PDA

View Full Version : You reap what you sow



ChicoLondon
10th June 2005, 16:06
This is what we have become as a society .. protection for satanists and the like.....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From The Telegraph


Now you face jail for being nasty to Satanists
By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor

Extremist religious groups that advocate child abuse will be given protection under a Bill published by the Government yesterday.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Bill would outlaw remarks considered likely to stir up hatred against all religious groups, including those whose followers believe in beating children to drive out demons.


The law could have prevented the race riots in Bradford in 2001
The Bill contains no definition of "religious belief" and ministers confirmed it would cover members of the African religion whose adherents were convicted last week of cruelty to a girl of eight they regarded as a witch.

Satanists, pagans and atheists would be protected.

Having good reason for making insulting comments that could provoke hatred of a particular religious doctrine would be no defence, nor would the fact that they were true.

Opponents said the Bill would seriously undermine freedom of speech.

In line with the existing offence of stirring up racial hatred, the new religious hatred legislation would apply to threatening, abusive or insulting words, behaviour or written material. It would cover authors, publishers, theatre directors, film distributors and broadcasters.

They would face up to seven years in jail if they intended to stir up religious hatred or if their remarks were likely to be heard or seen by someone likely to be stirred up.

Those responsible for a poster campaign, for example, could be prosecuted even if the only people to see the posters were anti-racist campaigners taking them down.

It would not be a defence to the "likelihood" charge that the accused person did not intend to stir up hatred.

Launching the Bill yesterday, Paul Goggins, the Home Office minister, insisted that it would not prevent people criticising religions or telling religious jokes. "It does not stop people poking fun or causing offence," he said. "It is about stopping people from inciting hatred. It is about protecting the believer, not the belief."

Mr Goggins said Jews and Sikhs - regarded as distinct racial groups - were protected by existing racial hatred laws, while other faiths were not.

If the proposed law had been in force in 2001, it might have helped deter or punish those inciting riots against Muslims in Bradford and elsewhere, he said.

But lawyers said that "racial hatred" had been given a broad definition in the past.

For example, the Court of Appeal had held that "African" was a racial group for the purposes of the legislation despite the fact that there are different races in Africa.

Lawyers said courts had punished those who abused people on racial grounds even though their attacks were couched in religiously inflammatory language.

Mr Goggins said he thought very few cases would come to court, pointing out that little more than two people a year had been convicted under racial hatred laws.

"We don't expect there to be many prosecutions," he said. "We expect this will be a line in the sand that indicates to people that they can go no further; therefore, their behaviour will change."

He hinted that the Government would use the Parliament Act if necessary to force the legislation through the Lords. Similar proposals have twice been rejected by peers.

David Pannick, QC, said that, because of the uncertainty inherent in so vague a criminal law, it would inevitably have a chilling effect on freedom of expression about religious beliefs or practices.

But the Government pointed out that there had been few, if any, prosecutions under existing law for telling anti-Semitic jokes and any prosecution would have to be approved by the Attorney General.

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said that religion, unlike race, was a matter of personal choice and therefore appropriate for open debate.

"Aggravated crimes against religious groups are already protected while this new law would technically prevent what many people may regard as reasonable criticism of devil-worshippers and religious cults."

Dominic Grieve, the shadow attorney general, said: "We are likely to see religious groups trying to get other religious groups prosecuted, which will inflame community tensions rather than make them better."

He said members of groups such as the British National Party could set up religious sects to articulate white supremacist theologies, then demand the prosecution of those expressing outrage at their views.

However, the Home Office believed this was inconsistent with previous case law.

For the Liberal Democrats, Evan Harris said the Bill would stifle religious debate and feed an increasing climate of censorship.

Last year Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said: "In a free and democratic society, we are all entitled to be rude about each other."

law@telegraph.co.uk

snaw
10th June 2005, 16:14
Verily sayeth the Chico, for whom is without sin let him cast the first stone ...


Extremist religious groups that advocate child abuse will be given protection under a Bill published by the Government yesterday.

Or in plain English, what would you call a religious group that protected child molestors in it's midst then Chico?

shaunbhoy
10th June 2005, 16:22
what would you call a religious group that protected child molestors in it's midst then Chico?


That'd be the Methodists......or is it the Baptists? I can never remember!!
:lol

sasguru
10th June 2005, 16:23
The Catholics certainly did>:

allfinished
10th June 2005, 16:40
That'd be the Methodists......or is it the Baptists? I can never remember!!


You're going to go to jail ;-)



You made the school boy error of forming a sentence that didn't include the phrase "bliar is great, new labour rule"

I hope your spell in pokey will teach you a lesson.

Woolfie Smith
10th June 2005, 18:24
Hey Chico, you sure sound like a negro loving son of a bitch!

Where do you get all this religious crap from anyway?

Were you molested by a priest as a child?

hattra
11th June 2005, 00:50
Interesting - the Biblical Satan was a fallen angel - whose sin was to tell humans a few truths about the Gods - his other name was Lucifer "The Bringer of Light"

The modern Satan is based on a Christanist corruption of the Leader of the Wild Hunt - a Northern European pre-Christanist exanple of evil, used to scare people in the same way as Hell was used to scare the gullible in the pre-rational era

Oh, and BTW, those
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
religious groups, including those whose followers believe in beating children to drive out demons
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

were actually a Christanist sect - African Methodist Episcopalians

ChicoLondon
11th June 2005, 08:33
hattra

You seem knowledgeable about something but sadly not the Bible. Before the human fall was the angelic fall - Lucifer and other misguided staged a rebellion in heaven.You see even they had free will. Satan even had the gall to ask Jesus to worship him so trust me he has no difficultly telling gullible humans what they want to hear - "You can become like God" "God does not exist" "Cheat on your wife - no one will find out" etc etc ... If you want to know what will eventually happen to Satan and his bunch of misfits read Revelation.

As for these so called cults and groups you guys keep citing the words of Jesus clears that up

Matthew 7

15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

stackpole
11th June 2005, 09:26
Hatta: Oh, and BTW, those religious groups, including those whose followers believe in beating children to drive out demons were actually a Christanist sect - African Methodist Episcopalians
So what, Hattra?

Do you imply that what they were doing was fundamentally Christian?

SupremeSpod
11th June 2005, 09:29
Do you imply that what they were doing was fundamentally Christian?

I'm sure they thought it was!

stackpole
11th June 2005, 09:32
That isn't what I asked.

xoggoth
11th June 2005, 10:22
O cos everyone who say 'Lord, Lord" not enter de kingdom o hevin, it got be sayed "Lawd, Lawd". E'en de debil know dat.

Lucifer Box
11th June 2005, 10:39
So if it's not what you say but what you do that matters (which has to be correct), then why does it matter if you're a Christian or not?

ChicoLondon
11th June 2005, 15:40
Well its more important what you believe and the actions arising out of your beliefs rather than a label.

Lucifer Box
11th June 2005, 16:42
So, is there any room in the Christian heaven for people who "do the right thing for the wrong reason" as it were? Say, for example, the tribesman who lives a good life, is kind to his neighbours, selfless and all the rest of it, but has never even heard of Christianity never mind been baptised into the Christian church?

ChicoLondon
11th June 2005, 17:14
Well I do not decide who gets into heaven but I personally believe everyone will get at least one opportunity in their lifetime to hear about Jesus and have a chance to accept or reject him. This way Christians are very focused on evangelism - taking the Good News to every nation. Its our "Great Commission". The Bible says

Romans 9

9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."[f]

Not So Wise
11th June 2005, 17:15
So, is there any room in the Christian heaven for people who "do the right thing for the wrong reason" as it were? Say, for example, the tribesman who lives a good life, is kind to his neighbours, selfless and all the rest of it, but has never even heard of Christianity never mind been baptised into the Christian church?
According to the rules? No

You must accept Christ as the son of God bla bla bla to get into heaven

Used to have quite a few "interesting conversations" with my ex and her mother (both pretty religious) about that, my opinion that i would prefure to go to hell anyway as thats were all the interesting people have probably ended up anyway (like ever looked at the list of things that bar you from heaven? *shakes head* even nun's would have a hard time getting in) never went down to well for some reason

Lucifer Box
11th June 2005, 17:26
Seems a bit harsh. So prior to the era of mass communication, most people who led good and blameless lives but through simple bad fortune had never heard the Christian message were, in theory, consigned to eternal damnation? Presumably along with all those who were around before Jesus was born?

If I were God, I think I might have had more than one son to ensure My message was spread around a bit more and that everyone had a fair chance. Otherwise, it makes the "God loves all of his children" message seem like a bit of New Labour propaganda - sounds good in a news soundbite, but short on substance once you look behind the scenes.

