IndoctriNATION movie

[logger]

Also that following Christ is defined by logger as believing exactly what he does, no more, no less. Otherwise he has to save you.

I'm only repeating what his word has said, It is clear humanity needs a savior to not be cast into eternal separation.

Not only is it real, but he defines it.

Thanks

 

[logger]

Poor people can have lots of friends. That's irrelevant for the point, which is that Christians apparently believe that getting more friends to pray supposedly convinces God to notice, or help, or something. So much for Matthew 10:29.Or maybe it means that God sits back and just watches the sparrows fall, but doesn't do anything unless they all get their friends to pray.

Its because he tells us to pray about everything.

Overall, what I find preposterous is that Christians ask me to believe this whole story--which that's okay, lots of factions have their own stories, moral, scientific, religious, etc., that they push on others, and one just takes what seems reasonable after a bit of study. But this story seems to be so illogical, I can't even figure out how one would believe in it.

Is life so logical to you?
I don't think you can just believe it, he has to open your eyes. Which means you have to want it, which also means the poor have a better seat to understand these things.

 

[Magrat]

That is a common judgement of non-believers. Not surprising you refuse to discuss where you are, not that it matters, its not about you.

So I'm a non believer if I won't prove to your satisfaction I am a believer? Okey dokey then.

Shes a witch, burn her!

 

[Magrat]

I'm only repeating what his word has said, It is clear humanity needs a savior to not be cast into eternal separation.

Thanks

No, you are not. You are not quoting what Jesus said. You are preaching a prosperity gospel of "follow me and have a happily middle class existence". That's horribly insulting to Jesus and other Christians.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Do you not think Paul speaks for him? Peter? James?

Umm...no.

I think that "Paul", who bragged about meeting "Jesus" only in hallucinations, was demonstrably unfamiliar with the κήρυγμα, and told the tale to fit his moment.

Further, I think that no authentic words of "Peter" or "James" (either one) are recorded, and that many of the "words of Paul" are suspect; you have the same second-and third-hand hearsay problem as with any of the other NT "accounts".

That is OT law.

...so are the supposed Levitical proscriptions about temple prostitution (which is not the same as homosexuality). And your Jesus was silent on the issue.

Take Jesus example of the sabbath, if your cow falls into a ditch on the sabbath, do you not get it out?

Actually, except for the lingering effects of the WCTU. "Blue Laws" have not been passed, or enforced, in the USA for a long time.

Yes, but they are free to do so.

I wonder if you realize that this sentence makes no sense, particularly as a supposed response to the question.

Are you, in fact, turning away from your ill-considered screed about the "sexual perversions of the left"?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Not divorcees and not homesexuals

It really doesn't matter.

Finally, an accurate statement. None of your screed "really matters", except at the point that you feel authorized to impose your ideas about your version of the "rules" of your 'god' on those who do not accept the superstitions to which you are in thrall.

I am glad for you that your 'god' speaks to you. You should know better then to try to rub it off on others.

Be careful what store of Flavor Aid you lay up for yourself, here or in your "heaven".

 

[Slowvehicle]

Does that make you angry?

Why would I bother to be "angry" at the actions of some thing that is not demonstrated to exist?

(OTH, why would a 'god' who could do god withhold that good?)

For a person who thinks this is all bunk, you sure spend a lot of time talking about it.

...does that make you angry?

(BTW, I challenge you to demonstrate where I said "this" was "bunk". I was under the impression that your Jesus had some strong words to say about telling the truth...)

 

[Pup]

I don't think you can just believe it, he has to open your eyes. Which means you have to want it, which also means the poor have a better seat to understand these things.

I think that's probably true. If a certain kind of person is so desperate for something, the details don't matter. They'll pray to be healed, to have support in their time of need, to get money to pay the bills, and religion offers that kind of comfort. I'm more the type that tries to accept things and then make the best, rather than hoping for miracles, so the idea of wanting to believe in a god who works miracles is actually in opposition to that, because it hinders acceptance and encourages denial, so it's not something I have a psychological need for.

 

[Magrat]

Are you making an argument from popularity? There are more Buddhists in the world than Christians.

Also, more people who have ever lived were not Christian,and had happy, fulfilled lives,than have ever been or are currently Christian.

 

[Magrat]

I don't think you can just believe it, he has to open your eyes. Which means you have to want it, which also means the poor have a better seat to understand these things.

