Why church is so dangerous !!!

[RandFan]

...athiests are religionists...

A square is round, white is black, up is down, right is left. As if simply declaring it makes it true.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

You're ignorant!

Strath, seeing I have taught you a number of phrases and concepts.... including the real world, and the difference between false and true skeptics, let me teach you the usual discussion board rules.

Being objective is accptable, being subjective is not.

Saying sometimes ideas are ignorant is acceptable but saying someone is ignorant is not. Surely even you can understand this difference.

I know, I know, I easily class yourselves, or most of you in the samee manner, but we have to have FAITH for you guys and gals and church worshippers, as some how someway, some of you have to be able to come out of her, and be separate.




Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Athiests join mobs just the way the church people joined together and just the way the scribes and pharisees joined together in plotting against Jesus.

No difference, they have common non goals and common non thinking methods and a common god of themselves. They grind their teeth the same way religionists do, snarl and rent their garments exactly the same way.... Hence if they act like it, and they think like church people then obviously they are just another brand of church people... and oh how they love to assemble and sing praise to themselves together.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Athiests are dangerous, not all but most. Just like not all but most church people are extremely dangerous.

 

[RandFan]

Athiests are dangerous, not all but most.

Evidence? This is a skeptics forum and you do claim to be a true skeptic. I'm not really sure what your definition of skeptic is. I'm not sure you even know what the word means. It's like you say that you are not a bigot but you use racial epithets. In your case, 2+2=3.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Church people love their buildings and their temples as well as their false doctrines, but the Lord told them..... IE.. churches are dangerous, the religious self righteous types are dangerous, they fought everyone that opposed them and they are part and parcel of wars and killings.... even Jesus'
==snip==

38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 39For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Brother David, the last time I checked, the Church is the people, building or no building.

For where two or three come together in My name, there am I with them."

— Matthew 18:20 (ETA, oops!) --

Catacombs for fifty, Alphonse.

"Wherever two or more of you are gathered in His name, there is Love."

-- Peter (Yarrow) --

DR

 

[RandFan]

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

And remember, don't beat your slaves so severly that they die. Oh, and don't have sex with a woman when she is on her period because that just grosses out god. Mind you, there is no medical reason for this it's just that god is a bit squeamish when it comes to blood and sex. Don't ask me why. Drowning babies doesn't bother him though so long as he is the one doing the drowning.

“And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money” (Exodus 21:20-21).

"You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness as long as she is in her customary impurity." (Leviticus 18:19)

People really take a book, like the bible, seriously even when it makes such ridiculous proclamations, why?

 

[bruto]

Strath, seeing I have taught you a number of phrases and concepts.... including the real world, and the difference between false and true skeptics, let me teach you the usual discussion board rules.

No, you have taught nobody anything, and since it is appropriate and within the rules to declare one's opinion of what is posted here, I opine that your opinion is an arrogant one, and that you are an arrogant person.

Being objective is accptable, being subjective is not.

It's just not true. It is incorrect. It is a mistaken opinion. It is not actually the case. You are dead wrong. Get it?

Saying sometimes ideas are ignorant is acceptable but saying someone is ignorant is not. Surely even you can understand this difference.

If that were true, which it isn't, then calling everyone who disagrees with you an atheist (oh, excuse me, an "athiest") or a nihilist, or for that matter a church worshipper, and all the other things you customarily call everyone who disagrees with you, would also be unacceptable, wouldn't it? But then, to recognize that, you would have to be something other than ignorant, which you have not yet demonstrated.

I know, I know, I easily class yourselves, or most of you in the samee manner, but we have to have FAITH for you guys and gals and church worshippers, as some how someway, some of you have to be able to come out of her, and be separate.

which is another way of saying that are entirely unconcerned with whether what you're saying is actually true or just convenient.

e.t.a and by the way, can you answer Darth's last post? He's a real live Christian, you know, and he's got his bible out, and I surmise that he's smart enough to understand it. Can you cut the "athiest" crap and come out with response that shows even the most marginal, vestigial trace of respect for the views of a Christian?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Strange post Daarth, are you saying that some old timers HERE actually don't believe in the MAGIC BULLET theories and don't believe in the Warren Report, and don't believe the government is loving and kind and don;t believe the rich and powerful love them and tell them truths to free and liberate them.

