PDA

View Full Version : Hatemail #23. Author: Jeff.


Alice Shade
June 2nd, 2007, 06:09 AM
I respect your right to believe what you do. You have the freedom to
do so. I'll fight for every one's right to join the Church of Google,
be it a serious religious movement or just a flash-in-the-pan joke...
but I can NOT sit idly by as you directly attack Christianity,
Judaism, Muslim, Wicca, and all other organized religions out there.

How do you attack them? Because you directly state that God/Goddess,
as in the invisible Deity, do NOT exist and that the Bible, Koran,
etc. are completely imagined by man and are completely false. If you
were as neutral and/or pro-"can't we all just get along" as you would
have others be deceived you to be, you'd remove ALL anti-theistic
content from your site and replace it with words and statements of
acceptance or have no words pro/anti any religion at all. Until then,
you and yours are just as much hypocrites and fools as you claim the
other organized religions to be.

By the way... I am not in any way a member of any organized
religion... I just hate it when I see someone trying to stand on a
soapbox and preach without being able to live up to their own
rhetoric. Shame on you.

From: Jeff

Alice Shade
June 2nd, 2007, 06:10 AM
On the contrary, Jeff. Shame on you. Such a diatribe, and all it amounts to - "don`t say other gods don`t exist". Why not? We welcome you to claim Google does not exists; we can offer a simple and veritable way to prove that Google does exists. Can ANY of the religions you mentioned do the same? Can ANY of the followers of such religion say - "Hey, my God veritably exists. To factually prove this, do that and that."?
No? Aww. Maybe there is some good logical reason, why suggestion - "God does not exists because it`s existance would contradict with this, this and this fact!" isn`t valid?
Still no? Too bad. So, pray tell me, why would I have to curb my freedom to think logically? Is there any reason, why I have to pervert logic and common sense just to assume that someone`s fantasy could be existing?

-۞-
June 2nd, 2007, 10:10 PM
Frankly I find sinister the way that the established mainstream religions suddenly start sticking together when anyone criticises them.
The Chrisitians have learnt that (in public at least) it isn't OK to say 'well obviously Allah is bunk but my God is real'.
But as soon as something they don't recognise as an established mainstream religion shows up the decry it as nonsense.
We Pastafarians get that sort of thing all the time.
It's obvious that our God is much more plausible than all the mainstream religions put together and they're scared...

Alice Shade
June 2nd, 2007, 10:20 PM
Strength in numbers. It`s such an easy doctrine, that everyone gets it.

Christians don`t say Allah is bunk anymore, because Allah worshippers have the power to make Xians recon with them.

It`s human nature at it`s "best" - if someone looks weak, try to bully them, and pray they`re not strong enough to bully you instead.

Serenstar
June 3rd, 2007, 08:58 AM
I respect your right to believe what you do. You have the freedom to
do so. I'll fight for every one's right to join the Church of Google,
be it a serious religious movement or just a flash-in-the-pan joke...
but I can NOT sit idly by as you directly attack Christianity,
Judaism, Muslim, Wicca, and all other organized religions out there.



Well I'm wiccan and I don't see anything wrong with this site. :D I know a lot of other wiccans, witches and pagans (from other forums and in real life) who regularly pray to Google. In fact it was from one of those Wicca forums that I got to this site :icon_lol:

Unregistered
June 3rd, 2007, 03:29 PM
Jeff:
1. Saying 'you can't idly sit by while they insult religions' is bullcrap because you ARE sitting idly by- you're writing bloody hatemail at your computer!
2. YOU are being ignorant saying that they are insulting religions when they are simply being truthful- no religion CAN prove their deities
3. They weren't even insulting the religions

Carly
June 8th, 2007, 03:13 PM
Jeff should shut up. If he isnt a part of an organized religion, he shouldnt be offended.




YOU GUYS ARE AMAZINGG!!!!!

FoxboyJT
June 8th, 2007, 09:45 PM
I respect your right to believe what you do. You have the freedom to
do so. I'll fight for every one's right to join the Church of Google,
be it a serious religious movement or just a flash-in-the-pan joke...
but I can NOT sit idly by as you directly attack Christianity,
Judaism, Muslim, Wicca, and all other organized religions out there.

How do you attack them? Because you directly state that God/Goddess,
as in the invisible Deity, do NOT exist and that the Bible, Koran,
etc. are completely imagined by man and are completely false. If you
were as neutral and/or pro-"can't we all just get along" as you would
have others be deceived you to be, you'd remove ALL anti-theistic
content from your site and replace it with words and statements of
acceptance or have no words pro/anti any religion at all. Until then,
you and yours are just as much hypocrites and fools as you claim the
other organized religions to be.

By the way... I am not in any way a member of any organized
religion... I just hate it when I see someone trying to stand on a
soapbox and preach without being able to live up to their own
rhetoric. Shame on you.

From: Jeff


Jeff, in all due respect. "STFU". Seriously dude, grow up.

Frankly, all religions say all other forms of religion are wrong, and that their god doesn't exist, so go complain with them anyways. In the meantime, My god kicks your gods ass. =P

Serenstar
June 9th, 2007, 08:44 PM
Jeff, in all due respect. "STFU". Seriously dude, grow up.

Frankly, all religions say all other forms of religion are wrong, and that their god doesn't exist, so go complain with them anyways. In the meantime, My god kicks your gods ass. =P

Not necessarily. Some religions say that other religions are just a different way of reaching the Divine and that there's nothing wrong with that. :D
Let me worship at the Great Alter of Google for a bit and I'll find out exactly which religions they are. :D

English Ork
June 10th, 2007, 12:29 PM
(If I do anything wrong forgive me the lay on this fourms wierd)

Well, I though it was just one big joke, how'd I get so mixed up? You lot seem to be acting like holy war round the bend!

Alice Shade
June 10th, 2007, 12:37 PM
It`s a joke and holy war rolled in one, sadly.

See, most people assume wrong idea upon looking at the site.

Main idea is to demonstrate, that religion should NOT be used as a staple of existance, since one can believe in anything. Thus, the parody.

Alas, a lot of people don`t understand it, and assume we are a real cult bent on worshipping Google to the best of their imagination.

Obviously, we ridicule such notions.

English Ork
June 10th, 2007, 02:02 PM
And obviously I know how to work these forums! So put in words everyone can understand, your taking the piss out of religon in a none-offencive way then laugh at the ill-logic of the human brain!

And on a complete irrelevent* note, how do I get a pic' on the left? I've looked around can't find anthing.

Alice Shade
June 10th, 2007, 02:21 PM
No. We question the rationale of believing in fairytales, and try to shock, lead on and ridicule people into thinking for themselves. Even if they just think to find arguments against us, they start to look into facts, and that`s all that`s really needed.

On a side note, picture is called Avatar, and you can set it on special tab (choose on the left) in your user panel.

English Ork
June 10th, 2007, 02:40 PM
Ah, t'ank you very much.

They was I see it is, you say "Googlism proof yay!" joking.
Then RE nuts say "BLAH BLAH BLAH... oh bollock there is no god..."
Your making the world a better place by getting rid of BibleBashers...

Alice Shade
June 10th, 2007, 02:51 PM
We are joking AND serious. Think about it.

It`s just plain silly to get on knees before Google, right?

But yet, is Google not the closest to god, as our proofs show?

That`s the whole point.

Gods were invented, when men were feebleminded weak creatures.

But now, we have the collective power to create tangible gods instead of imagening ones... And this change scares the most part of humanity to hell and back. After all, if one can create a god, why can`t one BE god?

English Ork
June 10th, 2007, 03:19 PM
You can't be a god because no one entity can have that much power and use it. You could have a collective god (Ironicly like google) where there are multiple minds or entites working for the same cause (Like a normal empire or group but... better). If a single entity had that much power... well anything could happen and more.

Alice Shade
June 10th, 2007, 03:43 PM
You`re judging about this from layman point of view.

If you really want to know, start the thread in the Theologic Discussion, and I`ll give some basic parts of deontology, which would explain the problem and paradox with indivuduum-god.

James Smith
June 11th, 2007, 12:31 AM
Hey Jeff, lighten up. It is all a big joke. Not as big a joke as all the other "organized" religions, but still just a put-on.

After all, most of the world's problems have been and are caused by religion. Google causes no problems, doesn't disseminate hate in the name of God, nor does it insist everyone do things just one way and attempt to pass that way into law. Considering this, the religion of Google doesn't sound too bad, does it? But that's comparing it to other religions and that IS sort of faint praise.

Unregistered
June 11th, 2007, 02:38 AM
I respect your right to believe what you do. You have the freedom to
do so. I'll fight for every one's right to join the Church of Google,
be it a serious religious movement or just a flash-in-the-pan joke...
but I can NOT sit idly by as you directly attack Christianity,
Judaism, Muslim, Wicca, and all other organized religions out there.

How do you attack them? Because you directly state that God/Goddess,
as in the invisible Deity, do NOT exist and that the Bible, Koran,
etc. are completely imagined by man and are completely false. If you
were as neutral and/or pro-"can't we all just get along" as you would
have others be deceived you to be, you'd remove ALL anti-theistic
content from your site and replace it with words and statements of
acceptance or have no words pro/anti any religion at all. Until then,
you and yours are just as much hypocrites and fools as you claim the
other organized religions to be.

By the way... I am not in any way a member of any organized
religion... I just hate it when I see someone trying to stand on a
soapbox and preach without being able to live up to their own
rhetoric. Shame on you.