Not So Wise
11th June 2005, 17:49
Harsh? lol when you give it thought whole organized religion thing is a load of crap with more holes/flaws than...well Labour policy

Like take these two scenarios

Hitler or someone like him, before they die they confess & repent their sins = Goes to heaven
The "perfect" priest, on a sinking ship, gives up his place on the lifeboat to woman with babe in arms, thus esencially committing suicide = Straight to Hell

Now if thats the "justice of the supreme being" is it any wonder Satan lead the angels in revolt?

xoggoth
11th June 2005, 17:51
What if de one opportunity of de lifetime to hear bout Jesus come from complete dipstick who done talk total bollox mos of de time and when ah gets me to hebin ahs gonna blame dat him ah say I heard yo word lawd but him man who he tell me he garble it an mix it all up and he done talk total bollox mos de time so ahs confused an I not hear yo true message an de lawd say to me he say lawks a mighty sho nuff dat so true him chico he allus mixing up ma words and he done talk bollox like yo say it not yo fault yo come in de pearly gates him chico go down de debil way fo screwin it allus time.

ChicoLondon
11th June 2005, 17:53
What is harsh is Satan and his followers deceiving billions of people and leading them into eternal damnation. That is truly harsh.

ChicoLondon
11th June 2005, 18:00
Not so wise

You obviously missed the message of Jesus

John
"13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends"

In your scenario the priest will not go to hell. He died that someone else will live. That is ultimate act of love. Indeed what Jesus did for us all. John 3:16.

As for the Hitler example God cannot be deceived - was he truly sorry on his death bed? Only God will decide that.

Lucifer Box
11th June 2005, 18:18
What is harsh is Satan and his followers deceiving billions of people and leading them into eternal damnation. That is truly harsh.
But isn't inaction on God's behalf (i.e. not spreading His message more widely or sooner), which effectively abandons billions of people to eternal damnation through no fault of their own, similarly harsh?

Extremely harsh on, say, the Jews, the same God telling them that following the ten commandments and some other strictures will lead to eternal life at His side and then changing His mind later.

xoggoth
11th June 2005, 18:28
I did not know viz was supposed to be spreading god's message. Must be something in Johny Fartpants I missed.

Frankly, there is little sense in any of it. Even if we assume there is a god, trying to figure what his purpose was or what he wants us to do, or even discern which is the true message out of all the noise and false claims is quite impossible. There is simply no point in wasting life trying.

When you are about to pop your clogs, stand on your head and whistle God save the queen, it's as likely to be the true road to salvation as anything else.

PS Explanation of first para. LB changed viz to ie. Not fair.

Lucifer Box
11th June 2005, 18:34
It does seem at face value as though this Christian God is an arbitrary sort of fellow. I mean those Jews who believed what His prophets said must be, quite rightly, a bit hacked off in their eternal torment. Wouldn't it be ironic if He changed His mind again about the route required to gain access to eternal life?

Lucifer Box
11th June 2005, 18:35
PS Explanation of first para. LB changed viz to ie. Not fair.
Like Lucifier, like God I say. ;)

widgetdance
11th June 2005, 19:07
Never mind protecting satanists et al.
This new law will give the nazis all the amunition they need to harras the Jews and the Muslims forever. It may even allow them to get these religions made illegal.

These two religions clearly state in their religious books that anyone who does not follow their religion may be regarded as non human and should be put to death. (I am paraphrasing, dont be picky).

That means their religions propose religious hatred of any who do not proscribe to their particular doctrine and should therefore be illegal.

Do you believe Nick Griffin and his friends will let this one pass?

ChicoLondon
11th June 2005, 19:31
Lucifer

You are clearly unaware that Jesus was the fullifllment of the Hebrew Messianic prophecies. I suggest instead of plucking things from the air, you pick up a Bible and start reading it. If you have not got one there are many online. I recommend Bible Gateway (http://bible.gospelcom.net/)

threaded
11th June 2005, 20:05
Ah the law of unintended consequences.

So true, so true.

Lucifer Box
11th June 2005, 20:22
You are clearly unaware that Jesus was the fullifllment of the Hebrew Messianic prophecies
Not according to the Jews.

So is it possible for a Jew (or indeed anyone) who lived before the birth of Christ to achieve eternal life?

threaded
11th June 2005, 20:27
yes

Lucifer Box
11th June 2005, 20:47
How?

zeitghost
11th June 2005, 20:51
"So is it possible for a Jew (or indeed anyone) who lived before the birth of Christ to achieve eternal life? "

Wasn't that the difference between the Pharisees and the Saducees?

Lucifer Box
11th June 2005, 20:57
Wasn't that the difference between the Pharisees and the Saducees?
No idea. Just wondered if in Christian belief it is possible for a non-Christian to achieve eternal life.

If it isn't, I wonder why God decided to condemn all those good people who were around before Jesus or who have never heard of Jesus to eternal damnation? Doesn't sound to me like a God who loves all of his creations.

If it is, what are the Christians banging on about, as it's then down to a matter of being a good person rather than adhering to some sort of belief system?

ChicoLondon
11th June 2005, 21:39
As I said Lucifer you will do well to educate yourself on these issues by picking up a Bible. You like many here are very ill-informed about the Biblical message. And for your info all the earliest Christians were Jews, off course, including Christ himself.

threaded
11th June 2005, 21:56
zeitghost: the main difference was the Pharisees believed in an eternal soul, the Saducees did not.

Lucifer Box
11th June 2005, 22:50
You like many here are very ill-informed about the Biblical message
But I'm asking you to inform me. In Christian belief is it possible for a non-Christian to achieve eternal life?

Just saying "go and read the Bible" is somewhat of a cop out, wouldn't you say?

Not So Wise
12th June 2005, 02:11
But I'm asking you to inform me. In Christian belief is it possible for a non-Christian to achieve eternal life?

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Common translation: Only way in is accept Jesus as our Savior and Lord and then live for Him or you are screwed

So no, non christians or people who never heard of him, regardless of how they comport themselves in life, "go to hell", with some sects they even beleive if a newborn dies before being baptised he does not go to heaven either.

Lovely no?

wendigo100
12th June 2005, 02:12
This is Saturday night FFS. Didn't you lot have anything better to do than have the same old arguments about christians?

Lucifer Box
12th June 2005, 11:07
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Common translation: Only way in is accept Jesus as our Savior and Lord and then live for Him or you are screwed. So no, non christians or people who never heard of him, regardless of how they comport themselves in life, "go to hell"
I'm getting distinctly mixed messages about the Christian God here. On the one hand, He is supposed to love all of His creations, on the other those who stayed "on message" (in New Labour speak) throughout their lives, but simply had not heard of Jesus, are condemned to an eternity of torment. That's coming pretty close to saying that what you say is more important than what you do, which can't be right.

This sounds to me as though "the church" (in many of its forms) is acting as some sort of barrier between the individual and God, misrepresenting His message for some purpose of their own. I'm not convinced that Jesus would approve of how the Christian church has turned out.

SupremeSpod
12th June 2005, 11:08
Wasn't that the difference between the Pharisees and the Saducees?

WTF has the concert party got to do with this?

hattra
12th June 2005, 19:48
Stackpole


Do you imply that what they were doing was fundamentally Christian?
Ah - a good question – let’s summarise the position

Chico posted an article that said


Now you face jail for being nasty to Satanists
By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor

Extremist religious groups that advocate child abuse will be given protection under a Bill published by the Government yesterday.

I believe that the implication of the opening sentences of the article (and Chico’s comments) was that the “groups that advocate child abuse“ were Satanists – my point was that child abuse is not limited to Satanists - the most recent group to be convicted were actually a Christian sect.

If you are asking my personal view - I believe that what they did was fundamentally un-Christian, however:

According to the Church, casting out demons is a Christian act.

Did they believe that they were acting in accordance with God's will - YES

Why did they do this - because their Church told them it was not only acceptable behaviour, it was their duty

Do I believe that torturing a child (or an adult for that matter) in the misguided belief that they are possessed is a Christian act? - NO

Do I believe that "possession" exists - NO.

Do I believe that many mentally ill people have been abused, tortured and even murdered in the name of Christ - YES

Oh - and by the way Chico, I am knowledgeable about a lot of things, including the Bible - in my youth, I attended up to 7 services a week (two on Sundays), and my school had two full-time chaplains, both Oxbridge educated, both of whom taught RE (a compulsory subject). They taught me how to READ the Bible, not how to parrot it.

xoggoth
12th June 2005, 20:24
If Satanists torture children and Christians torture children maybe that proves there's something in it. Now, where's that little horror up the road who dented my van?

SupremeSpod
12th June 2005, 20:53
Now, where's that little horror up the road who dented my van?

Still in intensive care I hope, or else you weren't driving fast enough!!!!! :evil

JS
12th June 2005, 21:00
Just formed, the "Church of The Light of Mammon"

So far our holy book consists of :

Thou Shalt not allow thyself to be subject to taxation in an form, for it is an abomination spent mainly on civil servants who are the spawn of Satan and may not be given succour from thine treasury.

