|
|
Post by tennmagpie on Jun 27, 2004 17:34:03 GMT -5
I haven't been to this site yet- my computer won't load it either. But, based on what I've seen posted here...
I'm Christian and I'm very serious about my beliefs. But I can't help but laugh when I see how stupid this site is. And I'm really more offended by the fact that people might read this site and think that all Christians are like that. And hopefully, they won't, because the whole site is really just... stupid. (Ph33r m3h 1337 310q3nc3!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Lappi on Jun 27, 2004 23:24:23 GMT -5
Sorry I skipped through most of the pages ^_^.. Ihopethisdoesn'toffendanyoneandI'mtrulysorryifitdoes. *crosses fingers like Kiddo* ... XDDDDD THAT IS HILARIOUS! Even though I read through the Atheist thing before, it just cracks me up. (Don't ask, I'm in a very hyper mood n__n) "My friend Bomby the bombardier beetle can shoot boiling-hot toxic chemicals out of his butt. Why?" .. XDXDXD!! THAT IS SO FUNNTYAJHFJHF. "No, Secular movies lie! T-Rex was a herbivore, its shark teeth was used to shred plants. The Ark's passangers were safe from harm!" I'm sure our buddy alligators and sharks eat plants, too!  That is why they have sharp teeth! And wouldn't a lioness marrying a lamb be sort of.. ODD? If that site can't take Atheist, I don't know how they can survive cross-breeding  ; Anyway, I'm done. Ihopethisdoesn'toffendanyoneandI'mtrulysorryifitdid. |
|
|
|
Post by Jessica Coconut on Jun 27, 2004 23:30:47 GMT -5
I know. I thought, OK, but we have proof that at least OTHER animals are carnivores. What about them? And SCIENCE tells us that, and not the speculated theoretical kind either.
And no tenn, we know not nearly all Christians are like that. Like you and me for example. And any other Christians on this board.
Yes, stupidity is the correct word. That, or ignorance.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Wanderer on Jun 27, 2004 23:43:56 GMT -5
I know. I thought, OK, but we have proof that at least OTHER animals are carnivores. What about them? And SCIENCE tells us that, and not the speculated theoretical kind either. And no tenn, we know not nearly all Christians are like that. Like you and me for example. And any other Christians on this board. Yes, stupidity is the correct word. That, or ignorance. It is merely ignorance, and misinterpretation. They arent necessarily bad people. Just someone who doesnt want to risk of worshipping God, poorly. Of course on the subject of religious extremes, I draw the line at people killing others in the name of religion. That's just wrong and hypocritical at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by Jessica Coconut on Jun 27, 2004 23:48:25 GMT -5
Unless it's *coughsatanismcough*  |
|
|
|
Post by The Wanderer on Jun 27, 2004 23:49:19 GMT -5
Unless it's *coughsatanismcough* I dont get it. Im slow... |
|
|
|
Post by Jessica Coconut on Jun 28, 2004 0:07:21 GMT -5
It's like the exact opposite of Christianity. Like, you worship the devil instead of God, and do the OPPOSITE of the 10 commandments.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Wanderer on Jun 28, 2004 0:17:17 GMT -5
Nope. Christians killing others in the name of Christianity is not unheard of, sad to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by mushroom on Jun 28, 2004 0:23:45 GMT -5
What I've read about Satanism--admittedly not much--suggests it's not so much against the Christian Church but against silly restraint, kind of along the lines of Ayn Rand with lots of self-indulgence. Satan usually isn't considered an entity the way Christians consider God an entity, only a symbol of liberation--kind of a Prometheus--against the "tyrannical" Christian God. Satanists also believe in vengeance rather than turning the other cheek. The "magick" of Satanism is like Wiccan "magick." There are the crazy black-magic teenagers, of course, but those don't seem to be the norm.
*shrugs* You can look it up for yourself. Encyclopedia.com and about.com have information on it.
I'm not affiliated with Satanism, by the way, or any other religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2004 1:11:48 GMT -5
And Gin. Well, we all know gin is bad (being extremely alcoholic, but now the bible explicitly implies it too?) "Flo, gin is a sin. I golf!" - John Agee, in either Go Hang a Salami, I'm a Lasagna Hog! or So Many Dynamos!#nosmileys |
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Aug 1, 2004 11:10:37 GMT -5
To laugh, or to cry, that is the question. What really makes me laugh is this: While reading a BIBLE, on of those teen bibles, it said something about how sad the degredation of women from adam to noah was. as far as I remember, it said: "God truly shows how men and women are equal by showing how Eve was created to be Adam's partner, and to live equally with each other." Mind you, being a PARTNER is a whole new ballgame than a COMPANION. PARTNERS are on the same level, work together, and for the good of both of them. And, as it says countless times: in God's sight, everyone is equal, from Julius Ceasar to a black slave during the Civil War. As far as God's concerned, they couldn't be any less different. And the atheist thing? Again, open the Bible, and THAT is slammed too! Paul says something like "Why have you avoided the people who are atheists, drunkards, the adulterers," and a long list afterwards. Then: "When I sent you a letter telling you not to eat with people like this, I was talking about who claim to be Christians who do these things!" Your bloody well SUPPOSED to be friends with these people, not AVOID them! And, for crying out loud, you're supposed to be friends with them to be friends, not to convert them! That site, treating people who may be one step out of line like their homicidal maniacs... But the sharp-tooth carnivore thing - I believe it's possible God could have, I dunno, meant them for watermelons or extinct plants, but how this has ANY bearing on the Christian faith beats me  Man, one last thing: I don't classify them as a extremists. I call them, oh, what was it they're called in jude, romans, acts, philippians, and galatians? Oh yeah, "perverter's of God's word." That's not overdoing the gospel. That's CHANGING it. |
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Aug 1, 2004 16:10:48 GMT -5