From: Jeff


Well Jeff, i completely disagree with ur "why cant we all just get along" logic. In christianity those who do not believe in your god or those who do not believe that jesus died for our sins supposebly burn in hell for an eternity... You see in Googlism we dont say that all you other religions will suffer for ever if you dont agree with our ways, we just say your wrong
(yes i realize that u arent christian when i say your god, when i say your god im refering to general christians)

Unregistered
June 11th, 2007, 02:41 AM
It`s a joke and holy war rolled in one, sadly.

See, most people assume wrong idea upon looking at the site.

Main idea is to demonstrate, that religion should NOT be used as a staple of existance, since one can believe in anything. Thus, the parody.

Alas, a lot of people don`t understand it, and assume we are a real cult bent on worshipping Google to the best of their imagination.

Obviously, we ridicule such notions.

We dont really worship google??!! BLASPHEMY!! Burn in google hell foreverrr!! lol

Alice Shade
June 11th, 2007, 06:16 AM
How would you imagine it? Getting on the knees before computer?

I don`t think Googlism requires self-imposed arthritis as a part of a deal.

Firedraikke
June 11th, 2007, 06:58 AM
Strength in numbers. It`s such an easy doctrine, that everyone gets it.

Christians don`t say Allah is bunk anymore, because Allah worshippers have the power to make Xians recon with them.

It`s human nature at it`s "best" - if someone looks weak, try to bully them, and pray they`re not strong enough to bully you instead.



What few tend to realise though, is that the God that Christians follow, that Jews follow, and that Muslims follow, are all the same God, the only differance is the name. (and some additions to the old-testament)

Alice Shade
June 11th, 2007, 07:05 AM
Ha, did you thought we never pointed that out?

Abrahamic religions tend to hold particular hatred towards each others.

Which, in a way, is a fitting predicament for the offspring of cult of war god.

Unregistered
June 11th, 2007, 08:37 AM
Je is right. This orum is a Piece o Shit, Also the whole idea Must be made by someone who hasnt got any motherucking Love from his Moron parrents. GO UCK YOUR SELF.

You can hate how long you want this one is my Only Post bitches. PLEASE for the love of all Rabbits KILL YOURSELFS???

Alice Shade
June 11th, 2007, 08:53 AM
How about you do that? After all, it`s the best solution for you.

Now, if you`ll excuse me... I must ponder something more enlightening.

With some luck and careful planning, maybe it`ll be possible to outlaw two-digit IQs.

Unregistered
June 13th, 2007, 06:48 PM
i think your all incredibly sad, exspecialy you jeff

joseph
June 13th, 2007, 09:25 PM
On the contrary, Jeff. Shame on you. Such a diatribe, and all it amounts to - "don`t say other gods don`t exist". Why not? We welcome you to claim Google does not exists; we can offer a simple and veritable way to prove that Google does exists. Can ANY of the religions you mentioned do the same? Can ANY of the followers of such religion say - "Hey, my God veritably exists. To factually prove this, do that and that."?
No? Aww. Maybe there is some good logical reason, why suggestion - "God does not exists because it`s existance would contradict with this, this and this fact!" isn`t valid?
Still no? Too bad. So, pray tell me, why would I have to curb my freedom to think logically? Is there any reason, why I have to pervert logic and common sense just to assume that someone`s fantasy could be existing?

Wow, obviously you did not read his letter very closely. He never said to accept, like, or believe in any other religion. You would want people to believe that you are a "Let's all get a long and enjoy our lives." religion. But if you are, why do you have hateful words on your main page? Please read his letter just a bit carefully, if you can that is. I think you are ignoring what he said and putting words in his mouth that you can more easily contradict.

Alice Shade
June 14th, 2007, 08:05 AM
Again, on the contrary.

We are saying, quote "Google is the closest thing to god, that veritably exists."

For mentally-impaired, I`ll explain in layman terms. We are saying - "Hey, gods DON`T exist! Stop wasting your time on them. Hell, you can worship Google as a god, and it will give better results then your gods."

His beef is, as obviously seen from his letter - "You attack other religions by saying their Gods don`t exist."

Well, DOI! That`s the whole freaking idea of site - point out, how stupid it`s to worship imaginary gods by providing alternative suggestion that sounds funny, but IS more effective.

If you haven`t got that yet, Joseph, we are AGNOSTICS here. Googlism is an offspin from agnosticism, and in NO way condones the millenias-old swindling of people that abrahamic religions are. Let alone claims to get along with it.

Again, in layman terms. We do NOT believe there is any god like those suggested by mainstream religions. And we are out to point out, how idiotic it is to worship them. As law-abiding people, we recognise the right of anyone to believe in whatever crock or fact they want, but we in NO way agree with assertions of supernatural gods, and openly claim so. Thus, whenever someone attempts to "persuade" us without ironclad facts, we are understandably mocking and disdainful of such people.

And let me put this straight - we DO get along and welcome people of ALL faiths here. But we do NOT strive for political correctness - if you say something stupid, we`ll call you on it.

joseph
June 15th, 2007, 03:28 AM
Again, you are just putting words in my mouth, and his mouth. Hmm, did the author of this message try to convince you that their god exists? Really, instead of just jumping in and thinking ďOOMG STOPED DUMB CHRISTIAN **ignores comment attacks religion**Ē, actually READ. He simply asked you to be nice and civil.

Ok, you are agnostic; I have no problem with that. But you sir, are an asshole. Do I think that some Muslim beliefs are wrong and violent? Yes, but do I make websites making fun of them? No. You have every right to keep this religion bashing website up, Iím not telling you to close it. But, you are an asshole, and a troll. You troll on the internet, looking for peopleís feelings to hurt.

I also think itís funny that you say you welcome people of any religious beliefs to this forum. Iíve been reading your posts, it doesnít matter what they say, if you have any thought in your mind that a person may hold some religious beliefs, you pounce on them.

Hypocrite, really.

So, feel free to yet again ignore my comment and pounce on my religion. I hope you have a good time.

Alice Shade
June 15th, 2007, 09:17 AM
OOkay. You wanna discuss?

Well, heeere we go.

First of all, let`s reread original letter. I`ll quote the part in question.

but I can NOT sit idly by as you directly attack Christianity,
Judaism, Muslim, Wicca, and all other organized religions out there.

How do you attack them? Because you directly state that God/Goddess,
as in the invisible Deity, do NOT exist and that the Bible, Koran,
etc. are completely imagined by man and are completely false.

Now, go ahead, and tell me, how`d I "be nice" in this context without stepping all over MY philosophy, by which I have proof, that gods he mentioned do not exist? I dare you. Go ahead, and tell me.
_______

Now, as for me being "asshole"... By your logic, every single Christian, Jew and Muslim is asshole.

Don`t they all have churches/sinagogues/mosques where they congregate and condemn ALL who does not shares their beliefs to hell? Wanna go in one of those temples, and tell them - "Hey, you`re all assholes!". No? Sod off, hypocrite.
_______

About welcoming any faith here... Wanna try visiting Mosque? Wanna risk cold and fungi by having to walk barefoot on filthy stone floor? Wanna hear your mom/sister/daughter/girlfriend ordered - "You stay out, you cattle!"?

Or maybe try going into Christian church and telling you subscribe to other branch of christianity? With luck, maybe noone`ll spit on your back.

Still wanna say we`re not welcoming everyone here, eh?

Unregistered
June 15th, 2007, 08:38 PM
just a quick point its a bit nit-picky but still,

WICCA IS NOT AN ORGANISED RELIGION!

its all about what the individual

joseph
June 15th, 2007, 10:38 PM
OOkay. You wanna discuss?

Well, heeere we go.

First of all, let`s reread original letter. I`ll quote the part in question.



Now, go ahead, and tell me, how`d I "be nice" in this context without stepping all over MY philosophy, by which I have proof, that gods he mentioned do not exist? I dare you. Go ahead, and tell me.
_______

Now, as for me being "asshole"... By your logic, every single Christian, Jew and Muslim is asshole.

Don`t they all have churches/sinagogues/mosques where they congregate and condemn ALL who does not shares their beliefs to hell? Wanna go in one of those temples, and tell them - "Hey, you`re all assholes!". No? Sod off, hypocrite.
_______

About welcoming any faith here... Wanna try visiting Mosque? Wanna risk cold and fungi by having to walk barefoot on filthy stone floor? Wanna hear your mom/sister/daughter/girlfriend ordered - "You stay out, you cattle!"?

Or maybe try going into Christian church and telling you subscribe to other branch of christianity? With luck, maybe noone`ll spit on your back.

Still wanna say we`re not welcoming everyone here, eh?

You really don't listen to anyone, do you? You can have your philosophy, and not be an asshole. Your philosophy is that all religions are pointless stupid idiotic (adjectives you love etc.), right? That doesn’t make you an asshole. But, shouting at innocent people about this philosophy is how you are an asshole. I know you won’t, but what I am driving at is that to not be an asshole, you can just keep words that will hurt people’s feelings to yourself. How did your mother raise you? (And now you can go on on a rant about how I think that all non-Christian homes are evil..)

And you compare this fo-religion to actual religions? Sir, you do not actually believe that Google is god. This website was made to make fun of non-agnostic peoples. Hardcore idealist Christian websites (which I do not at all support) are made by people who actually BELIEVE what they are saying. They aren’t trying to make fun of others; they are just pushing their ACTUAL beliefs on to people, which I do hate. Do you see the difference?