Lucifer Box
12th June 2005, 22:15
I believe that the implication of the opening sentences of the article (and Chico’s comments) was that the “groups that advocate child abuse“ were Satanists – my point was that child abuse is not limited to Satanists - the most recent group to be convicted were actually a Christian sect.
I'm struggling a bit here as well with what seem to be application of double standards. In response to previous posts, Chico said:

What is harsh is Satan and his followers deceiving billions of
people and leading them into eternal damnation. That is truly harsh.
But somehow it isn't harsh that the Christian God has condemned billions to eternal damnation by not even giving them the chance to hear Jesus' message, in essence abandoning them. This is not to my mind the action of a God that loves all of His creations.

As I said previously, this more and more seems to point to the Christian church deliberately misrepresenting things to suit its own (presumably political and influence gathering) purposes.

ChicoLondon
12th June 2005, 22:19
hattra

you make me laugh. So lets bow to your superior knowledge of the Bible.How do you "understand" what Jesus said about evildoers in Matthew 7 particularly evildoers who go around "casting out demons"? Bear in mind your previous post about these evildoers being Christians.

stackpole
13th June 2005, 09:03
Hattra,

If you are asking my personal view - I believe that what they did was fundamentally un-Christian
This is all that matters. Whether I believe in god or not, I accept the message of christianity for what it is supposed to be, which I think is a reasonably good thing.

The things people debate on here are interesting, but mostly irrelevant.

dundeegeorge
13th June 2005, 09:17
Why are religions being protected?
Surely it would be better if all religions were declared illegal and believers were hunted down and sent home to their gods?
Mind you it was a law enacted by NL so what are the unintended consequences of this?

SupremeSpod
13th June 2005, 09:30
Mind you it was a law enacted by NL so what are the unintended consequences of this?

Put a tax on God Botherers. That'd soon whittle 'em down!

ChicoLondon
13th June 2005, 09:42
I say a tax on bigots.

dundeegeorge
13th June 2005, 09:45
you mean like christians, jews, muslims, baathists etc. and their religious intolerance, that kind of bigotry, or did you mean another kind of bigotry?

ChicoLondon
13th June 2005, 10:06
You cannot be a Christian and a bigot at the same time. Just because some people claim to be Christian does not make them so.

DodgyAgent
13th June 2005, 10:10
You cannot be a Christian and a bigot at the same time. Just because some people claim to be Christian does not make them so.

And who decides at what point a Christian becomes a Bigot?

SupremeSpod
13th June 2005, 10:14
And who decides at what point a Christian becomes a Bigot?

When they fail the Zealot entrance exam....?

ChicoLondon
13th June 2005, 10:20
Dodgy

Let us see what the Bible says on that.

Galations 5

19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

SupremeSpod
13th June 2005, 10:27
Chico, feck what the bible says, you tell us what YOU say.

DodgyAgent
13th June 2005, 10:28
In other words Chico you dont know

SupremeSpod
13th June 2005, 10:34
In other words Chico you dont know

Now we're getting somewhere!

ChicoLondon
13th June 2005, 10:37
I know what the Bible says.

sasguru
13th June 2005, 10:38
As long as Chico believes that the Bible is the absolute truth, and is not willing to question that belief, no discussion is possible.
You will just end up going round in circles.

DodgyAgent
13th June 2005, 10:41
know what the Bible says.

Like a true Politician, you make a sweeping statement and then hide behind your bible when asked to be specific.

Not So Wise
13th June 2005, 10:44
You know what it says, but you have no understanding of it.

You are the very type of "zealot christian" that makes others hate christians worldwide.

ChicoLondon
13th June 2005, 10:48
Not so wise - what exactly do I not have an understanding of?

sasguru
13th June 2005, 10:51
I would say you have no understanding of the concept of Epistemology.

ChicoLondon
13th June 2005, 10:58
lol - you have hit a nerve there. How uncanny. Are you some sort of guru?

sasguru
13th June 2005, 11:00
Only in SAS:D

DodgyAgent
13th June 2005, 11:02
Chico, It seems that instead of answering questions you refer all and sundry to the bible knowing very well that people have better things to do. A lot of the questions are straightforward and do not need a reading of the entire bible when a simple answer will do.
The point that was made earlier, is that when pressed to explain logically you then retreat by elevating the question to "you just would not understand" snobbery

ChicoLondon
13th June 2005, 11:05
Spooky- excerpt from my daily reading.

Daniel 1 -

17 God gave the four young men knowledge and skill in
literature and philosophy.

DodgyAgent
13th June 2005, 11:11
17 God gave the four young men knowledge and skill in
literature and philosophy.

And?

dundeegeorge
13th June 2005, 11:22
I see you've still not found any real evidence for your delusions then.

Not So Wise
13th June 2005, 11:25
You are the type who hides behind the bible parroting scripture with no true understanding of exactly where it comes from or exactly what it means, you just find anything that suits your argument or point of view and say "this is the word of god"

The only "laws" in the bible supposed directly from God and that were not open to interpretation is the 10 commandments, everything else is from faulty interpretations (both in understanding and interpretation) or from the factions trying to put forward their own interpretations.

All this has left the bible in a state where it can be used to justify anything if you want it to, from the crusades, to the inquisition, to slavery, to men being superior to women, to gays being in the clergy or not being depending on who you ask, to beating children to death to beat out demons, hell if someone wanted to they could probably find a justification to crashing planes into world trade centers.

Like really lets look at actual facts here, even the words of Jesus (accepting the fact that he was the son god bla bla) did he write down what he said? no
Did the disciples write down (take minutes) of what he said? no
Most of not all of the new testament was written in Hebrew and Latin years/decades or even centuries after the fact.

Take any important conversation you have had more than a year old, can you remember word for word what was said? Doubt it, so how could they? So they put what they remembered and because they were human everything they remember would be from their point of view and would have been "infected" with their "slanted" point of view and agenda's

Then the disciples words were changed and translated first into Latin then into English, once again by humans and each with their own interpretations and slants and agenda's

Because of this we have ended up with multiple versions of the bible, all slightly different and the multiple versions of the Christian church all preaching slightly different things

The bible is at very best a collection of Chinese whispers.

For all the people (and i classify you as one of them) the bible is a tool, an excuse, something to be used to justify their actions in other words, to not take responsibility themselves for their thoughts, actions and general failings as human beings.

And to flip back to the original point that YOU raised in this thread, satanists protected by this new law. Know what? i say good, better them than a religion who has the blood of millions if not billions on it's hands and that has been for centuries and still continues to this day to force it's beliefs on those around them.

ChicoLondon
13th June 2005, 11:29
.... And we are reaping what we previously sowed

sasguru
13th June 2005, 11:36
No doubt Osama believes he has superior understanding too ...

ChicoLondon
13th June 2005, 11:46
Not so wise

Any GCSE Religious Studies student could easily debunk your so called theories so I will not waste my time. However I suggest you too read the Bible rather than pluck out things from the air.

Lucifer Box
13th June 2005, 11:48
Chico, do you have comments to my observations?


What is harsh is Satan and his followers deceiving billions of people and leading them into eternal damnation. That is truly harsh.
In Christian belief is it possible for a non-Christian to achieve eternal life?

Isn't inaction on God's behalf (i.e. not spreading His message more widely or sooner), which effectively abandons billions of people to eternal damnation through no fault of their own, similarly harsh?



John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Common translation: Only way in is accept Jesus as our Savior and Lord and then live for Him or you are screwed. So no, non christians or people who never heard of him, regardless of how they comport themselves in life, "go to hell"
I'm getting distinctly mixed messages about the Christian God here. On the one hand, He is supposed to love all of His creations, on the other those who stayed "on message" (in New Labour speak) throughout their lives, but simply had not heard of Jesus, are condemned to an eternity of torment. That's coming pretty close to saying that what you say is more important than what you do, which can't be right.

DodgyAgent
13th June 2005, 11:52
Any GCSE Religious Studies student could easily debunk your so called theories so I will not waste my time.

Chico Illustrates my point perfectly :D

Not So Wise
13th June 2005, 11:53
Any GCSE Religious Studies student could easily debunk your so called theories so I will not waste my time
Debunk what? It is known fact that Jesus did not write the bible, just as it's know fact that most of the new testament was written long after he was dead.
Ask ANY bible scholar.

Not So Wise
13th June 2005, 11:55
.... And we are reaping what we previously sowed
About the only thing of inteligence i have seen you say.
"Christianty" definatly has sowed a lot of pain, suffering and death in "the name of god"

sasguru
13th June 2005, 11:59
Here's a prediction, Lucifer.