Romans 10:9-10 says something different. The Bible says repeatedly the you come to belief in your own and seek God out. This is one of several examples of you misquoting the Bible. It does not surprise me you said "unbelievers" often tell you that you're illiterate of the Bible.

 

[logger]

No, you are not. You are not quoting what Jesus said. You are preaching a prosperity gospel of "follow me and have a happily middle class existence". That's horribly insulting to Jesus and other Christians.

I don't believe by believing in Jesus a person can be rich in wealth.

What are you talking about?

 

[logger]

So I'm a non believer if I won't prove to your satisfaction I am a believer? Okey dokey then.

Do you believe that Jesus was crucified to save you from your sins?

 

[logger]

Umm...no.

I think that "Paul", who bragged about meeting "Jesus" only in hallucinations, was demonstrably unfamiliar with the κήρυγμα, and told the tale to fit his moment.

Further, I think that no authentic words of "Peter" or "James" (either one) are recorded, and that many of the "words of Paul" are suspect; you have the same second-and third-hand hearsay problem as with any of the other NT "accounts".

You're free to believe what you like.

...so are the supposed Levitical proscriptions about temple prostitution (which is not the same as homosexuality). And your Jesus was silent on the issue.

And that means he was for it? Use a little bit of that human reason.

I wonder if you realize that this sentence makes no sense, particularly as a supposed response to the question.

I know I'm having fun with you.

Are you, in fact, turning away from your ill-considered screed about the "sexual perversions of the left"?

No, it is quite clear the left is immoral and perverse.

 

[logger]

Finally, an accurate statement. None of your screed "really matters", except at the point that you feel authorized to impose your ideas about your version of the "rules" of your 'god' on those who do not accept the superstitions to which you are in thrall.

You constantly pound your chest at how this is all superstitious but somehow I am forcing the rules of my God on you.

If you don't follow his roles Slowvehicle you know where you're going to end up.

I am glad for you that your 'god' speaks to you. You should know better then to try to rub it off on others.

Yes, it is a waste of time with some.

 

[logger]

Why would I bother to be "angry" at the actions of some thing that is not demonstrated to exist?

(OTH, why would a 'god' who could do god withhold that good?)

Maybe because some are so hard headed?

(BTW, I challenge you to demonstrate where I said "this" was "bunk". I was under the impression that your Jesus had some strong words to say about telling the truth...)

Actually in this posts? The bolded?

 

[logger]

I think that's probably true. If a certain kind of person is so desperate for something, the details don't matter. They'll pray to be healed, to have support in their time of need, to get money to pay the bills, and religion offers that kind of comfort. I'm more the type that tries to accept things and then make the best, rather than hoping for miracles, so the idea of wanting to believe in a god who works miracles is actually in opposition to that, because it hinders acceptance and encourages denial, so it's not something I have a psychological need for.

I don't think that is the comfort we're discussing or comfort at all. Rogue is this the prosperity gospel your talking about?

 

[logger]

Also, more people who have ever lived were not Christian,and had happy, fulfilled lives,than have ever been or are currently Christian.

Handling the gospel gun for Jesus again I see. Lol

 

[Resume]

If you don't follow his roles Slowvehicle you know where you're going to end up.

Yes, when you don't follow Allah's rules, he gets madder and madder.



Apologies Homer.

 

[marplots]

Interesting bit of misdirection. A more apt analogy would be a thug who tells a person who was not drowning that the thug would push them in the water and hold them under if they did not let the thug save them from being pushed in and held under...

All 'god's' "salvation" "saves" one from is what 'god' will do in the future if one does not let it "save" them now. Does pushing a man in to drown make the "pusher" worthy of "worship"?

No it's more like if God was holding a gun to your head saying "don't make me pull the trigger!" But then he pulls the trigger and it's your own fault for not stopping him.

Pick whichever you like, if the analogies are apt, only a fool would choose hell, no matter how morally repugnant it was.

IF the set up is as described by Christians, we can't escape it by complaining it's unfair. No more than a strong dislike for gravity would let me float away to happytown.

 

[marplots]

Interesting that you seem to be saying that one's only choices are binary: this invented 'god' or its invented 'adversary' (which is, at least in legend, a creation of the invented 'god').

I didn't make that up, someone else did, a long time ago. In fact, I think your post referenced the binary myth in question. If we aren't talking about Christianity and their dogma, I missed the segue.