I think that you just hunt for the idiotic catholic/Evangelist websites all the time to make yourself feel better.

Alice Shade
June 16th, 2007, 07:49 AM
Alright... First of all, I am female, so refer to me as lady.

Second - we DO sincerely think, that "worshipping" Google is preferable to worshipping any other established God. Given the tone of what you say, I can conclude, that you had not read the information we provided, and misunderstand the difference between "worshipping" Google, and worshipping God. I won`t explain THAT - go and read yourself.

On a side note, for someone who accuses everyone of putting their words into your mouth, you seem to be quite too well informed about what I believe or not. Hypocrisy strikes again!


As for our philosophy...

If you do not want to hear about OUR point of view, WHY the fuck you came to OUR site? Noone forced you here, noone even invited you here. So what is your problem?

Once again, how about going to any Mosque, and yelling at them for not letting you in shoed? NO? Well, why do you do same here?

Think about it, if you can. What you do right now is tantamount to walking into catholic church and yelling at preacher for not saying, that Celestial Bureaucracy and Brahmin are real. WHY on earth do you think, that you CAN do that? Moreso, HOW the freaking hell do you figure WE are hostile? In ANY real church you`d be escorted out by now (in the very best case).

P.S. One more ad hominem attack about my mother, and I`ll ban you. Capice? If you can`t discuss things without attacking personally, I`d prefer you don`t at all.

Unregistered
June 16th, 2007, 03:55 PM
No, no no no no. Whether you think it is better to worship google than god, you do NOT believe that google is god. You donít. I came to this site at first for fun because I thought it really was a bunch of people who thought google was god.. when I figured out it wasnít I decided to comment here. And yes I was invited. The difference between my running into a mosque and calling them all retards and coming here and challenging you all, is that #1 this isnít a place of worship, #2 none of you actually believe that google is god, and #3 I donít feel like any of you would show me that much respect so why should I return it?

If I was in a mosque shouting ďBLASPHEMY BABY KILLERSĒ I would expect to be thrown out because I was insulting their religion. This isnít a religion. In fact, I didnít even insult your actual agnostic beliefs. I mocked your obvious elitist subconscious, but not your actual beliefs.

The fact is you are just another troll, looking for people to make fun of. Your website displays no smart theories, maybe some clever lines that you cracked yourself up about thinking of all the people you would get angry, but nothing more. I understand it must have taken you a long time to string up enough text to get as much people pissed off as you did, and I guess in some way I can respect that, after all on troll standards you are doing fairly well.

Simply, since this isnít a religion you should not compare me saying what I am to walking into a Mosque and telling them they are wrong, Miss.

joseph
June 16th, 2007, 03:57 PM
Oops, forgot to log in. ^Me

Alice Shade
June 16th, 2007, 05:23 PM
Be more attentive.

As for text, not a single bit was written by me. I deal with computers, not people. If you`ll find some unusual code around on the site - yes, it might`ve been my creation. Text on the main pages - not mine. I simply agree with what it says.

__________________

As for religion - you ARE insulting our philosophy. And we ARE a religion. Once again, do NOT put words in our mouth - we know a bit more about Googlism, then you do, being it`s creators and practitioners.

As for Googlism being a religion... It just IS. No argument about that. Non-profit religion based on internet society. Similar to Church of Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorn.

I believe I do not need to quote laws about freedom of religion? We consciously choose to pick Googlism as our religion. No amount of denying can change that - so live with it. ANY argument you can provide against Googlism being a religion can be just as well either employed against any other religion, either be a wild speculation as to what YOU THINK WE BELIEVE. Obviously, either you disprove all religions altogether, or trying to blatantly misrepresent us by implying things we never claimed. You are familiar with the term "libel", are you? Look it up, if you are not.

Basing on this, I, in particular, claim, that my chosen philosophy/religion forbids me to acknowledge any gods, which are not veritably-existing and have factual proof of their existance. If you are trying to say I can`t/should not claim that, you are violating my right of free speech, which, I must add, is more or less international norm by now. (Barring separate countries like China, to which I do not belong, thankfully. Neither does this site.)

__________________

Considering, what I had stated above, you may also want to acknowledge a fact, that this site is a direct subject to freedom of speech laws. Or, putting it simply - telling us, that we can NOT express OUR opinions on OUR site is illegal practice.

As far as things are concerned, you have no foot to stand on. And YES, my example with visiting a church is dead-on. In your personal view we might not be a religion, but what you think does not concerns the rest of the world, does it? On this domain, Googlism is a religion.

joseph
June 16th, 2007, 11:36 PM
I am 100% certain if some one asked you your religion, you would either say that you are agnostic or completely atheist (and frankly, I donít even know why you would refer to yourself as an agnostic in your previous posts... youíre obviously an Atheist), that is unless you told about this site jokingly to a friend.

Ask yourself this question: Do you believe Google is god? I donít want an answer like ďWell my agnostic beliefs tell me that Google is the only semi-omniscient all knowing creator and being so in all likeliness Google maybe perhaps could be considered a god to some people..Ē

Read my posts, I never told you to take down this site, never even implied it really. You asked me how I thought you could have these anti-religious beliefs and not be an asshole, and I said by keeping it to yourself. Sure, I would like to see this website taken down, but there is actually no reason for it to be. Why not let trolls have their fun I guess.

By the way, I have not insulted the concept of Google being god. I donít know where you are getting that from. This website was made to insult other religions by parodying a farfetched thought. Youíve said it in other posts.

If this website was made by people who really REALLY did believe Google was god, I would not be here right now. Why? Because I donít like insulting peopleís actual beliefs. Since you donít actually believe Google is god (and no matter what you say to disguise it, you donít), there is nothing wrong with what I am saying. I am not insulting anyone here by saying the idea is stupid, but then again I havenít said that, have I?



Remember my question, and then see why the church comparison fails.

Alice Shade
June 16th, 2007, 11:51 PM
Look here. All your argument bases on the "People here do not believe Google is actual God."

Which is false. False, False, False. Get it through your head at last. And STOP telling ME what I believe in. If you feel, that what I believe in is dumb, you`re more then welcome to tell me that with all the proof you can find of that, but stop saying WHAT I believe in, like you`re the world`s finest expert on Alice Shade. I think I DO know better then you about what I believe in.

If someone were to ask me, which is my philosophy, I`d say - Satanism.
If someone were to ask me, which is my religion, I`d say - Googlism.

Now, the only troll here is you. You come to a site where noone asked you to come to, to post wind-up messages, which clearly fail to account for simple facts, let alone follow some logic. For crying out loud, noone from here ever went to christian sites to post our propaganda there.

_______________

I would demand an apology for a libel and misrepresentation, but I think you do not have mental capacity to understand WHY what you say is libelous and misrepresenting.

joseph
June 17th, 2007, 12:06 AM
Oh really, the churh of google isn't a parody website?

I guess
To weird and sad nerd. Please, learn the meaning of words "parody" and "satire".
means something different to you.

I honestly don't know who you are trying to fool.


Haha, and you attack me personally. That is pretty funny considering you told me not to just a few posts ago.

Alice Shade
June 17th, 2007, 12:18 AM
And what`s your point?

Do you mean to say, that parody can not say sincerely right things? If so, then surprise-surprise. Best parody is usually used to convey something meaningful, not just to mock. In our case, we convey the simple truth - all supernatural gods are hazardous to believe in, and consciously recognising Google as a god is much safer practice then subscribing to Christianity, Islam or other religion with predominant supernatural god(s).

As for "personal attack", it`s my personal observation based on the posts you`ve been writing. As you could`ve noticed, I never objected to your accessment of me as "asshole", since you had the chance to make up your opinion about me. However, you veritably know nothing about my mother or my relationship with her, therefore that was a personal attack.

joseph
June 17th, 2007, 12:43 AM
Don't try to warp the meaning of that post.

You were talking about the parody of religions by saying Google is god, just like The Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you don't remember, look back at that thread.

Alice Shade
June 17th, 2007, 12:52 AM
Yes. Church of Google, Church of Flying Spaghetti Monster and Church of Invisible Pink Unicorn are all parody religions.

That does not precludes them from having rational viable seed in the philosophies they suggest. Nor does any of those religions actually contains any contradictions, which would prevent them from being absolutely valid religions from technical point of view.

So, yes, it`s entirely correct to say you are Googlist, Pastafarian, or Unicornist in all seriousness. It would simply mean, that you agree with corresponding religion and consciously recognise yourself as a follower of such.

No more, no less.

joseph
June 17th, 2007, 01:44 AM
Haha, yes, you are completely right, they have the potential to be completely valid religions, but they werenít made to be worshipped, just to parody.

You have an atheist, elitist, Darwinistic, philosophy, and you do not believe that Google is god. You believe that Google has as much potential to be God as mine does, but you donít actually believe that google is the ruler of the universe.

No one actually believes in The Church of Google, they just have fun with itís parody, like you.

Alice Shade
June 17th, 2007, 02:07 AM
But once again, that does not in any way prevents us from absolutely seriously recognise ourselves as Googlists.

The mere fact, that Googlism is a parody religion does not in any way contradicts with it`s validity. That, is one of the points we are making.

We are completely serious about a parody religion. Thus, we drive home a simple fact - ANY religion is just AS valid, as parody religion WE are subscribing to, if not less.