Chico will ignore your post because he doesn't have an answer.

DodgyAgent
13th June 2005, 12:00
Chico will ignore your post because he doesn't have an answer

He will simply refer you to the bible and tell you to find your own answer.

SupremeSpod
13th June 2005, 12:00
However I suggest you too read the Bible rather than pluck out things from the air.

I'd rather pluck things from the thin air myself rather than rely on the rambling jottings of a few men who've obviously overdosed on the old Juniper Berries...

sasguru
13th June 2005, 12:03
Face it Chico, you lose again, as usual. No doubt you will take comfort in one of your delusions. You know the one: "But I really understand things, like Daniel did".

Sad, really.

Lucifer Box
13th June 2005, 12:16
Chico will ignore your post because he doesn't have an answer.

He will simply refer you to the bible and tell you to find your own answer.
Alas, you are probably both correct, so in the spirit of good will I shall have a quick look.

The Gospel of St John appears to reference the point. Once as already mentioned:

14:6. Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me.

And also:

15:6. If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.

That does seem to say that Jesus has abandoned all those who lived before him, or who have never heard his message to eternal torment. This does not stack well with a God who loves all of His creations, or really support the idea that the way you comport yourself in life will count in your favour come the day of reckoning if you have not heard the message. Again, perilously close to "what you say is more important than what you do."

Nasty.

ChicoLondon
13th June 2005, 13:03
Its interesting that is the usual suspects who keep coming up with the same tired arguments about Christianity, The Bible etc etc. Thankfully the facts tell a different story.

1. More people coming than ever to faith in Jesus Christ
2. Christianity making a positive impact on billions of lives worldwide bringing forgiveness, healing, faithfulness and hope
3. Bringing justice and liberation to the oppressed, weak and the forgotten

The deluded can put their heads in the sands and bleat till the cows come home - you are on the losing side.

sasguru
13th June 2005, 13:08
I know this is probably futile, but please could you answer Lucifer's point?

If you can't answer simple queries of that sort, how are we to take you seriously?

ChicoLondon
13th June 2005, 13:15
I answered it earlier on the in thread. If Lucifer and others cannot be bothered to accept it - then tough!!

dundeegeorge
13th June 2005, 13:16
Its interesting that is the usual suspect who keeps coming up with the same tired arguments for Christianity, The Bible etc etc. Thankfully the facts tell a different story.

1. More people coming than ever to faith in Jesus Christ, but not as a percentage of humanity.
2. Christianity making an impact on billions of lives worldwide bringing intolerance, stupidity, abrogating your duties and responsililities to the impressively-titled, faithfulness without reason, hopelessness and futility.

3. Bringing injustice and intolerance to those who are not weak, oppressed or forgotten.

The deluded can put their heads in the sands and bleat till the cows come home - you are on the losing side. (Well you got that one right OK, trouble is that you are the deluded one)

sasguru
13th June 2005, 13:20
>> I answered it earlier on the in thread. If Lucifer and others cannot be bothered to accept it - then tough!!

I thought Christians weren't allowed to lie. You have just lied as you have not answered Lucifer's query anywhere. I've checked.

PS He also took your advice and read the Bible. It seems, according to the Bible, that there is a proportion of humanity who have been condemned to damnation with no chance of succour.

Lucifer Box
13th June 2005, 13:21
Chico, what arguments and bleating? It's an observation and question.

Christians say that their God is one who loves all of His creations and that ultimately we are judged by our actions in life. The words of His son, as written by others many years after his death, do not seem to accord with this at all, painting a picture of an arbitrary God who has abandoned billions of human beings to eternal torment and seems to value what people say at least as highly as what people do.

I was interested in the take on this of a person who presents himself as somewhat of an authority on Christian matters.

dundeegeorge
13th June 2005, 13:23
But their whole view of existence is based on lies.
Their book is one bunch of liars interpreting what another bunch of liars did or said (or didn't and didn't, if you see what I mean).
FFS even their 'rock' St. Peter lies in the bible, and that's according to them!

Lucifer Box
13th June 2005, 13:23
I answered it earlier on the in thread
I'm afraid that is simply untrue, Chico.

ChicoLondon
13th June 2005, 13:25
Lucifer asked


So, is there any room in the Christian heaven for people who "do the right thing for the wrong reason" as it were? Say, for example, the tribesman who lives a good life, is kind to his neighbours, selfless and all the rest of it, but has never even heard of Christianity never mind been baptised into the Christian church?


I replied


Well I do not decide who gets into heaven but I personally believe everyone will get at least one opportunity in their lifetime to hear about Jesus and have a chance to accept or reject him. This way Christians are very focused on evangelism - taking the Good News to every nation. Its our "Great Commission".


Romans 9 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."[f]

sasguru
13th June 2005, 13:28
Ok, but what about the mass of humanity who existed eons before Christ's appearance e.g. the ancient Mayans, Hindus, Egyptians, Greeks etc. There is no way they could have heard of Jesus.
Are they condemned to eternal damnation?

dundeegeorge
13th June 2005, 13:28
Well perhaps, but I believe I see the problem here.
You're attempting to discuss this issue in a sort of real world, planet earth, physical universe way, so why you would expect agreement or understanding from chicken is a bit of a mystery.
Try dropping some acid and putting on some Kraftwerk (or possibly early Floyd) very loudly indeed and then read chico's postings. You'll find that they make no less sense (yeah I know it's not very helpful, but life isn't just about knowledge, pleasure counts too!)

Lucifer Box
13th June 2005, 13:31
Well I do not decide who gets into heaven but I personally believe everyone will get at least one opportunity in their lifetime to hear about Jesus and have a chance to accept or reject him. This way Christians are very focused on evangelism - taking the Good News to every nation. Its our "Great Commission"
Chico, old boy, that is not an answer to the question, it's a convoluted evasion combining elements of "I don't know" and a statement that has no basis in fact (that everyone will have an opportunity to hear Jesus' message), which additionally takes no account of those born before Jesus lived and died.

The New Testament does seem to say that eternal life is for card carrying Christians only, condemning those who have never even heard the message, but have otherwise led good and blameless lives, to damnation forever. This representation (some would say misrepresentation) by the Christian church of the words of God and His son does not stack with the concept of a compassionate God who loves all of His creations.

lilelvis2000
13th June 2005, 13:31
1. More people coming than ever to faith in Jesus Christ
2. Christianity making a positive impact on billions of lives worldwide bringing forgiveness, healing, faithfulness and hope
3. Bringing justice and liberation to the oppressed, weak and the forgotten

Who honestly beleives this..except the evangelists and their brain washed followers. Next you'll be telling me...we went to Iraq waving the bible to save the souls of the Iraqi people!

DodgyAgent
13th June 2005, 13:40
1. More people coming than ever to faith in Jesus Christ
2. Christianity making a positive impact on billions of lives worldwide bringing forgiveness, healing, faithfulness and hope
3. Bringing justice and liberation to the oppressed, weak and the forgotten

Prove:

1. That this is happening and

2. If it is, how much has to do with "Christianity"

specifics specifics specifics please :D

hyperD
13th June 2005, 13:57
It's all down to that ridiculous load of Amway-esque nonsense of the Alpha course that Gumbel has bought over from the states.

The mission to weed out the challengers, take the rest down to Butlins so you can experience the spirit of the lord in some kind of macarbre show, shivers n shakes and talking tongues.

If you believe all that then you really should enjoy Mr Brown and Mr McKenna on stage.

dundeegeorge
13th June 2005, 14:02
McKenna is entertaining, and I know of no recorded instances wherein he has advised people under his influence to burn witches, stone people for using god's name, beat demons out of children, execute gays and treat women as second class citizens (actually that one always worries me, what are they so frightened of?).
Unless there was also a show on ITV which I missed ;-)

sasguru
13th June 2005, 14:04
From Chico's lack od response and previous answers I think we can conclude that millions of people in the world have no chance of redemption as they lived before Christ and could not possibly have heard of him.

I want no truck with such an arbitrary god.

Mordac
13th June 2005, 14:06
Thankfully the facts tell a different story.

1. More people coming than ever to faith in Jesus Christ
2. Christianity making a positive impact on billions of lives worldwide bringing forgiveness, healing, faithfulness and hope
3. Bringing justice and liberation to the oppressed, weak and the forgotten


Facts? Sounds like NewLie spin to me. Or just bollocks, can't decide which.

sasguru
13th June 2005, 14:12
I reckon Chico must be an agent of Lucifer (the real one, not you Luciferbox:D ).
I can think of no other reason why he would put everyone in this forum off Christianity with his inane statements, crap arguments and refusing to answer questions directly.:lol

ChicoLondon
13th June 2005, 14:18
Dodgy

Surely you are not suggesting I reprint the impressive statistics for the Alpha Course? Just one of numerous Christian initiatives taking place worldwide.

jabberjobber
13th June 2005, 14:26
Ahhh ahhhhh ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
the burning, please stop the burning.

sasguru
13th June 2005, 14:27
I now wish to conduct an exorcism:

Begone from this forum, thou agent of Lucifer, Chico. Take thy drivel elsewhere.