So what conspiracy thread against the government have you started. I might like to read it....

Just tell me the thread title. Thanks.

What?

Brother David, the skepticism demonstrated by most participants here is directed at

a_) BS handed out by the government (Libby brand yellow cake mix and Plame being current topics, attorney's fired "as a matter of normal procedure" being another, and "this surge will win the war" for another)

and

b_) claims made by the CT / 9-11 Troofer movement that claims MIHOP -- deliberate acts on part of the Bush administration that some of them, neocons, were accessories before the fact of the 9-11 attack.

c_) That nebulous thing called woo woo, in which category many find religion to belong. (*shrugs*)

I have not ruled out LIHOP, being a cynical and sarcastic old salt by nature, but I can't prove it. I have scant evidence, and a lot of guess and inference to go on.

Result?

I don't go about making movies and claims that the government was deliberately negligent in executing its security duties (see Scheuer's book for some background) and have to remain content with my suspicions.

Since I went to war and was involved in operations that got a some people killed, I am not too keen on the little voice in my head that says some foul things about why good men and women died on 9-11 due to deliberate, rather than ordinary, negligence, a condition that allowed a group of motivated men to hijack four planes and use them as attack weapons. I am still mad about the Pat Tillman cover up.

I have contributed to a number of threads on the CT forum, the first forum I joined here thanks to Maddox, and Gravy's fine work, with the intent of ripping a new arsehole in a number of CT numbnuts for being morons, and for slandering Captain Chick Burlingame, (CAPT USN retired, USNA alumnus) among other things.

Fighting a dubious government policy with lies is a nasty hypocrisy. Fighting it with the truth is a better idea. The Troofers can find neither their arses, nor the truth, with both hands and a flashlight.

Thus, if you are looking for a Conspiracy thread started by me, you won't find one.

I tend to be a bit more down to earth.

PS) As for you beliveing in Salvation thru Jesus..Great !!

Thanks, my journey continues, and I skin my knees often as I trip and fall on the straight and narrow road, like when I flame an idiot on an internet forum. Not exactly following the greatest commandment, is it?

But as mentioned the vast majority are athiestic HERE.. That's set mathematics, as we can;t say all but most or the majority.

True enough, but for all that, not all are evil, nor are all jagovs -- a few are yet most are not. More set theory. I can love an Atheist, and respect one, particulary if he or she is a person of integrity and honor (as people like Garrette and Mr Randi and RandFan and Tricky are). Their integrity and honor seems a pretty Christian way to live, considering the admonitions to love one's neighbor, not to bear false witness, etc. A small and lovely irony, don't you think? (Well, at least an overlapping of sets.)

Did that clear anything up for you? I am my own brand of wisecracking, cynical person.

By the way, my older brother is a convert to Greek Orthodoxy, my younger brother and one cousin is an Atheist, my sister is a convert to Catholicism, as is another cousin, two more are Methodists, and my parents are both Agnostics, which is how my sibs and I were raised. I made my first confession of Faith to a Navy Chaplain, Methodist, help instruct at a once a week Bible study with a Methodist couple I know, married a Catholic, and attend Mass with my family for all that I am a bloody heathen who has not undergone the Catacumen. The priest who runs our church understands, and is kind enough to put up with it. A good man.

I love all of my family, and I respect the priest. There is no contradiction in any of that.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

And remember, don't beat your slaves so severly that they die. Oh, and don't have sex with a woman when she is on her period because that just grosses out god. Mind you, there is no medical reason for this it's just that god is a bit squeamish when it comes to blood and sex. Don't ask me why. Drowning babies doesn't bother him though so long as he is the one doing the drowning.

“And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money” (Exodus 21:20-21).

"You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness as long as she is in her customary impurity." (Leviticus 18:19)

People really take a book, like the bible, seriously even when it makes such ridiculous proclamations, why?

RandFan

Does it occur to you that the killing of babies was consistent with the OT admonition that the sins of the father are passed on to the sons and the grandsons? (That dear OT three generations of blood guilt deal. ) That would be at least internally consistent, whether you, or I, or anyone else find it palatable, proper, or otherwise.

The second cite you make there could be literally taken as "don't stare at a naked lady in her menses" rather than "don't hide the pastrami with a lady during her menses." I realize that's a quibble partially based on a Bible being written in English.