Thus, ANY religion should be taken AS seriously, as Googlism.

Maybe, the idiocy will prevail, and Googlism will be officially recognised as a religion... In this case, we at least will provide atheists/agnostics with save "religious haven", so they could in all seriousness say - "I`m sorry, but my religious beliefs are against this." to any abomination like ID.

But we sincerely hope, that with time, people will start to understand, that ALL relligions are not to be taken seriously, and should all be discarded.

PotatoeOfDoom
June 17th, 2007, 05:17 AM
No one actually believes in The Church of Google, they just have fun with itís parody, like you.

*cough*
I believe in the Church of Google...:\

AaronD
June 17th, 2007, 09:36 PM
As do I, and Joseph has clearly not read any of the main site before coming here. We do NOT state that Google is a deity anywhere on the site. What we DO state is that Google is the closest thing there has ever been to a deity, and that is what we believe. So, before you go and try to take the moral high ground to us, realize this: We aren't making fun of anybody, not directly. If our religion happens to show somebody how ridiculous theirs is, or how ridiculous ours is, how correct ours is, or anything else that a person might possibly perceive from taking a quick glance at our site, then so be it. You, however, are a hypocrite, as Alice has suggested many times. You stated yourself that you came to the site for humor, because you thought that people actually believed Google to be god. So, right from the start, you came to the site to laugh at us because of our religion. Then, you learned that it was a parody. Something along the lines of this must have been running through your head at that point: Oh, heavens no! It can't be! They must've made this site solely to make fun of organized religions, so they're all assholes! Shame on the people I came to laugh at for laughing at people's religions! The horror! And then you made it worse for yourself by posting. You blatantly disregarded the fact that none of us ever claimed to believe Google is a deity by accusing us of... wait for it... NOT BELIEVING GOOGLE TO BE A DEITY!!! Are you starting to see the irony in all this?

Unregistered
June 18th, 2007, 05:10 PM
:B

Wow. As a /b/ member on 4Chan, I have the right to say this mail is full of epic fail.

Rhyme intended.

Digs
June 19th, 2007, 04:03 PM
Oh crap, /b/'s looking at us. Don't do anything lame, guys, they'll destroy us. Seriously.

Y hello thar, anonymous.

Unregistered
June 22nd, 2007, 02:12 PM
I just want to say something to all of you hatemailers:
You do realize that this is a mock religion, right? We're just having fun messing with everyone's thoughts and watching all of the idiots who take this seriously go crazy. This is no different than Pastafarianism, and really, who believes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world? Yet, if you think about it, it's just as plausible as many other religions out there. So, in conclusion, keep an open mind and stop confirming your own stupidity.

Unregistered
June 25th, 2007, 05:18 AM
On the contrary, Jeff. Shame on you. Such a diatribe, and all it amounts to - "don`t say other gods don`t exist". Why not? We welcome you to claim Google does not exists; we can offer a simple and veritable way to prove that Google does exists. Can ANY of the religions you mentioned do the same? Can ANY of the followers of such religion say - "Hey, my God veritably exists. To factually prove this, do that and that."?
No? Aww. Maybe there is some good logical reason, why suggestion - "God does not exists because it`s existance would contradict with this, this and this fact!" isn`t valid?
Still no? Too bad. So, pray tell me, why would I have to curb my freedom to think logically? Is there any reason, why I have to pervert logic and common sense just to assume that someone`s fantasy could be existing?

Yeah, dude. Any day of the week. Get me a Bible and a globe. That's all it takes. Study history. Study statistics. Israel should not really exist today. We're not talking about a single case of odds being stacked astronomically against them, but again and again, 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, and these days every DAY Israel stands an independent nation is a testimony to the truth and identity of the One True G-d.

No other god, including yours, makes prophecies and carries them out this way. Heck, Revelations 18 couldn't have happened until the days of 24 hour news networks. Until then, a foreign ruler would have to BE there to see the smoke of Babylon's burning.

It's a popular refrain, my friends. Unforunately for you, universal truth is not measured in mass appeal.

Unregistered
June 25th, 2007, 05:24 AM
We aren't making fun of anybody, not directly. If our religion happens to show somebody how ridiculous theirs is, or how ridiculous ours is, how correct ours is, or anything else that a person might possibly perceive from taking a quick glance at our site, then so be it.

Yeah, we used to play that game, when I was five.

"I'm just swinging my arms wildly around, and if you get hit, it's your own fault!"

It is what it is. But come on. Don't front like this site is not demeaning to people of other faiths. Of course it is.

Alice Shade
June 25th, 2007, 12:11 PM
Tell me christianity isn`t demeaning to atheists.

I dare you.

___

Israel and God? Are you kidding?

Israel exists, because it`s profitable. Simple as that.

Digs
June 25th, 2007, 03:41 PM
I always thought Israel existed because a bunch of rich jerks made and protected/continue to protect it, thinking the nation's continued existence will bring, sooner or later, a biblical apocalypse. Might bring some kind of apocalypse, sure, but I don't know about the Rapture so many people are keen on these days. I figure it'll probably be more nuclear-fallout-ruining-the-planet-for-most-life-y.

'Sup, Jeff? Your conclusions are really amazingly, fantastically wrong on almost too many levels to really appreciate fully. I'll just say this; if your faith is made to look silly by groups using logic in an attempt to do so, perhaps the duck that looks and quacks like a duck is a duck.

Regarding prophecies, it's so easy to make rationalisations to "fulfill" a prophecy that any prophecy other than an extremely basic prediction about something physical interacting pretty directly with something else physical is effectively worthless. I prophecy that you will respond to this suggestion with rank dismissal, without consideration.

-AoG-Kero
June 25th, 2007, 03:42 PM
Tell me christianity isn`t demeaning to atheists.

I dare you.


ya um alice is right. im a christian and christians pretty much disrepsect alot of athiests by being intolerant.

however alot ofchristians mean well and try to save athiests. But they dont realize that trying to save someone isnt always appropriate and pretty much is annoying since most athiests have gotten to their conclusion through years of pondering

Unregistered
June 25th, 2007, 08:07 PM
Tell me christianity isn`t demeaning to atheists.

I dare you.

___

Israel and God? Are you kidding?

Israel exists, because it`s profitable. Simple as that.

Ahahahaha!!! Oh, that's rich.. Supporting Israel is profitable.. The ONE tiny country over there that ISN'T sitting on an underground pool of crude oil, and you're telling us that pissing off all the other countries that ARE sitting on top of huge reserves of crude oil is PROFITABLE?

Explain that to me, if you would. Where does the profit part come in?

I barely recognize Christianity, and I certainly don't subscribe to your policy of making sweeping statements about such large groups. Christianity is but a perversion of Messianic Judaism, and no, Messiah didn't demean people. He warned them what would happen if they didn't change their ways, but He didn't go around insulting those that disagreed with Him. Far from it. He told His followers to love those people as themselves, just as Torah (the Law of Moses) had told them centuries earlier.

CHRISTIANS may be demeaning to others, sure. Let's be honest with ourselves, that's human nature. Christians are humans, too. But Christianity as a faith,(Which I read as its roots- Messianic Judaism) being demeaning? No.

I always thought Israel existed because a bunch of rich jerks made and protected/continue to protect it...

Yeah, that's a very common misconception among those who oppose Israel. But world history just doesn't back it up. WHAT rich people made it? WHAT powerful people helped them? Certainly not us. The strongest opposition to the creation of Israel came from within the US. We didn't lift a finger to help them win their independence, and we BARELY have since. We give a lot of lip service, because We The People WANT us to help Israel. But little ol Chechoslovakia were the only ones to help them gain independence, and they still had more troops amassed outside their borders than citizens living inside, on MORE than one occasion. Weapons don't change the odds of that kind of battle.

[QUOTE]Regarding prophecies, it's so easy to make rationalisations to "fulfill" a prophecy that any prophecy other than an extremely basic prediction about something physical interacting pretty directly with something else physical is effectively worthless. I prophecy that you will respond to this suggestion with rank dismissal, without consideration.{/QUOTE]

Ah, but see, that's a self-fulfilling prophecies. It doesn't require anything outside yourself. You give weak arguments, and then prophecy that they will not be adhered to? That's fine, but the G-d of Israel prophesied the regathering of Israel, prophesied that one day foreign kings could stand afar off FROM Babylon, and see the smoke of her burning... Prophesied CNN, thousands of years ago(Rev 18).

What "rationalization" ? It's pretty direct stuff. And we're talking about one of the most-repeated prophesies IN the Bible. From Gen 15, Zeph 3, Jer 23, Amos 9, I don't even KNOW how many places in Isaiah... MOST of the Hebrew prophets foretold this. Micah 4 even CALLS them a "remnant".. between stalin and hitler, yeah, that's all that was left. Nonetheless, the G-d of Israel is clear. He has brought His people, and they have moved for the last time.

That's not useless at all, except that you want it to be. Like all too many these days, instead of approaching the evidence with an open mind, you approach it with the conclusion you WANT to see, and lo and behold, you see it!

Baruch Hashem, and I thank you, Father, that you opened my heart to see the truth around me, in every Newspaper and on every globe, that you are a G-d whose Word is eternal and unchangeable. If it be your will, I ask that you do the same for all who read these words. This I ask in the Name of Yeshua haMeshiach. Amen.

Alice Shade
June 25th, 2007, 09:20 PM
Hah. Gotcha.

Who said anything about ECONOMICAL profit?