<<Chicos head rotates and swivels wildly and spews green vomit >>
<<followed by levitating to the ceiling hitting his thick skull and knocking some sense into it>>


There - feel better now?

sasguru
13th June 2005, 14:34
Bloody hell, it's worked - he hasn't responded for a while ....

Lucifer Box
13th June 2005, 14:37
I have to say, based on the half truths, dodgy assumptions and evasiveness we see here, young Chico would not be at the top of my "must employ" list if I were looking to take on a Christian recruitment consultant.

On the other hand, that might make him the ideal candidate.

Chico, if you don't want to or can't meaningfully contribute to religious discussions, it might be better if you didn't start them off in the first place (or, at least, not on an IT contracting board). It would save everyone else having to pick up all your toys after you've thrown them out of the pram.

DodgyAgent
13th June 2005, 14:39
Surely you are not suggesting I reprint the impressive statistics for the Alpha Course? Just one of numerous Christian initiatives taking place worldwide.

Oh you mean your numbers are for those so called Christians who had enrolled on the Alpha course? There is silly old me thinking that there were some serious statistics showing improvements in lives from all over the world!!

So what you are saying is that two people have parted with money for your alpha course, and not wishing to look stupid, they have claimed that their lives have become enriched ! :D

That is hardly a sea change in the fortunes of humanity is it?

And by the way, do you have statistics available for those people who have, through disillusionment or other reasons, left Alpha.

And by the way what about an answer to my question asking you to define where christianity becomes bigotry?

sasguru
13th June 2005, 14:42
Chico,

How much does an Alpha course cost?

snaw
13th June 2005, 14:45
If there's hell below ...
We're all gonna go ...

:evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil :evil

Mordac
13th June 2005, 14:46
How much does an Alpha course cost?

I'd wait until the Beta version at least before parting with any cash.

ChicoLondon
13th June 2005, 14:46
Dodgy

I have said it before - If you defining bigotry the same way as I am (dictionary) - then you cannot be a bigot and Christian - period. No debate, no confusion, no excuses.

sasguru
13th June 2005, 14:48
Don't worry M, wasn't intending to go on it. Interestingly in the light of Chico comments, a cursory search on the web shows much oppposition to the Alpha Course within the established establishment:lol

ChicoLondon
13th June 2005, 14:49
sasguru

Its free but most people make a contribution towards the meal before the talk (about £3). There is also a bursary available for the weekend away trip.

sasguru
13th June 2005, 15:03
Anyone want to attend my newly formed Omega course? I'm trying to compete with the Alpha Course.
It involves a weekend retreat with lots of booze, loose women, and good music.

Please send loads of blank cheques to me...

Not So Wise
13th June 2005, 15:14
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Kind of seems to me that one cannot be a good christian by church definition without being a bigot

Actualy if we look back into the history of the word it's self this comes even more obvious

Word History: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant “an excessively devoted or hypocritical person.” Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense “a superstitious hypocrite.”

xoggoth
13th June 2005, 15:15
Must be a different dictionary to mine.

If you are a Christian you cannot be a bigot? No debate? Contradiction there somewhere. Why is this drivelling thread still going? Any serious discourse with CL is a complete waste of anyone's time.

PS CL's dictionary that is, not notsos.

snaw
13th June 2005, 15:17
There is also a bursary available for the weekend away trip.

Do they provide you with a special bus, complete with the geeza in the sandals, wooly jumper and guitar singing koombaya?

Lucifer Box
13th June 2005, 15:24
How ironic...

godbotherer.com/ (http://godbotherer.com/)

sasguru
13th June 2005, 15:25
>> Why is this drivelling thread still going? Any serious discourse with CL is a complete waste of anyone's time.

Whiles away the boring afternoons ...

ChicoLondon
13th June 2005, 15:38
People are crying out to satisfy their spritual hunger - the satanists are fighting tooth and nail to prevent the people hearing the Good News.

snaw
13th June 2005, 15:40
People are crying out to satisfy their spritual hunger - the satanists are fighting tooth and nail to prevent the people hearing the Good News.

What else do the voices say to you?

sasguru
13th June 2005, 15:45
Bloody hell, the exorcism didn't work. He's still possessed.

Note to self: green vomit must have been result of Chinese takeaway.

Lucifer Box
13th June 2005, 15:47
People are crying out to satisfy their spritual hunger - the satanists are fighting tooth and nail to prevent the people hearing the Good News
Which satanists are those then? I knew a satanist several years ago. He was a really mild-mannered, regular kind of guy who certainly wasn't fighting tooth and nail to stop anyone hearing anything. "Each to his own" pretty much summed up his attitude to other religions (same for a couple of satanist friends of his I met once).

Or do you mean anyone who isn't a Christian?

SupremeSpod
13th June 2005, 15:49
People are crying out to satisfy their spritual hunger - the satanists are fighting tooth and nail to prevent the people hearing the Good News.

Chico, I really hope you're taking the piss here, 'coz if not, you really don't sound very well!

widgetdance
13th June 2005, 15:49
I have asked you this before Chico but you never answered.
Why are you not Muslim?
You accept the word of God can be passed down to man yet you dont seem to accept that God passed his final messages to Mohammed.

Why not?

Why do Christians so fervantly deny what Muslims hold to be true?
How do you know that theirs is not the on true faith?

hattra
13th June 2005, 20:22
you make me laugh
Ah, Chico, back to insults as your debating style, are you, and you were doing so well in this thread

Bearing in mind your previous complaints about people insulting you, perhaps you should pay attention to Matthew 7:3 - 7:5 - it's about motes and beams.


How do you "understand" what Jesus said about evildoers in Matthew 7 particularly evildoers who go around "casting out demons"? Bear in mind your previous post about these evildoers being Christians.

Since you insist, let’s take Matthew 7:22 – 7:23


22: Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23: And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity

You already know what I think about exorcism and those who practice it, since I posted a reply to Stackpole’s question about it two and a half hours before your post. And I “understand” from Matthew 7 that my view is in accordance with the words of Christ.

The question is, what are you saying? So far we haven’t had a straight answer from you

Do you believe that exorcism is Christian, or un-Christian?

xoggoth
13th June 2005, 20:55
Can someone direct me to a decent Christian fundamentalist site where I can read some decent posts about IR investigations and complaints about agents?

Not So Wise
13th June 2005, 21:19
www.religiousnuts.com/ (http://www.religiousnuts.com/) ?

Lucifer Box
13th June 2005, 21:29
www.godbotherer.com (http://www.godbotherer.com)

hattra
13th June 2005, 22:02
www.religiousnuts.com
Configuration Error - Unknown product domain. - religiousnuts.com - linux11551.dn.net -1

Must be thos bl00dy Satanists again - they've got it in for them what follows the true path (linux, I mean) :evil

jabberjobber
14th June 2005, 10:13
People are crying out to satisfy their spritual hunger

JABBER DABBER DOO - this sprite really does generate a lot of gas.

John Galt
14th June 2005, 13:17
People are crying out to satisfy their spritual hunger
-----------------------

Please do answer them then Chico - they certainly wouldn't be quite so peckish after a chat with you.

WageSlave1
14th June 2005, 13:18
Has anyone here actually read the Satanic Bible?

John Galt
14th June 2005, 13:26
yep and to be honest it is no more interesting than the original

NumptyCorner
14th June 2005, 13:29
People are crying out to satisfy their spiritual hunger

Being serious for a moment I think there is some truth to this. Is all we are here for.. to procreate and to die?
At least religion tried to make some (all be it misguided) sense of things.

As celebrity is the new god (best not to think too deeply), maybe the meaning of life is to get onto Big Brother.

snaw
14th June 2005, 13:38
As celebrity is the new god (best not to think too deeply), maybe the meaning of life is to get onto Big Brother.

If that's true then maybe it's best that the Vogon's are gonna come along and demolish us for an intergalactic highway ...

Lucifer Box
14th June 2005, 13:40
maybe the meaning of life is to get onto Big Brother
Is that where Dr Who was coming from on Saturday? Get evicted and die being analogous to being cast into the fiery pits of hell perhaps?