While being unwilling to put the cat in amongst the pigeons, the Bible clearly states not to eat shellfish or pork, not to wear clothes of two different threads mixed, not to trim the edges of your beard. And blind, hunchbacked or other blemised people shouldn't be allowed into places of worship. And if a person rapes an animal, the animal should be killed too, though it's not the animal's fault. That's drawn directly from the Bible I have in front of me. No misinterpretation at all - it's very clear. (Mostly from Leviticus, if you want to know.) So really, a lot of the Christian faith today IS misinterpretation - it really ignores large portions of the Bible, especially all the detailed commands for certain celebrations. And a lot of the smiting. Now, no offence, I like this form of Christianity. I think the world could do with a little less stoning and a little more peace and love to all people type of thing But you can't argue that these people changed God's word, because so has everyone really. People interpret faith in their own ways and I'm pretty happy no one stones people here any more. Sad to say, but killing certain people is sanctioned clearly by the Bible. You could argue that makes them more devout Christians than those who don't stone their neighbours. Although I remember a story about Jesus stopping people stoning someone, which is kind of interesting considering the earlier commmands from God to stone people (or burn them with fire, that's the other favourite.) You can't possible follow every bit of the Bible, or the world would be a worse place. I think the general principles of equality and love seem great, don't get me wrong. And, at the risk of another debate, right in the middle of the stuff about stoning people who commit adultery etc is the stuff about condeming homosexuality. But, hey, that bit's convenient to leave in as a cover for blatant homophobia, isn't it? Kind of like having your shellfish and eating it. The Bible isn't a pick and mix stand you know - it was meant to be the word, the ultimate law. And I'm grateful that it's not, and that people can manage to interpret it to mean kindness and love to all, all the time. But that's also a misinterpretation - just a nicer one. If you see what I mean |
|
|
|
Post by Tdyans on Aug 1, 2004 16:24:41 GMT -5
Oily, the events in the New Testament overturned a lot of the laws given in Leviticus, such as the commandments about what meats were allowed to be eaten, etc. I'm sure someone more eloquent and knowledgable than myself can explain it better and in more detail, but basically, not every Old Testament law is supposed to apply to Christianity now, and statements in the New Testament will bear that out. That doesn't mean it's contradictory to itself-- it just means that the two halves of the Bible are about two different ages, before and after Christ's death and resurrection, and so the laws that were needed in the previous age no longer apply (with the exception of the Ten Commandments). We continue to study both because they are important in comparing to each other in order to fully understand one or the other.
Like I said, I'm sure someone else can explain it better than me, and will hopefully correct anything that I've misstated.
|
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Aug 2, 2004 10:27:53 GMT -5
Oily, the events in the New Testament overturned a lot of the laws given in Leviticus, such as the commandments about what meats were allowed to be eaten, etc. I'm sure someone more eloquent and knowledgable than myself can explain it better and in more detail, but basically, not every Old Testament law is supposed to apply to Christianity now, and statements in the New Testament will bear that out. That doesn't mean it's contradictory to itself-- it just means that the two halves of the Bible are about two different ages, before and after Christ's death and resurrection, and so the laws that were needed in the previous age no longer apply (with the exception of the Ten Commandments). We continue to study both because they are important in comparing to each other in order to fully understand one or the other. Like I said, I'm sure someone else can explain it better than me, and will hopefully correct anything that I've misstated. Yes. Many of the laws were cancelled out because the people had abused and misinterpreted them. Since, unless pig and shellfish are correctly cooked, you can get ill, it was banned. Not like God could have explained bacteria to the Israelites. However, the people eventually thought by eating the food they became spiritually evil, not sick. Thus Jesus pointed out the truth and in effect cancelled out the law, because the people could not follow it. Also, the beard trimming and stuff was disallowed because the nearby pagans did such rituals in sacrifice and whatnot. God was not about to run the risk of someone mistaking the Jews for a pagan. The two materials in one shirt? Don't know. Maybe the pagan priests wore shirts of two materials, signifying their rank? It's a theory. Stoning and such were the equivalents of modern-day death penalties. They didn't have electric chairs or injections - so they did what they did. Not saying it's right, but that was the only way to do it. The kindness and love is not a misinterpretation. It's throughout the Bible. The misinterpretation was the die-hard rigidness the law descended into, helped along by the Pharisees, those who ignored the true meaning of the law, and the ignorance of many facts. There are echoes from the Old Testament in the New as well, such as the whole faith thing. Go into GENESIS and you see the whole faith thing played out with Abraham. The homosexuality? No matter how you cut it that fell in with adultery, because it wasn't legal for them to marry. The reason it was harsher back then was because Jesus hadn't sacrificed himself. They needed to offer the goats and such to show their grief and atonement (why else did God ask for the best of the stock? Not for the blood, for the show of loyalty). Again, I have failed yet to find a misinterpretaion or contradiction in the Bible. So, now that I have fallen into a slightly off topicness, I'll be quiet. |
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Aug 2, 2004 16:32:49 GMT -5
Just saw the pictures and read the trivia questions on the website Santa? Evil? Um... then Saint Nicholas was evil?! Oh man, glad I found out that! That one thing cracks me up - the "picture" of the dinosaur. It is so outrageously unclear, it's laughable. Makes me sick though to think what some of they are saying on that website - like the whole atheist and "I lost count of how many gods I have!" thing.. That's one loving way to make people think God loves them. Bah. |
|
That is why they have sharp teeth!
;