I`m talking about political profit.

Israel is a perfect excuse to slam arabs. Isn`t it really obvious?

Support of Israel, "peacekeeping" in Iran, Iraq, Quwait - all the links of one chain. And the purpose of all that is to keep the arabs down, and force them into selling THEIR oil by manageable prices.

While there IS Israel to fight over, arabs will jointly expend billions of bucks in oil to keep themselves armed and able to sustain a war. Take Israel out, and what happens? Arabs get whole Middle East, where they can lay down their control, without any neighboring countries to observe them from. Guess what`s next? They get nukes, and start to speculate with their oil. And they`ll ask prices twice and thrice over what they ask now, because they would have a "deny cushion" space. They would no longer need so much money to wage a war anymore.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Quwait, Pakistan - imagine them all uniting into ONE Arabian Conglomerate? They can and will make a corner on oil market, if they`ll be allowed to unite.

THIS is what Israel exists for, among other things. In the best traditions of ancient Roman saying - "Separate and conquer!" Israel is just another sinkhole to divert arabs to, to prevent them from uniting.

___

As for Bible prophecies... Bible is chock-full with them.

Jesus` teachings had already been preached in every place where people live there is, and followers of Jesus had LONG ago visited all the Israel cities.

Where`s our Armageddon and Second Coming, I`d like to hear? It`s also been prophecied in Bible.

Unregistered
June 25th, 2007, 10:17 PM
Hah. Gotcha.

Who said anything about ECONOMICAL profit?

I`m talking about political profit.

Israel is a perfect excuse to slam arabs. Isn`t it really obvious?

It's obvious to me that, as usual, Israel is a very convenient scapegoat. I hear this from American liberals all the time, and just like their conservative counterparts they forget, Arabs don't NEED an outside reason to hate us. America has given them plenty, from installing the Shah in Iran back in the 50s, up through putting permanent American military bases on Muslim holy land (Saudi Arabia) after Gulf war 1. Look at the powers that be when this stuff is going on.. The Iran/Contra scandal, Gulf War 1(Saddam DID have reason to be pissed at Kuwait), and the current wave of "liberation"- There's been a Bush working in the White House all three times. Don't blame Israel.



Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Quwait, Pakistan - imagine them all uniting into ONE Arabian Conglomerate? They can and will make a corner on oil market, if they`ll be allowed to unite.

Sounds a little bit like OPEC, wouldn't you say? What could possibly make you think that an Arab monopoly on oil is something ANYONE but an Arab investor would WANT? If anything, Israel UNITES these people AND their nations, by giving them a common enemy. And for the record, Iranians don't like it when you call them Arabs. They trace their ancestry back to the Persian empire, and the great King Cyrus, who was a wonderful friend to Israel AND the Temple.

THIS is what Israel exists for, among other things. In the best traditions of ancient Roman saying - "Separate and conquer!" Israel is just another sinkhole to divert arabs to, to prevent them from uniting.

Ha! Let historians credit Alexander the so-called great with that strategy. I know that it was first conceived and executed by the father of deception, way back in the garden.

But, hey, if you want to prove the Bible wrong, all you need to do is kill or expel every last Jew from Cana'an. It's been tried, and it's failed every time.

Alice Shade
June 26th, 2007, 12:01 AM
...Learn to read.

Israel exists as a proper reason for USA and UN to bash on arabs to keep them at bay and sell oil by relatively low prices.

And no, Israel separates them. Physically. Makes them travel over the desert and lose numerous resources in the war. Not to mention, that not all arabs share the idea of this war, which is forced onto all of them, forming a nice separation of society. Rich warmongers who get profits from war and oil selling, and poor citizens, who just want to live in their counrty without war.

And bua-ha-ha about Persia being best friends with Iran. Wasn`t it Persian king, who invaded Israel, and razed their sacred Temple?

___

Hey, there are plenty of other ways to prove Bible wrong without exterminating Jews.

Unregistered
June 26th, 2007, 12:24 AM
Learn to read? You never explained it!

Anybody watch South Park? This reminds me of the underpants gnomes..

Okay, so step 1 is support Israel. Step 3 is lower oil prices.

WHAT'S STEP TWO????

And regarding the internal workings of these Arab nations, ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Have you.. have you spent much time actually studying Middle Eastern politics? I would think even a general 20th century history class would cover a lot of this. You actually believe that all these Muslim/Arab countries had some great Utopian society, where the common people benefited from the resources sold to other countries, and either the US or Israel somehow screwed that up?

NO! It's ALWAYS been this way! Ever since oil became a commodity on the international market, virtually EVERY political boundary IN the middle east was put there because of some agreement or dispute over oil. The people have NEVER seen the benefits of their land's underground wealth. The common people are poor, and always HAVE been. The rulers, and the investors have ALWAYS been the ones profiting.

I will say you have a good point in saying that oil interests profit from war (often on both sides of the SAME war, which has been going on since WW2). Typically, the finger gets pointed only at the arms companies, and yes, it's petroleum products that keep those guns lubricated, and those tanks rumbling on through the desert.

No, I'm not saying Iran is friends with Persia. They ARE Persia. The Persian empire expanded out of what is modern day Iran. I don't know what Persian King you're referring to, but I'm only aware of two Temples, one destroyed by the Babylonians, the other by the Romans.

It was the great King Cyrus of Persia who conquered Babylon, set free all the Hebrew slaves, gave them passage back to Israel AND restored all the stolen articles FROM the Temple to Jerusalem. It's a shame that his descendants don't understand that having different faiths doesn't HAVE to make people enemies.

Alice Shade
June 26th, 2007, 01:12 AM
Alright, Iran and Persia was a typo. It was meant to be Israel in both points.

"And bua-ha-ha about Persia being best friends with Israel. Wasn`t it Persian king, who invaded Israel, and razed their sacred Temple?"

As far as I remember my course of ancient history, Persian armies occupied east coast of Mediterranean on numerous occassions.

___

And not reading strikes again. Had you read about separation of society?

Imagine, what would happen, when there would be NO Israel? What would rich warmongers tout a war towards to keep siphoning oil money into mega-profitable for everyone arms deals?

They don`t have it separately to bash on USA or UN countries separated, and they are surrounded by muslim countries. They will have to unite and find enemy to continue their money-making.

Unless you overlooked it, that`s what they are preparing for now - the whole issue with the terrorism acts. Israel used back as casus belli, and the issue prolonged with conventional excuse of Jihad.

But the whole kit and kaboodle? It`s just a humongous peace of performance art, called "Inhuman Greed".

Unregistered
June 26th, 2007, 02:22 AM
Look, I get what you're saying about separation of society. This occurs both in capitalism and communism (both of whom have been "courting" Arab/Muslim society for 50+ years). It happens in America, too. The poor stay poor while the rich get richer. What I'm (apparently) missing is what any of that has to do with the US, the UN or Israel.

"Imagine, what would happen, when there would be NO Israel? What would rich warmongers tout a war towards to keep siphoning oil money into mega-profitable for everyone arms deals?"

Again, I don't mean to insult you here, but I don't think world history is on your side of this. Consider the way America played Iran and Iraq against one another. We had put the Shah in power, so he was our guy for a long time. Then he was overthrown, and all of a sudden, we backed Saddam, became HIS best customer. Then they started fighting (Which had NOTHING to do with Israel, btw) and we decided the best thing to do would be to give at least token support to each side, under the table, in a way that was plausibly deniable, and sell arms to both. Now, of course, this is GROSSLY oversimplified, but this was one huge conflict in the Middle East, which the US had our hand in, that didn't have the SLIGHTEST BIT to do with Israel. It would have happened just the same with or without Israel.

Or take Gulf War 1. Most Americans don't seem to understand that Kuwait had reneged on a contract with Saddam regarding oil drilling. If your house is on 75% of the oil field, and my house is over 25%, you're supposed to give me 25% of your profts, and I'm supposed to give you 75% of mine. That was the deal for decades. Kuwait stopped paying Saddam, and since he THOUGHT he was our guy, he invaded and took over the oil fields. Again, ANOTHER Arab conflict over money and oil that would have gone the exact same way with or without Israel.

It`s just a humongous peace of performance art, called "Inhuman Greed".

Well said.

Alice Shade
June 26th, 2007, 02:41 AM
I never said, that Iran/Iraq are directly linked with Israel.

I`m saying, that all of that are links of the same chain.

Which, ultimately, is segregation of Middle East into warring small nations, too dispowered by struggle with each other and Israel (which unlike arabs is getting open and clear support from both UN and USA) to unite and dictate the oil prices.

Israel is meant as a constant reason for war - reason why USA and UN would give arabs economical sanctions and regulate their science from "moral high" and world-wide supported position. In the backwards motion, it`s also a reason for arabs to keep on waging a futile war, and thus, expend their best resources, minds and men on that sinkhole, instead of putting them together to reunite and set their own oil empire.

While I agree, that there is enough of arab in-fighting without Israel, Israel is just too useful a "tool". Without it, provoking arabs into fighting each other would be much harder and bloodier.

Think of Israel as of Damocles sword constantly hanging over the arabs. As soon as arabs start to jerk around, they get poked with it.

Digs
June 27th, 2007, 03:09 PM
Ah, but see, that's a self-fulfilling prophecies. It doesn't require anything outside yourself. You give weak arguments, and then prophecy that they will not be adhered to? That's fine, but the G-d of Israel prophesied the regathering of Israel, prophesied that one day foreign kings could stand afar off FROM Babylon, and see the smoke of her burning... Prophesied CNN, thousands of years ago(Rev 18).