ChicoLondon
14th June 2005, 13:42
If all there was to life was just flesh and bones then that would be very sad. We will have no purpose and everything we do ultimately would be pointless. Thankfully the reality is totally different. We have a purpose - this world and human beings were created by a loving God and when he finished he said it was good. We are loved, we have meaning and there is a purpose for everyone person on earth. It is shame that not everyone will accept this. However God would not have been perfect if he had not given us this gift of free will. I long for the day when the whole world can join hands and embrace each other in the unity of a divine brotherhood. Ahh well - back to work there is an Italian Programme Manager on my case.

dundeegeorge
14th June 2005, 13:52
JUST ***** OFF.
You are a moron.
The accident of life is an amazing and wonderful thing, but it has nothing at all to do with your delusional god.
I repeat.
JUST ***** OFF

John Galt
14th June 2005, 13:53
Thoughts Of A Dying Atheist

Eerie whispers
Trapped beneath my pillow
Won't let me see
Your memories

I know you're in this room
I'm sure I heard you sigh
Floating in-between
Where our worlds collide

It scares the hell out of me
And the end is all I can see
And it scares the hell out of me
And the end is all I can see

I know the moment's near
And there's nothing we can do
Look through a faithless eye
Are you afraid to die

It scares the hell out of me
And the end is all I can see
And it scares the hell out of me
And the end is all I can see

WageSlave1
14th June 2005, 14:07
yep and to be honest it is no more interesting than the original

Please elaborate....

John Galt
14th June 2005, 14:18
Well, what you have to remember WS is that both attempt to glorify something which may or may not exist. The language is extreme and, in some parts, difficult to understand. Therefore, unless you are already interested in the occult or in religion or are already a believer in either, I think you would find either quite dull to be honest

Lucifer Box
14th June 2005, 14:21
this world and human beings were created by a loving God
It's this mixed message again. Christians tell us their God is a loving God, but He condemns billions of human beings to eternal torment through no fault of their own.

WageSlave1
14th June 2005, 14:27
I think you would find either quite dull to be honest

I thought the Satanic version was fairly interesting, if a little skewed in the author’s image. However, I read it many years ago, so perhaps has obscured its interest value.

John Galt
14th June 2005, 14:59
Same for me WS - got very interested in the whole occult thing as an angst ridden teenager but came to realise that any sort of extreme belief system is going to be no good for you at all (please refer all posts Chico) and is, for the most part, pretty monotonous and dull. After all there are only so many ways to praise someone and their ideas

WageSlave1
14th June 2005, 15:32
got very interested in the whole occult thing as an angst ridden teenager but... is, for the most part, pretty monotonous and dull

JG, I agree. There are only so many times that you can recite incantations in Hebrew/Greek/Latin (and that other ‘magical’ language, which temporarily eludes my fading memory), read Crowley, search for the lost books of Moses and hang out with weird Mandrake guys in Oxford.

Now, all together…do what thou whilt shall be the whole of the Law, Love is the Law…

Mordac
14th June 2005, 15:49
Ahh well - back to work there is an Italian Programme Manager on my case.

Try swinging the conversation round to religion, that should see to it that he avoids you for a decade or two...

John Galt
14th June 2005, 15:58
To be honest WS I got a bit fed up with the whole thing when I realised that no amount of devil worship was actually going to improve my bank balance. No amount of praying made a sod of difference either :rolleyes

Not So Wise
14th June 2005, 16:15
Always though the religion/god "Crom" had the balance just about right,


Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, and why we died. All that matters is that today, two stood against many. Valor pleases you, so grant me this one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, the HELL with you!

ChicoLondon
14th June 2005, 16:21
John


No amount of praying made a sod of difference either

Maybe in your experience but in mine totally opposite. I can truly say my prayers were being answered and they were not for small things either.


John 15: 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you.

and

James 5 15And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

17Elijah was a man just like us. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years.

widgetdance
14th June 2005, 16:31
Hey Chico, if you have a main line to God and he makes your prayers come true, could you do me a favour and pray for my lottery numbers to come up this week. Lotto and Lotto extra ta.
If you do and they do I wll donate half the winnings to a charity of your choice.

sasguru
14th June 2005, 16:37
Chico,

Why don't you pray for him to raise your IQ by quite a few points. No offense, but you need it. If that happened - I would be impressed:lol

snaw
14th June 2005, 16:45
17Elijah was a man just like us. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years.

Right it is in then, I'm off to my local place of worship to be born again, after that irrefutable proof ...

I mean, some bloke walks around telling everyone, after a 3 1/2 year drought, hey that was me what prayed to God and asked for no rain. What would the options be?

1) either people dismiss him as a raving looney who babbles nonsense or

2) People believe him and give him a good kicking for being such a raving looney for asking for a 3 1/2 year drought in the first place.

sasguru
14th June 2005, 16:54
Why is this thread going on so long? Put it to bed. We have established that Chico is a religious loon who has nothing interesting to say about religion in general. His own beliefs are supremely uninteresting as he obviously hasn't thought about them, just accepted what another brainwashed loon told him.

There are interesting conversations to be had about the cosmos, our place in it, the possibility of a greater being etc. but not where Chico's involved.

Lucifer Box
14th June 2005, 16:56
As a non-Christian who had never heard of Jesus, would there have been a place in Heaven for Elijah?

ChicoLondon
14th June 2005, 18:26
Lucifer you keep getting bogged down with labels. Elijah obviously believed in God. Right - Jesus is God. Would you like a description of the Biblical concept of the Trinity?

Lucifer Box
14th June 2005, 18:48
For feck's sake, Chico, why didn't you say that several pages ago. The original question was "is it possible for a non-Christian to go to Heaven?" and you seem to be saying the answer is "yes". Why all the beating around the bush?

Presumably then, a contemporary follower of Judaism could also go to heaven if they lived a good life?

By the same token, is it possible for a Muslim to go to Heaven, as they too worship the God of the Old Testament, just as Elijah did.

xoggoth
14th June 2005, 20:36
I always thought satanism was just an excuse to kiss goats' bottoms. Can't think why anyone needs an excuse personally.

SupremeSpod
14th June 2005, 21:05
Nah, feck it, I was about to paste someone's quote and a witty retort(yeah, I know, that'd be the first time)... but sod it, Chico, if you're happy with your god, fine, keep it/him/her/whatever to yourself. But please, stop these inane postings where you're pushing the flame. Otherwise I'll have to make a complaint under the auspices of "Blatant Advertising".

Spod.

ChicoLondon
14th June 2005, 22:33
Spod

Why are you so threatened by the Good News. Observers would think you have vested interest in suppressing the Good News. Do you?

xoggoth
14th June 2005, 23:10
Other general benefits of satanism, dancing around fires in nude while smeared with a paste of psychotropic drugs, drinking blood and lots of orgies generally. Not quite so brill as the goats bit obviously.

Great life, but I suppose the being carried off by Satan and burning for all eternity at the end of it was a bit of a turnoff for the more farsighted. Don't see why the C of E doesn't borrow a few of their policies, it would certainly reverse the falling attendances.

Yeh spod. Celebrate de good news, de lawd am risen and he love yo. Get down on yo knees and praise him, praise him to de hebbins. He breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder. Sho nuff.

hattra
15th June 2005, 01:00
Why all the beating around the bush?
Presumably, LB, because he didn't know the answer, and had to go and ask his preacher.

ChicoLondon
15th June 2005, 06:02
hatra and Lucifer

you keep trotting out the same questions and when I respond you refuse to accept the answer. It does not matter how many times you ask the question you will never get the answer you want.

Lucifer Box
15th June 2005, 07:46
Chico, you (sometimes) respond to the question but you never give an answer - there is a big difference. Even your most recent reply isn't an answer, just a statement that Elijah believed in God and that Jesus is God.

It's a straight question, Chico. Can a non-Christian who has comported him or herself well in life go to Heaven? I would have thought this was a fundamental question asked of the Christian faith.

SupremeSpod
15th June 2005, 08:13
Can a non-Christian who has comported him or herself well in life go to Heaven?

That would be an ecumenical matter! (http://www.feck.net/splange/ecumenical.wav)

Father Spod - In "Blatant Father Ted ripoff" mode!

xoggoth
15th June 2005, 08:56
He wonders never stop. He de lawd god who brought de ten commandments ta Moses. When he spoke to Moses he say I am de lawd thy god who brought yo outta de land of Egyp and outta de house of bondage. He spoke to me an brought me outta de house o bondage too de odder day. Ah say lawd can't I repent a lil later? only ah already paid Trixie thirty poun fo to crap in me mouf and ah ain't got me rocks off yet. But he know bes, and he done save me from more sinning agin. Praise him. But I bet Moses an them Israelites got them rocks off first.

ChicoLondon
15th June 2005, 09:12
Lucifer

I will answer your question in exactly they same way I answered BobTheCrate, John Galt et al when they asked it. Apologies for my brevity I do not have much time to go into detail.

What do you mean "comport themselves" well? Who decides when someone is good? Where is the definitive moral maker - were we all judged by the same standard irrespective of our background, sex or race etc. If we are judging by the world's standards then being good or "comporting yourself well" is fluid depending on the surroundings. So for example abortion is legal in the UK, therefore in eyes of UK society anyone who has an abortion has done nothing morally wrong. However go to the Republic of Ireland were abortion is illegal the opposite will be the case.