DR

 

[Foster Zygote]

Being objective is accptable, being subjective is not.

Subjective statements are perfectly acceptable as long as you make it clear that they are subjective. Presenting subjective statements as objective statements is also acceptable as long as you are prepared to be shown your errors.

Saying sometimes ideas are ignorant is acceptable but saying someone is ignorant is not. Surely even you can understand this difference.

Saying someone is ignorant is also perfectly acceptable. Like this: "Davidjayjordan is ignorant of the true distance of the moon from the Earth." Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of. Remaining willfully ignorant after being presented with new facts is something to be ashamed of.

 

[slingblade]

RandFan

Does it occur to you that the killing of babies was consistent with the OT admonition that the sins of the father are passed on to the sons and the grandsons? (That dear OT three generations of blood guilt deal. ) That would be at least internally consistent, whether you, or I, or anyone else find it palatable, proper, or otherwise.

Makes sense. It was written in a time long ago....yes, I have watched too much Xena. But still, I get what you're saying.

The second cite you make there could be literally taken as "don't stare at a naked lady in her menses" rather than "don't hide the pastrami with a lady during her menses." I realize that's a quibble partially based on a Bible being written in English.

DR

I also realize it's just a quibble about one single verse, but why would that even be a possible meaning?

Aren't there other verses which use that phrase? I want to think so, and I want to think they all have to do with intercourse. Lot's daughters--didn't they "uncover their father's nakedness," meaning they, er...well. I mean, we use euphemisms today, so we do understand them. If I said John and Mary "slept together," we'd all snigger at someone who wanted to interpret the phrase only literally.

Your possible interp also prompts (because I don't think it begs) the question: is the opposite okay? If it's wrong enough not to look at a naked lady during her menses that a specific warning is needed, does that not imply it is okay to look at naked ladies not in that state? And do we really think this would be permissible in such a patriarchal society?

Finally, was that such a big deal that a GOD had to warn against it? Were guys going around doing this so much it got in the way of daily life, or caused wars, or led to so much menses-rape that a GOD had to issue an edict about it?

Sorry. I have to agree with Rand here. Funny thing, no matter what, for a superior being to be concerned about.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan

Does it occur to you that the killing of babies was consistent with the OT admonition that the sins of the father are passed on to the sons and the grandsons? (That dear OT three generations of blood guilt deal. ) That would be at least internally consistent, whether you, or I, or anyone else find it palatable, proper, or otherwise.

The second cite you make there could be literally taken as "don't stare at a naked lady in her menses" rather than "don't hide the pastrami with a lady during her menses." I realize that's a quibble partially based on a Bible being written in English.

DR

Hi Darth,

As to the first, I'm not sure the relevance of your point but let me make something clear. I'm not anti-bible, anti-Christian or anti-god. I know it seems that way at times. I'm anti anyone suggesting that some verse in the bible is something that should appeal to my logic and cause me to reconsider my position (see DJJ's post that I was responding to). I really resent anyone quoting the bible as if it is, in fact, axiomatically a moral guide. It demonstrably is no such thing. However, if Christians choose to believe that there is both good and bad in the bible and it is up to them to find the good and avoid the bad then I'm ok with that.

In truth, I find much good in the bible and I'm more than willing to discuss such with anyone that doesn't pontificate based on the bible.

As to the second. It's a single scripture and not the best example. I was in a hurry and googled to find it.

Leviticus 15:19-20

And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.

Seems clear to me.

Thanks for the response.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Brother David, the last time I checked, the Church is the people, building or no building.

For where two or three come together in My name, there am I with them."

— Matthew 18:20 (ETA, oops!) --

Catacombs for fifty, Alphonse.

"Wherever two or more of you are gathered in His name, there is Love."

-- Peter (Yarrow) --

DR

Very true Brother Darth,

Just as the phrase 'church in the wilderness' does not mean a walking church building being transported.


Hsa 8:14 For Israel hath forgotten his Maker, and buildeth temples; and Judah hath multiplied fenced cities: but I will send a fire upon his cities, and it shall devour the palaces thereof.


For people tend to put their faith not in principles and real FAITH in the Lord, but in what they can see and feel and touch... like a building. But we are instructed not to have such idols that the church people so love to honor and adore...