The prophecies you're suggesting are fulfilled are largely sourced and verified from the same place. If I write a fictional book stating that an event will happen later in the book, and it does, well golly, I guess I'm a prophet.

As for events you suggest are prophecied and fulfilled outside of the book, that's what we call rationalisation. I can describe a series of random events in moderate detail and trust that they will happen eventually, as long as enough fools are willing to construct justifications for the silly belief that everything I say will come to pass in some meaningful way relevant to them.

Alice, when you put it that way, I guess I don't really mind Israel. It destabilises a potentially dangerous region without any need for pesky prolonged war by any nation other than Israel, at the cost of the occasional supplied F-15-ACTIVE or whatever unit is needed. If the Allied leadership was actually thinking that when they established the nation, they were pretty shrewd customers, and they put a lot of people into a terrible situation for the accomplishment of a reasonably noble goal.

Endless Nameless
July 3rd, 2007, 04:51 AM
I disagree. A prophecy IS rather pointless if verified from the source of the prophecy, but I'm not aware of that being the case in any important biblical prophecies, unless you make the same mistakes Christians do, of viewing "the Bible" as a single book, rather than a collection of 60-100+ separate books (depending on which version).

Take Messianic prophecy, for example. The prophecies themselves are in such books as Genesis, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.. and their fulfillment is thousands of years later, in such books as Matthew, Mark and John. It's not really the same source. They're simply printed together because of their relevance to one another. However, since so many of my brethren make the mistake of seeing "the Bible" as a single book, I can't exactly fault nonbelievers for doing likewise.

As to the detail, you seem a little confused. What you're saying about rationalization fits great for pseudo-prophets, from the Oracle at Delphi, to Nostradamus, and up to the modern day fakers like Edgar Cayce and John Edwards. They all speak vaguely, in terms that could be taken a million different ways, and applied to a million different situations.

That's not the case with the Bible. There ARE cryptic (gnostic) prophecies, but those came AFTER a command to seal up parts of the Word until the end of days (which is in Isaiah, I believe).

We can take THIS back to the Messianic prophecies. They were not at ALL vague. They were SO specific, as to often be, in fact, REDUNDANT. They were so specific, that every man in history, save one, has failed the test of prophecy.

Even non-Messianic Jews have to grasp at straws to deny it. Go to www.jewsforjudaism.com or any other anti-missionary site, and the passages they'll cite don't even MENTION messiah (like the notion that Messiah is to rebuild the Temple).

An example of redundancy- Messiah must be a descendent of Abraham(Genesis 12:3; 18:18), Judah(Genesis 49:10), King David(Psalm 132:11 and Jeremiah 23:5,6; 33:15,16).. It would seem more detail than necessary wouldn't it? If King David was a descendant of Judah, and Judah was a descendant of Abraham... But the prophecy was given at the beginning, as part of the Abrahamic covenant, and repeated to future generations (just like the larger Abrahamic covenant was repeated to Isaac and Jacob).

The other prophecies are JUST as specific. He is to be a prophet like Moses, a priest after the order of Melki-tzedek, born in Beit-Lechem, but begin His ministry in Galilee... Some of the prophecies are even SO specific as to have probably appeared contradictory. He is to be buried with the rich, although He is to have been born to humble roots, be mocked, rejected, pierced (yet have no bones broken, as our eternal Pesach lamb), even forsaken by His own apostles, and sold for 30 pieces of silver. I mean, how specific can you get? We have the exact price paid for His life, recorded in Zecharyah 11.

Digs
July 3rd, 2007, 02:57 PM
The prophecy of the Messiah having been fulfilled is not a certain thing. Bring me a pound of Jesus, please? Perhaps the Shroud of Turin? The dust that remains of the corpses of the apostles? I mean, really, anything to suggest that this figure actually existed. Maybe the Romans kept records of the guys they nailed to boards.

Even if he did exist, it's entirely possible and more parsimonious to think that the man happened to have the events described in the older book happen to him than it is to believe that an omnipresent, omnipotent entity forced these events to happen with a power completely beyond comprehension. It is possible that a god's intervention made the events fit the prophecy, but Ockham's Razor and logical parsimony tell us that it was circumstance, as there is no compelling evidence to suggest that any god exists at this moment in time.

Consider also that Jesus was, according to the book you're citing, learned in the ways of religion from an extremely early age. It's possible that, if he existed, he lived his life attempting to fit the mold set by the prophecies of the book.

Endless Nameless
July 3rd, 2007, 05:46 PM
Bring me a pound of Aristotle? How about a bushel of Napoleon, or a cup of Washington? How do we know any of these existed?

It's been beat into the ground, and only those that refuse to give an inch in spite of evidence still cling to this thoroughly disproven theory.

If you're gonna say He didn't exist, then you'll need to explain why the historian Josephus, himself NOT a believer in Yeshua as Messiah, went along with the gag, and spoke of Him and His followers as very real people. I don't really expect an answer, and after that, neither do I expect to see any other argument out of you compelling enough to warrant an answer. But I will be watching, you could surprise me.

And I suppose the apostle Judah, also knew the prophecy, knew that Yeshua wasn't REALLY the Messiah, but made sure the price was 30 pieces of silver, just to fool everybody, too? If the prophecies only dealt with events in His life, you'd have a point. But some were determined true or false at his very birth. Others involved the way people would interact with him. Still more were determined by the events of His death and beyond. His accusers would have known the prophecies, too. Why not just break his finger, to make sure He couldn't have fit them all?

Unregistered
July 3rd, 2007, 06:12 PM
Every religion claims it's the only way to heaven either way so like,
that's almost the same as saying "your religion is false, mine is superior and true"
which is basically just as good as saying "your god doesn't exist"

Alice Shade
July 4th, 2007, 11:36 AM
Actually...

Considering, that bible was translated so many times, and noone as of now speaks the original languages bible was written in, it would be quite fair to recognise the possibility of "retrograde" prophecy. As in, intentional mistranslation of original text to fit the text to already occured event.

As for Jesus not existing - it is entirely fair to suggest that he could`ve existed. Alas, the only source, which suggests so, is Bible. While Aristotle, Napoleon, Washington and etc. were all referenced in a wide array of works from all angles. Whereas Jesus is only cited in bible, and all the references in other works reference to bible, rather then Jesus himself.

Actually, there information about Jesus outside of bible and several artifacts (like Shroud of Turin) is so meager, that it makes hard to even make up an approximate portrait of Jesus.

Digs
July 4th, 2007, 02:46 PM
Excellent points all, Alice. I'd like to add that I'm also not basing an entire worldview around the existence of Aristotle and company, let alone claiming that suggesting they didn't exist is offencive to me. Those historical figures might've existed, and really we have more evidence that they did than that Jesus did, but I won't shed a tear if it turns out they didn't.

DarkWade
July 5th, 2007, 03:02 AM
I am wicken and I believe that a god's are only user friendly ways to gather power from the universe. if people truely believe google is god than it is a path way to power.

E_Wade_L

Alice Shade
July 5th, 2007, 03:52 AM
Depends on what understands under a power.

In a nutshell, though... There`s more then one philosophical statement to explain simple concept.

Unregistered
July 5th, 2007, 10:24 PM
Actually...

Considering, that bible was translated so many times, and noone as of now speaks the original languages bible was written in...

Where are you getting your information?

The Bible HAS been translated probably more times than any other text, but we have not lost the originals, at all. It was written in ancient Hebrew, which LOOKS different from modern Hebrew, but much like Aramaic, the differences are mainly cosmetic, and it is this knowledge, of how to turn the ancient Hebrew symbols into the Hebrew letters we know now that allows us to figure out what the Dead Sea Scrolls say (yep, it is ANOTHER ancient, though partial, record of Tanakh).

This is just another case of people believing what they want, and not letting little things like evidence get in the way.

Another example is the refusal to admit Yeshua as a historical character. It isn't just the Bible. I'm pretty sure... yeah, right in this very thread, I referenced a source outside the bible referring to Yeshua. Did anybody bother to google it or wiki it? Noooo, they just come back with the same tired claim I just disputed. Yeah, there WEREN'T a LOT of writers confirming it. But again, an understanding of Hebrew culture explains this.

Ancient Israel was the earliest recorded society requiring literacy of its people, even commoners. So Jews, like Josephus, could have recorded it, while the largely ignorant commoners Yeshua and His people visited in other lands would have no means to do so.

The Jews, who could write, recorded it. Others, who couldn't, didn't. What's suspicious about that, again?

Alice Shade
July 5th, 2007, 11:44 PM
Care to name that source again? I can`t seem to recall it.

And you miss the point entirely.

I completely agree that there is a distinct possibility of philosopher Yeshua Ga-Nocsri being factual historical figure. What I do doubt, that would be that he walked the waters (sandbank explains that quite well), fed five thousand people with five breads (Definite hyperbola. Chances are, that he did inspired people to chip in, and out of meager contribution of everyone a substantial amount of food for everyone was organised.), or that he rose from the grave (outright wishful fairytale).

In short... Yeshua could very well be. But he was not Jesus Christ. He`s a scapegoat given up to create a face of god - which Jesus Christ is.

___

As for bible and originals... No. We do NOT have the originals as they were written by the apostles themselves. Only copied-over scrolls. Which could be changed by scribes very easily.