Now if we are judging by God's standard then the Bible says " All have turned away, they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good, not even one." Romans 3:12

And Jesus himself says "No one is good—except God alone." Luke 18:19b

So in the eyes of God no one is good. So what about all those people who never had the opportunity to hear about Jesus and Christianity (say Old Testament times). That brings us back to the story of Abraham - (like Noah and Elijah) was God fearing man in a cesspit of godlessness. God make a promise to him that he would use the decendants of son Isaac (The Jews) to bring light to a godless world. Later on the story of Ruth tells us that non Jews (Gentiles) who believed in God were also saved. Since then Jesus even himself has said he is the Way, the Truth and the Life - no one gets to the Father but through him and that is what I believe.

SupremeSpod
15th June 2005, 09:29
therefore in eyes of UK society anyone who has an abortion has done nothing morally wrong.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. They have done nothing wrong in a legal sense.

Morals are up to the individual, laws are something entirely different!

Anyway Chico, shut the feck up!

widgetdance
15th June 2005, 09:34
Since then Jesus ..... I will ask again.
Why stop there? Islam tells us that the word of God has been visited once more upon mankind. It tells us that Christians have misinterpreted the nature of Jesus and of God. It tells us that Christians are condemned for at the day of judgement they will be found lacking.

Why do you choose to follow one ancient gospel as the word of God but choose to ignore another equaly valid and validated scripture?

hyperD
15th June 2005, 09:56
I think it comes down to one thing - there is a universal way and design for life but once this idea is corrupted by man, you get these illogical, desperate, non-thinking clowns like Chico, Gumbel, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri saying their way is right and everything else is wrong.

The religion we have right now is all about control - not being encouraged to think for yourself and to absolve all your responsibilities into a distortion of truth by man.

Once this current nonsense is sorted out, we can move on.

ChicoLondon
15th June 2005, 12:15
Widget


Why stop there? Islam tells us that the word of God has been visited once more upon mankind.

Indeed why stop at Islam. Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses etc have all since come along and suggested they have a newer interpretation. Are you suggesting that when anyone pops and says they have a fresh revelation from God we should then jump on that bandwagon?

Two interesting things Jesus said (Matthew 24) "23At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible."

And at later he promised the Holy Spirit (John 14) "If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

So you see there is no need for further Biblical revelation.

widgetdance
15th June 2005, 12:22
But why the Bible and not any other religious text.
The Koran says that the bible is a misrepresentation. It tells mankind how to worship the one true God in the way he expects. No other way will do. If you remain Christian you will fall well short and it should not take a great step of faith to follow the teachings of Islam.

I ask because there is at least proof that Mohammed lived and walked this Earth as opposed to hearsay evidence of Christ.

I do not doubt your faith, I hope it brings you comfort, I just want to understand why, if you will forgive me, you choose one fairy story over another.

SupremeSpod
15th June 2005, 12:47
Voltaire on his deathbed was advised to renounce the devil. He replied: "Now is not the time to make enemies"

ChicoLondon
15th June 2005, 13:25
Widget

I am almost spat out the coke I was drinking due a fit of hysterical laughter. Hearsay did you say. If say so.

widgetdance
15th June 2005, 13:33
There is as much actual proof that Jesus lived as there is that Superman was raised in smallville or that Batman lives in Gotham.

The only references to Jesus are found in religious texts which are bound to support such a proposal.

I would be glad to see any other pointers you can give me. Roman records of executions, or perhaps the result of the census at the time of his birth. Anything from Herod or Pontius Pilate?

dundeegeorge
15th June 2005, 13:35
I did ask if chicken knew of any physical proof for any of the shite he spouts, but astonishingly he has so far failed to produce any!

ChicoLondon
15th June 2005, 13:46
Oh dear scrapping the barrel are we? Question whether Jesus was divine thats fine. However question whether he existed and that shows your ignorance. Any GCSE religious studies pupil could tell you that more non Biblical evidence exists for the existence of Jesus Christ than Julius Ceasar. Dundee you continually bleat about how intelligent you are. Yep you have demonstrated it today.

PS. You are George Galloway and I claim my fiver!

SupremeSpod
15th June 2005, 13:49
What evidence?

Enlighten us!

sasguru
15th June 2005, 13:50
Ok granted there is some evidence some charismatic bloke called Jesus existed 2000 years ago.

Why do you believe in the New testament?
Jews think that divine revelation stops at the Old Testament. Muslims believe that there is another set of divine revelations after the New testament.

Why have you selected the New testament as your point of reference? Why not believe in the revelations of the Koran?

PS I wouldn't insult anyone's intelligence if I were you.

ChicoLondon
15th June 2005, 13:54
Spod if you really want to know two options

Do GCSE Religious Studies

or

Do an Alpha Course (http://www.alphacourse.org)

dundeegeorge
15th June 2005, 13:57
Barrel got to the end of it's life then, if you're scrapping it?

GCSE Religious studies student. Fantastic, it's no wonder children can't ******** read/write/count if they're wasting their time on that crap.

The only one who bleats on this board is you. And I still don't get the George Galloway thing. Granted your view of the world has little to do with reality, but why George Galloway?

widgetdance
15th June 2005, 13:59
Chico, even the best evidence (I think its from Josephus) only states a Jesus known as the Christ who was a teacher and worker of magic with a brother called James.

Even this evidence can be debunked as it was written 200 years after the event, by which time the name and appelation would have been well known.

I want to see contemporary evidence!

ChicoLondon
15th June 2005, 13:59
You don't get a lot of things do you dundee? What do you bring to the table of life? What is your story?

sasguru
15th June 2005, 13:59
More evasions, outright refusals to give a straight answer, tangential excursions etc. etc.
Every post you make exposes your intellectual bankruptcy. Are you really too thick to understand that you are doing the exact opposite of what you intend?
Let me put it to you straight:

If your aim is to get people interested in christianity, you are doing the exact opposite. In fact, were I the devil, I would be very pleased with your work so far.

ChicoLondon
15th June 2005, 14:03
Anyway back to the proposed legislation - the discussion we just had would have been deemed incitement to religious hatred. Five years in prison. Fight this legislation. Fight it.

dundeegeorge
15th June 2005, 14:03
any chance of you ever answering a question at all, on any subject?
Didn't think so.

Interesting that you're against this legislation, I would have thought that it protected loonies like you, so why do you think sorry, why have you been told it's bad?

ChicoLondon
15th June 2005, 14:12
Dundee you are smart guy right? - work it out for yourself.

dundeegeorge
15th June 2005, 14:22
by which I mean you don't want to tell me, or have you not been told yet why it's bad? I suppose those lower down the echelons don't need to know the reasons for the way they're meant to (not) think.

ChicoLondon
15th June 2005, 15:14
No dundee I call it avoidance.

dundeegeorge
15th June 2005, 16:08
Well if you are ever told why it is bad, please let me know. I would be interested.

OwlHoot
15th June 2005, 16:24
> Ok granted there is some evidence for some charismatic bloke called Jesus existed 2000 years ago.

Reading the gospels between the lines, or just the lines themselves, reveals practically irrefutable evidence of his existence, and even character, to all but the most unsubtle and wilful imbecile!

For a start they record several incidents and sayings which on the face of it don't seem to put him in the best light and some of which puzzled and even offended his followers. But what devoted follower or later fabricator would make up any of these? Examples include his bad relations with his family, the incident with the Canaanite woman, cursing fig trees, etc, etc.

Also, there's abundant proof of his impatience, quick wittedness, and sense of humour, such as calling his disciples by nicknames, e.g. Simon called Peter ("Petros" = "Rocky" in Greek).

Sceptics might argue that all this could have been fabricated to allow just such arguments for his existence to be put forward. But I don't reckon the guys who wrote the gospels were anywhere near subtle enough for that. In any case such deviousness and deceipt would have invited contradiction and controversy not to mention seeming unacceptably sinful to the authors even with the best intentions.

I'd like to expand on some of this, as best I can, sometime; but as my boss is hovering about like a hummingbird, it's TTFN ..

widgetdance
15th June 2005, 16:32
So Sherlock Holmes and James Bond must be real then Eh! I mean nobody would write about those two blokes, flawed as they are, if they didnt exist.

The Gospels were written some 400 years after Christ died. Based on an Oral tradition, a tradition which had been honed over the years to illicit the best reaction from an audience.

Much like the Illiad. Do you suppose all that happened too.

dundeegeorge
15th June 2005, 17:04
I had understood that christ was a title, not a name, and that there had been many christs before the one made famous by Robert Powell, and many afterwards, although of course those others were false christs (ahem)

OwlHoot
15th June 2005, 17:56
> So Sherlock Holmes and James Bond must be real then Eh!
> I mean nobody would write about those two blokes, flawed
> as they are, if they didnt exist.

