other words, people are dumb as ####.

 

[Paddington]

[SIZE=12pt]THIS VIDEO WILL EXPLAIN HOW THE NEW TESTIMENT OF THE BIBLE WAS CANONIZED (CAME TO BE):[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]WHOLE VIDEO:[/SIZE]

http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=D76LD7NX

Leaves a lot out. Never even mentioned "Q".... Or maybe it did. I got bored watching it so maybe I missed it.

What is Q? Besides the 17th letter of the Alphabet?

 

[Politician Spock]

THIS VIDEO WILL EXPLAIN HOW THE NEW TESTIMENT OF THE BIBLE WAS CANONIZED (CAME TO BE):

WHOLE VIDEO:

http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=D76LD7NX

Leaves a lot out. Never even mentioned "Q".... Or maybe it did. I got bored watching it so maybe I missed it.

What is Q? Besides the 17th letter of the Alphabet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

 

[Todd Andrews]

[SIZE=12pt]THIS VIDEO WILL EXPLAIN HOW THE NEW TESTIMENT OF THE BIBLE WAS CANONIZED (CAME TO BE):[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]WHOLE VIDEO:[/SIZE]

http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=D76LD7NX

Leaves a lot out. Never even mentioned "Q".... Or maybe it did. I got bored watching it so maybe I missed it.

What is Q? Besides the 17th letter of the Alphabet?

Q is the probably oral tradition or earlier gospel that the three Synoptic gospels all borrow from--it was an earlier gospel of Jesus incorporated into the three Synoptic gospels which were eventually chosen to be in the New Testament hundreds of years later.

All bible scholars know about Q.

 

[Jayrok]

 

[Jayrok]

[SIZE=12pt]THIS VIDEO WILL EXPLAIN HOW THE NEW TESTIMENT OF THE BIBLE WAS CANONIZED (CAME TO BE):[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]WHOLE VIDEO:[/SIZE]

http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=D76LD7NX

Leaves a lot out. Never even mentioned "Q".... Or maybe it did. I got bored watching it so maybe I missed it.

What is Q? Besides the 17th letter of the Alphabet?

Come on, Paddington. Stop being so naive.

 

[Scoresman]

Is this the same Q that sent the Enterprise to their first encounter with the Borg? We're worshiping that jerkoff now?

 

[Politician Spock]

Is this the same Q that sent the Enterprise to their first encounter with the Borg? We're worshiping that jerkoff now?

Sure, why not?

I believe Q took Picard to the past. Q probably had coffee with Matthew and Luke on the trip.

 

[Paddington]

Aren't you thinking of Data?

 

[Politician Spock]

Aren't you thinking of Data?

No.

Q

Data

I've noticed you're wrong a lot.

 

[timschochet]

I like it when Politician Spock and Slapdash debate.

(but when they team up against me it makes me very nervous. That happened in the NSA thread; I was facing the two most logical beings in alternate universes at the same time.)

 

[Binky The Doormat]

[SIZE=12pt]THIS VIDEO WILL EXPLAIN HOW THE NEW TESTIMENT OF THE BIBLE WAS CANONIZED (CAME TO BE):[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]WHOLE VIDEO:[/SIZE]

http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=D76LD7NX

Its important to get the right angel.

 

[Paddington]

 

[Paddington]

The Ultimate Proof of Creation by Dr. Jason Lisle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvRy6AjeyLc

 

[Mister CIA]

The Ultimate Proof of Creation by Dr. Jason Lisle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvRy6AjeyLc

My Link

 

[Politician Spock]

The Ultimate Proof of Creation by Dr. Jason Lisle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvRy6AjeyLc

Reading the comments made it worth clicking the link.

 

[joffer]

The Ultimate Proof of Creation by Dr. Jason Lisle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvRy6AjeyLc

can you summarize? I got four minutes in and my ears started to bleed.

 

[Politician Spock]

The Ultimate Proof of Creation by Dr. Jason Lisle:

Creation is true... because the Bible says it is.

/video

 

[tonydead]

I was driving through Northern Idaho the other day and seeing all the crackpot churches and signs and thought to myself ; what a great gig to get into. Put up some signs, build a building and pass the collection plate around once a week. I m a fairly good public speaker and it's not like you have to make any sense. I'm starting to believe.

 

[Zow]

The Ultimate Proof of Creation by Dr. Jason Lisle:

"This is the ultimate proof. Others may not be persuaded by it, but it's the ultimate proof because the Bible says so."

 

[tonydead]

Church up front, gun shop in the back. One stop shop.

 

[Paddington]

Sounds good to me! Guns keep the peace.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

 

[Mister CIA]

Sounds good to me! Guns keep the peace.

Guns - caulking the gaps of Jesus' failure.

 

[Todd Andrews]

The Ultimate Proof of Creation by Dr. Jason Lisle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvRy6AjeyLc

Your video is sacrilege! You need to learn the truth by watching this video about the history of creation and the divine.

 

[Politician Spock]

I'd laugh too.... if I hadn't proselytized the same crap for 30 years.

 

[joffer]

The Ultimate Proof of Creation by Dr. Jason Lisle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvRy6AjeyLc

Your video is sacrilege! You need to learn the truth by watching this video about the history of creation and the divine.

can we call dibs on planets now?

 

[Paddington]

Only if God allows it in heaven. I would worry about my eternal soul first.

 

[Politician Spock]

Only if God allows it in heaven. I would worry about my eternal soul first.

I'm worried about you too.

 

[Paddington]

I have accepted Jesus's Christ's free gift of Salvation have you?