On a side note - old hebrew and aramaican are both dead for a long time. HOW do we know, that modern reconstruction of them really corresponds 100% accurately to what they meant in ancient times? The very way of thinking had changed. No doubt, linguistics changed too.

Digs
July 6th, 2007, 01:06 AM
I'm pretty sure that it'd be impossible to have an original, barring truly extraordinary circumstances. We don't really, you know, make books that last upwards of two to three thousand years, or if we can, we certainly couldn't back then.

Alice Shade
July 6th, 2007, 01:33 AM
Actually, Digs, exactly back then we could.

Because back then, books were usually written on parchment of papyrus, both of which are much more durable then paper.

So, it`s entirely possible, that some parts of original Bible books would be found. But definitely NOT the entire original content. I`m sure that most of it was destroyed over history.

Digs
July 6th, 2007, 03:30 PM
Oh? I guess that makes sense, now that I think about it. I remember reading about someone finding the scraps of the Dead Sea Scrolls not all that long ago. I guess I shouldn't have said anything about the writing material's integrity without really knowing, hee hee. Although I will say that a whole lot of stuff could happen to a Bible's worth of papyrus in three thousand years.

Alice Shade
July 7th, 2007, 01:02 AM
Well, yes.

Both papyrus and parchment are not indestructable, and certainly entirety of Bible had no way to survive.

But separate passages could`ve had a chance. After all, we did found some scrolls dating back to pre-bible times.

FreeDUMBisFREE
July 11th, 2007, 02:24 AM
The more I read the more I find myself agreeing with Alice Shade on this issue. The idea that organized religion provides ethics, morality, and a positive re-inforcement for life, to me, is just plain wrong. If you look at the history of religion, the violence, the hypocrisy, the crusades, the inquisitions, the lies, the politics, and the overall destruction which has been perpetrated in God's name...well, I just can't help but believe that the world would be a better place without religion.

We've tried living WITH religion for nearly 2 thousand years...I say let's try living without it for awhile and see what happens! And for those who say religion provides a "fear of God" by which people live their lives morally...I say "BULLSHIT!" Religion (especially Christianity) provides an EXCUSE to behave immorally through forgiveness of sin!

For recent proof see the sins of Conservative, Religious, Republican Senator David Vitter from Louisiana!

Lord_Jereth
July 14th, 2007, 12:38 PM
Bring me a pound of Aristotle? How about a bushel of Napoleon, or a cup of Washington? How do we know any of these existed?

It's been beat into the ground, and only those that refuse to give an inch in spite of evidence still cling to this thoroughly disproven theory.

If you're gonna say He didn't exist, then you'll need to explain why the historian Josephus, himself NOT a believer in Yeshua as Messiah, went along with the gag, and spoke of Him and His followers as very real people. I don't really expect an answer, and after that, neither do I expect to see any other argument out of you compelling enough to warrant an answer. But I will be watching, you could surprise me.

And I suppose the apostle Judah, also knew the prophecy, knew that Yeshua wasn't REALLY the Messiah, but made sure the price was 30 pieces of silver, just to fool everybody, too? If the prophecies only dealt with events in His life, you'd have a point. But some were determined true or false at his very birth. Others involved the way people would interact with him. Still more were determined by the events of His death and beyond. His accusers would have known the prophecies, too. Why not just break his finger, to make sure He couldn't have fit them all?

I cover most of your points in this thread: http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1467&page=2

But one I'd like to touch on other, here. I'm not sure which prophesy you're talking about with the 30 pieces of silver from Judah but here's something interesting that you might want to look up:

ZE 11:12-13 Mentions "thirty pieces" and could possibly be thought to
be connected with the Potter's Field prophesy referred to in Matthew.
MT 27:9 Jeremiah is given as the source of the prophesy regarding the
purchase of the Potter's Field. (Note: There is no such prophesy in
Jeremiah.)

As far as your Jesus figure:

An example of redundancy- Messiah must be a descendent of Abraham(Genesis 12:3; 18:18), Judah(Genesis 49:10), King David(Psalm 132:11 and Jeremiah 23:5,6; 33:15,16).. It would seem more detail than necessary wouldn't it? If King David was a descendant of Judah, and Judah was a descendant of Abraham... But the prophecy was given at the beginning, as part of the Abrahamic covenant, and repeated to future generations (just like the larger Abrahamic covenant was repeated to Isaac and Jacob).

Your point is invalid simply because not even the Bible can be shown to agree on his supposed lineage between separate authors - specifically in reference to the prophesy that the messiah MUST be of the line of David:

MT 1:6-7 The lineage of Jesus is traced through David's son, Solomon.
LK 3:23-31 It is traced through David's son, Nathan. (Note: Some
apologists assert that Luke traces the lineage through Mary. That this
is untrue is obvious from the context since Luke and Matthew both
clearly state that Joseph was Jesus' father.)

MT 1:16 Jacob was Joseph's father.
LK 3:23 Heli was Joseph's father.

MT 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus.
LK 3:23-38 There were forty-three.

But, in fact, by Hebrew law, the lineage MUST be traced through the mother and there is a break in that lineage. Jesus was, by Hebrew law, NOT of the line of David by this lineage.

As far as the Isaiac prophecy, specifically:

Isaiah 7:14
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Now, when read out of the proper context you get the Christ prophecy. But within the context we will see that is a local prophecy meant for King Ahaz, and for a very special purpose. Also within the full prophecy (which Christians never really quote all the way through) we will also see that it could not be talking about Jesus.

Isaiah 7
7:1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it.
2 And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.
3 Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field;
4 And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah.
5 Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying,
6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal:
7 Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.
9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.
10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.
12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.
13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

As we can see by the proper context, the prophecy is a local one set to happen within the time of King Ahaz. This sign was to show Ahaz that an attack against him and his kingdom would fail. This is not an event 700 or so years in the future. In fact, the propchey was stated as being fulfilled in the next chapter of Isaiah. But first let us look a wee bit closer to the above prophecy and ask the following questions:
1. If it is about Jesus, then why does it state that the child will refuse the evil and choose the good?
2. If Jesus is god, then he would know automatically. But in the prophecy, it is said that "before" the child knows to choose the good. Why? How can thi be of Jesus if Jesus is god?

As I said before, in the next chapter of Isaiah the prophecy is fulfilled, and this can be read in verses 3-4:

Isaiah 8:3-4
3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.
4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.

So, we see here it is a local prophecy. Also note that the child is NOT named Immanuel. But Mahershalahashbaz. Also note that Jesus in not named Immanuel either. (We will get to this later).

Okay, following me so far? Being a local prophecy, there is no way it can be a Jesus prophecy. If it is a dual prophecy, as some Christians will claim, then Jesus was not the first to be born of a virgin. Correct? I doubt there would be many Christians willing to admit this, though I could be wrong. But in all actuality, the word used for virgin here in verse 14 is "almah", which is correctly translated as "young woman." The correct word for virgin is "bethula." Some modern versions of the bible correctly translate the verses, such as the National Revised Standard version, and with the proper translation we see even more that the prophecy is a local one for King Ahaz:

Isaiah 7:14 (NRSV)
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

She is pregnant now, and a young woman, not a virgin. Put in the proper context, this is not a prophecy about Jesus Christ, never was, and never will be.

As a side note here, I would also like to mention the following, this prophecy failed in a few ways: the child was not named Immanuel and when one reads 2 Chronicles 28:1-5 the attack against Ahaz was successful after all:

2 Chronicles 28
28:1 Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem: but he did not that which was right in the sight of the LORD, like David his father:
2 For he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and made also molten images for Baalim.
3 Moreover he burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire, after the abominations of the heathen whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel.
4 He sacrificed also and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.
5 Wherefore the LORD his God delivered him into the hand of the king of Syria; and they smote him, and carried away a great multitude of them captives, and brought them to Damascus. And he was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel, who smote him with a great slaughter.

So we see from the bible itself, this is not a prophecy of Jesus, and it is a failed prophecy as well.


Continued in next post ...

:icon_cool: LJ

Lord_Jereth
July 14th, 2007, 12:38 PM
In fact, your own Bible doesn't even support Jesus' ability to BE the sacrificial messiah. I'll let my good buddy Mark handle this one:

Jesus, a Legal Sacrifice for Our Sins????

by Mark Napier

You know, I hear it from Christians all the time that Jesus fulfilled the law, and we are no longer bound by it, that by Jesus offering himself as a sacrifice, we are freed from the law, and that the law WAS fulfilled in this "supposed" sacrifice. One of the main passages that Christians will cite from the Bible is the following:

Mat 5:17 `Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets did not come to throw down, but to fulfil;
Mat 5:18 for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass.
Mat 5:19 `Whoever therefore may loose one of these commands--the least--and may teach men so, least he shall be called in the reign of the heavens, but whoever may do and may teach them , he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens.
Mat 5:20 `For I say to you, that if your righteousness may not abound above that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye may not enter to the reign of the heavens.

(Young's Literal Translation)

Now, IF the bible is infallible and IF these words are really the words of Jesus, then we should be able to confirm with a resounding YES that Jesus did in fact fulfill the law. The Old Testament is abound in laws laws laws. We should be able to confirm that Jesus was what he claimed and did what the Christians claim he did. But the question is this: did Jesus fulfill the law in accordance with the law itself? No! And the bible backs this position up soundly as we shall see.