Except for entertainment value and consequent sales, neither of which sounds like a very plausible motive for a devout early Christian writer.

Anyway, if their purpose was to "illicit (elicit) the best reaction" as you claim, and from simple folk, why sprinkle the account with fictitious flaws (taking the sceptic's view that the whole thing was made up)? That's the point I was making.

Same thing happens in the Koran. At one point the Prophet says "They call me the Mad Poet". None of the immams would have dared make that up if they hadn't been copying his words onto palm leaves.

> The Gospels were written some 400 years after Christ died.
> Based on an Oral tradition, a tradition which had been
> honed over the years to illicit the best reaction from an
> audience.

That's not true. Some of the gospel authors had first-hand experience of the events and people they described, and even the earliest gospel manuscripts have been carbon-dated to the early 2nd century.

See www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm (http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm)

> Much like the Illiad. Do you suppose all that happened too.

According to academic.reed.edu/humanities/110Tech/Iliad.html (http://academic.reed.edu/humanities/110Tech/Iliad.html), the Trojan War happened in c. 1200 BC, and the Illiad was written c. 720BC. So after 500 years of oral history I wouldn't expect detailed accuracy. But it's surprising how many place names and so forth have been verified by archaeologists.

OwlHoot
15th June 2005, 18:06
> I had understood that christ was a title, not a name

"christos" is just Greek for "annointed". See www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/kjvstrongs/FRMSTRGRK55.htm (http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/kjvstrongs/FRMSTRGRK55.htm) (# 5547)

Lucifer Box
16th June 2005, 07:50
Since then Jesus even himself has said he is the Way, the Truth and the Life - no one gets to the Father but through him and that is what I believe.
Okay, so that we can avoid counting the number of angels that dance on the head of a pin, let's leave whether you are "good" out of it. Although it is interesting to note that in God's eye no one other than Himself is good - making it again that what you say is at least as important as what you do.

So you are saying that prior to the time of Jesus it was possible for a non-Christian to go to Heaven, but afterwards it was not. I wonder when the switch in selection methodologies occured? On Jesus' birth, on his death, when 10% of the world's population had heard of him, 20%?

widgetdance
16th June 2005, 08:31
a very plausible motive for a devout early Christian As wandering story tellers,no doubt they had a belief, their motive was to spread the word. To enthral an audience perhaps to earn a bed and some food. I am sure the story grew. The tellers probably believed it.

The original gospel orators had first hand experience. Are you sure that what was subsequently written down was the same story they witnessed? Did they embellish the story in some way to make it more acceptable to the audience?
If the 4 synoptic gospels witnessed the same events, why are there so many differences in their stories? Possibly because they only related the bits that were important to them or maybe their stories changed as they told them to increase the stories appeal.

We are sure the Trojan wars happened, but using your logic then the Greek Gods must exist as Homer says they had a hand in the proceedings. At least one character dies twice, from that do we assume he was resurected?

I have had enough of this, I cant be bothered anymore.

hattra
16th June 2005, 09:57
it's surprising how many place names and so forth have been verified by archaeologists
Place names you wouldn't expect to change much, after all some of them might well have still existed 500 years after the Trojan war. It's the actions and names of individuals that tend to become confused, blurred, exaggerated, forgotten etc.

However, I agree with Owlhoot - the New Testament was probably mostly written within c. 200, rather than 400 years of Christ's demise, some possibly within only 40 years of his death. Unfortunately there have been nearly 2000 years of "editorial input" since then.

Most rational people have understood that the Bible is a collection of material of different natures, some documentary, some historically accurate, some historically inaccurate, some mystical, some allegorical, some forged and some just plain odd. They also understand that it has been subjected to both intentional and unintentional change over the last 2000 years.

Archaeology does provide evidence that some of the Bible is "historically accurate" - it also provides evidence that some of it is not. One of my problems with Chico and his like is that they will quite happily quote scientific evidence when it supports their views, but will not accept the very same science when it throws up facts that are inconvenient for them - for instance, when it gives ages that pre-date their idea of when the Creation took place.

The curious thing is that there is apparently nothing within the Roman records of the time recording the activities of Christ, and the Romans were quite good record keepers. Personally, I think a person called Jesus (or Joshua or Jeshu) did exist, but I find it odd that there is really only the Bible to provide any confirmation of that fact - you would expect more from a relatively literate period of history.

ChicoLondon
16th June 2005, 10:32
Widget I am glad you have finally admitted you cannot win this. The facts speak for themselves.

hatra

Once again you are ignorant of the facts. From God and Science (http://www.godandscience.org)

Historicity of Jesus A case in point is the historicity of Jesus. Although many atheists state that Jesus never lived, He is mentioned by many contemporary, non-Christian historians. Let us look at the evidence.

Flavius Josephus, a first century Jewish historian wrote of Jesus and the Christians:

"so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned."
Other Jewish rabbinical writings, including Rabbi Eliezer and writers of the Talmud, talk about Jesus and his miracles. Surprisingly to many atheists, they never denied that miracles took place, but attempted to explain them as a result of evil . More information about Jesus in the Talmud can be found at Jesus Christ In The Talmud.

Cornelius Tacitus wrote about Jesus and the first century Christians in his Annals (a history of the Roman empire):

"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."
Thallus, a Samaritan historian, wrote ca. 52 A.D. attempting to give a natural explanation for the earthquake and darkness which occurred at the crucifixion of Jesus. Mara Bar-Seraphon wrote a letter to his son in 73 A.D. which tells of the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and of Jesus, "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king?...Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given." Jesus is also mentioned by Phlegon, a first-century historian, Lucian of Samosata (in The Passing Peregrinus), and Plinius Secundus, (Pliny the Younger).

Scholars have made statements such as, "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus ." The latest version of Encyclopedia Britannica says in its discussion of the multiple extra-biblical witnesses:

"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."
Even the atheist H. G. Wells spoke of Jesus, "...one is obliged to say, "Here was a man. This part of the tale could not have been invented."

SupremeSpod
16th June 2005, 10:53
Spod - In "Oh, FFS" mode!

zeitghost
16th June 2005, 10:54
If you've got God's telephone number, where's the need for faith?

(With apologies to the Dear Dead Douglas Adams...)

ChicoLondon
16th June 2005, 10:55
Spod

I have said it to you once and I will say it again - do not post until you have taken your pills - ok?

dundeegeorge
16th June 2005, 11:12
******** christians to trees, is it!!!!!!

SupremeSpod
16th June 2005, 11:13
Chico, I fervently wish that you meet your god sooner rather than later.

ChicoLondon
16th June 2005, 11:16
I think you mean throwing them to the lions. While Christ was nailed to a cross as was Peter - most Christians at that time were fed to the lions. 2000 years later I see those tendencies still exist. Now do you get the Roman soldier analogy - dundee has the penny dropped yet?

ChicoLondon
16th June 2005, 11:17
Spod - I met him already

dundeegeorge
16th June 2005, 11:32
I mean nailing them to trees which is how the Romans crucified people. I repeat, which is how the Romans crucified people. Of course that was only in the real world, who knows what they did in looney-land, which you seem to inhabit.

ChicoLondon
16th June 2005, 11:34
So you still do not get the analogy - then? Oh dear

sasguru
16th June 2005, 11:40
Beuatiful trolling Chico - keep up the good work. In terms of nuance, tone etc. it is inch perfect.:lol

Not So Wise
16th June 2005, 12:18
Nahh a good troll at least sounds intelligent and informed and is capable of giving plausible sounding arguments. Where as chico's are basically "because the bible says so" or "go to GCSE religious studies"

ChicoLondon
16th June 2005, 12:26
NSW


go to GCSE religious studies

Where is this magical place?

Chico in "annoy those pesky atheist and secular humanists" mode

zeitghost
16th June 2005, 12:29
F$666 Inappropriate use of the sainted GOTO command.

hattra
16th June 2005, 15:16
Chico,

You should try reading what people write

I think a person called Jesus (or Joshua or Jeshu) did exist

When it comes to the historical evidence for his existence, primary evidence is thin on the ground. Yes there are references to Jesus, but on closer inspection they are all secondary sources. Not to be ignored, certainly, but inevitably coloured by the authors opinion of the original subject. Josephus wrote in 94AD, some 60 years after the events, and based his passage on things that he had heard, not what he had experienced, Tacitus wrote in 112 AD, again repeating things that he had heard. Josephus is important , certainly, as he seems to be the ONLY non-biblical mention of Jesus in the first century and he wasn't born until 37 AD, after the event. Some scholars also believe that his account has been tampered with by later writers, to add details of the Resurrection.