Jer 7:4 Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, [are] these.

And as Jesus said, even the Temple on the Mount would come apart stone by stone.... after his departure

Mat 24:1¶And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to [him] for to shew him the buildings of the temple.Mat 24:2And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.





For Jesus was the temple of God, and we are the temple of God....and the Word of God is suppose to dwell within us, to have HIM in us...

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/LordsTempleisHumanandSexual.html

So you are right, Brother Daarth, we are the temple of God and we are the church, the called out ones that are not called into the world but out of the insanity and unbelief of the world. We are the eccelsia, we are the church, and yet the church people who love this present world, usually believe that their building and system represent the church that will stand forever. Such is not the case, as buildings and worldly systems are temporal... but we shall go on..

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Hi Darth,

As to the first, I'm not sure the relevance of your point but let me make something clear. I'm not anti-bible, anti-Christian or anti-god. I know it seems that way at times. I'm anti anyone suggesting that some verse in the bible is something that should appeal to my logic and cause me to reconsider my position (see DJJ's post that I was responding to). I really resent anyone quoting the bible as if it is, in fact, axiomatically a moral guide. It demonstrably is no such thing. However, if Christians choose to believe that there is both good and bad in the bible and it is up to them to find the good and avoid the bad then I'm ok with that.

In truth, I find much good in the bible and I'm more than willing to discuss such with anyone that doesn't pontificate based on the bible.

As to the second. It's a single scripture and not the best example. I was in a hurry and googled to find it.

Seems clear to me.

Thanks for the response.

Rand, it is amazing to see you write with respect and with consideration, but we surely know why you are doing this with Daarth. Nevertheless, still it is encouraging that it is possible for you to change your modus operandi.

 

[RandFan]

Rand, it is amazing to see you write with respect and with consideration, but we surely know why you are doing this with Daarth. Nevertheless, still it is encouraging that it is possible for you to change your modus operandi.

Ecclesiastes 3:1

Darth is capable of reason and has demonstrated a willingness to consider points of view contrary to his own and therefore is deserving of deference. Many people, regardless of religious belief or the lack thereof are also like him. No big deal.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Ecclesiastes 3:1

Darth is capable of reason and has demonstrated a willingness to consider points of view contrary to his own and therefore is deserving of deference. Many people, regardless of religious belief or the lack thereof are also like him. No big deal.

I feel a lot of love in this room.

DR

 

[Davidjayjordan]

But let's not isolate verses, to try and make them say what we want, but rather take them as a whole as the author intended.

Ecc 3:14I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth [it], that [men] should fear before him.

Ecc 3:11He hath made every [thing] beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.


For here is why people and men and women can;t understand the Lord, they have the world in their heart, and love the present system, too much to
have an open mind...

Thanks to the Lord for this clarification of Eccelesiates 3:1 And to bad more people do not see that the Lord created all things beautiful in His TIME.

SEE prophecy timelines

 

[RandFan]

But let's not isolate verses, to try and make them say what we want, but rather take them as a whole as the author intended.

It's pretty straight forward. Nothing really to take out of context. Skipping ahead from Verse 1 to 11 and 14 does not change anything. I'm more than willing to correct a verse taken out of context, it's not beyond me but you have not established that I have.

For here is why people and men and women can;t understand the Lord, they have the world in their heart, and love the present system, too much to have an open mind...

You still haven't addressed the fact that slavery, infanticide and misogyny are all found in the bible and are condoned and even encouraged by god accoding to the bible so you hardly are one to lecture about the evil in the hearts of people.

Thanks to the Lord for this clarification of Eccelesiates 3:1 And to bad more people do not see that the Lord created all things beautiful in His TIME.

Really? Slavery was beautiful? Infanticide? Misogyny?

I know you think that ignoring these things is effective but no one is forgetting them.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Rand, I see you are a missionary for your religion of nothingness and anti-biblical dogma. You are dedicating yourself more and more into trying to wreck the logic and reason of my threads, ...... and even going against the rules and starting a thread about me and not some objective topic.

So I may have to avoid responding to you, but as a supposed poster HERE, you can try to marshall your forces and your congregation with more accussations against me and the Lord. Your choice, your repsonsibility.