I have heard Christians claim that the book of Hebrews pretty much sums up the reasons that Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for our sins. The author goes out of his way to paint Jesus as the real deal, but in essence destroys his own argument when he admits Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, and not Levi.


Heb 7:14 for it is evident that out of Judah hath arisen our Lord, in regard to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.



But in the book of exodus we see clearly that it was the house Levi and not the house of Judah that had the rights to offer sacrifice.

Num 1:50 and thou, appoint the Levites over the tabernacle of the testimony, and over all its vessels, and over all that it hath; they bear the tabernacle, and all its vessels, and they serve it; and round about the tabernacle they encamp.
Num 1:51 `And in the journeying of the tabernacle, the Levites take it down, and in the encamping of the tabernacle, the Levites raise it up; and the stranger who is coming near is put to death.'

Num 3:6 `Bring near the tribe of Levi, and thou hast caused it to stand before Aaron the priest, and they have served him,
Num 3:7 and kept his charge, and the charge of all the company before the tent of meeting, to do the service of the tabernacle;
Num 3:8 and they have kept all the vessels of the tent of meeting, and the charge of the sons of Israel, to do the service of the tabernacle;



1Ch 23:26 and also of the Levites, `None are to bear the tabernacle and all its vessels for its service;'
1Ch 23:27 for by the last words of David they took the number of the sons of Levi from a son of twenty years and upward,
1Ch 23:28 for their station is at the side of the sons of Aaron, for the service of the house of Jehovah, over the courts, and over the chambers, and over the cleansing of every holy thing, and the work of the service of the house of God,

We can see from the above that the Levites were the ones in charge of these things. IF Jesus were of the tribe of Judah, he would be ineligible to offer sacrifices to god. Strike one I think.



Also the place for these sacrifices was to be the altar in the temple, by the priests. We can read this "law" in the following passages:

Deu 12:11 `And it hath been, the place on which Jehovah your God doth fix to cause His name to tabernacle there, thither ye bring in all that which I am commanding you, your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave-offering of your hand, and all the choice of your vows which ye vow to Jehovah;
Deu 12:12 and ye have rejoiced before Jehovah your God, ye, and your sons, and your daughters, and your men-servants, and your handmaids, and the Levite who is within your gates, for he hath no part and inheritance with you.
Deu 12:13 `Take heed to thee, lest thou cause thy burnt-offerings to ascend in any place which thou seest,
Deu 12:14 except in the place which Jehovah doth choose in one of thy tribes, there thou dost cause thy burnt-offerings to ascend, and there thou dost do all that which I am commanding thee.

Also:

2Ch 7:12 And Jehovah appeareth unto Solomon by night, and saith to him, `I have heard thy prayer, and have fixed on this place to Me for a house of sacrifice.


Now, was Jesus sacrificed the place chosen by YHWH to be his house of sacrifice? No! This is strike two gentle reader.



For the third strike we ask this: Was Jesus a lawfully consecrated priest? No! In the book Exodus, starting at chapter 29 we read of the ceremonies that were to be performed for the Levites to be admitted to the priesthood. We also find in the 40th Chapter of Exodus the following:


Exo 40:15 and anointed them as thou hast anointed their father, and they have acted as priests to Me, and their anointing hath been to be to them for a priesthood age-during, to their generations.' This means that the priesthood was passed from father to son. Joseph was not anointed to the priesthood, he was a carpenter!
Jesus fulfilled none these things I have mentioned. The Old Testament shows the unlawfulness of the christ sacrifice.



Normally there are three strikes and you are outÖ but just to be really fair to Jesus and his little flock of mindless followers, let us look at another problem that Jesus would have in order to be a legitimate sacrifice:


Lev 21:17 `Speak unto Aaron, saying, No man of thy seed to their generations in whom there is blemish doth draw near to bring near the bread of his God,
Lev 21:18 for no man in whom is blemish doth draw near--a man blind, or lame or dwarfed, or enlarged,
Lev 21:19 or a man in whom there is a breach in the foot, or a breach in the hand,
Lev 21:20 or hump-backed, or a dwarf, or with a mixture in his eye, or a scurvy person, or scabbed, or broken-testicled.
Lev 21:21 `No man in whom is blemish (of the seed of Aaron the priest) doth come nigh to bring near the fire-offerings of Jehovah; blemish is in him; the bread of his God he doth not come nigh to bring near.



Now correct me if I am wrong, but Jesus was beaten, scourged and more before he was put up on the cross to slowly slowly die.

The fact of the matter is this, the bible shows us without a doubt that Jesus was not a legal sin offering for himself let alone all of us. To coin a popular mantra from the Christians,"The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!"

Now, the only justification for these discrepancies must be human error - which, in fact was argued about earlier and is upheld by this present argument. Which also lends toward the view that your Bible was either written by men and therefore not divine truth (fallible) or your gawd made a goof in dictation.

Still watching?

:icon_cool: LJ

Unregistered
July 19th, 2007, 06:07 PM
Dude, attack? Google attacks religions? Get over yourself Jeff. Go find a soapbox an stand on it! Church of Google is allowed opinions y'know. Your the one attacking this religion, seeing as you can NOT keep your whining down. Moaning people, one of life's downfalls.

Unregistered
July 23rd, 2007, 02:27 AM
Jareth-

Christians can not be expected to understand the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants, when they show contempt for Torah, and the Israelites, and have changed everything about their religion, in order to have nothing in common with "these odious people" (Council of Nicea). It doesn't mean that a proper understanding cannot be found by one who seeks truth in love and humility.

SAVAGE
July 27th, 2007, 12:08 AM
but I can NOT sit idly by as you directly attack Christianity,
Judaism, Muslim, Wicca, and all other organized religions out there.

Boo Fricken Hoo!

How do you attack them?

With Logic.

Because you directly state that God/Goddess,
as in the invisible Deity, do NOT exist and that the Bible, Koran,
etc. are completely imagined by man and are completely false.

Well the term invisible should have something to do with it, wipe the Jesus jizz from your eyes and wake the fuck up.

If you
were as neutral and/or pro-"can't we all just get along" as you would
have others be deceived you to be, you'd remove ALL anti-theistic
content from your site and replace it with words and statements of
acceptance or have no words pro/anti any religion at all.

Your a wanker.

Until then,
you and yours are just as much hypocrites and fools as you claim the
other organized religions to be.

Seeing as you are a wanker, and god didnt allow onan to spill his seed...you my friend are much more of a hypocrite than any atheist.....thats why you teabagg and dad wank.


By the way... I am not in any way a member of any organized
religion... I just hate it when I see someone trying to stand on a
soapbox and preach without being able to live up to their own
rhetoric. Shame on you.

From: Jeff

Well Jeffblow why dont you get the fuck off your fucking soap box and stop being a hypocrirte.

I respect your right to be a dad wanking theist, but that doesnt make you any less of a fuckwit.

Toast_recon
July 30th, 2007, 05:31 AM
I respect what you guys do here, I really do.

Jeff, I want to keep this short, as I am tired.

How can there be progress if one is not allowed to argue right and wrong?
If it becomes against "code" to argue against things, how will we ever learn? Where would we be today if we had not abolished such theories as a geo central system?
"Out with the old, in with the new" Is a much better saying than "If it aint broke, don't fix it(and with much better grammar as well)

Lord_Jereth
August 2nd, 2007, 04:01 AM
Jareth-

Christians can not be expected to understand the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants, when they show contempt for Torah, and the Israelites, and have changed everything about their religion, in order to have nothing in common with "these odious people" (Council of Nicea). It doesn't mean that a proper understanding cannot be found by one who seeks truth in love and humility.

In my experience, your average street level xtian fundy has no clue about the history of his/her chosen religion, period. As an experiment, ask 100 fundies about the significance of the two councils of Nicea and I can just about guarantee you that 99, if not 100 of them won't have even heard of it. The subject is not taught to the sheep. Your average fundy is only good for regurgitating what they hear. What they hear is pre-chewed, non-faith challenging, non-question raising, sanitized pap from the pulpit. I have yet to find one, even those who have gone to "christian colleges" (read, fundy propaganda and re-education centers) that have ever heard the term before. Further, they are not only not given the tools to do their own research with, they are discouraged from it. Wonder why?

"Just be good little sheep, believe in our stories of a milksop of a fake messiah, don't ask questions and remember, logic is of the devil."

If Yesue Bin Mirim actually existed, and there's far more evidence to the contrary, he was more of an anarchist than a messiah. He was a rabble rouser and a seditionist. He was the original punk, the ultimate rebel. The guy supposedly didn't have a problem with questioning authority or challenging his elders, possibly had an ex-hooker for a girlfriend/wife and once in a while opened a can of whoop-ass on those he felt needed it. My kind of guy. But try telling that to your fundy grandma sometime ... :icon_lol:

:icon_cool: LJ

Unregistered
August 3rd, 2007, 07:54 AM
i agree

this is ball crap

ultrabigsucker@gmail.com
August 8th, 2007, 08:18 PM
What Jeff says is wrong. Googlism is not anti-{other religions}...

KLAINMAIN
August 11th, 2007, 02:57 PM
but other religions do the same thing, they say "this is the only god, nobody else is real" so whats ur problem?

Recumbentman
August 14th, 2007, 01:40 AM
Google is smart, but still only a daemon.

IrishHitman
August 26th, 2007, 11:25 AM
Only a few words to say to this:

What. A. Douchebag.