Calling all Christians

I rather expect you aren't exactly alone; I wouldn't call myself a 'Christian' but neither am I a non-believer. Jude and I had a conversation about this, and I believe that I would actually fall somewhere in the category of a pantheist-humanist. It has more flair than simply 'Christian', which is an awful big umbrella under which several incompatible factions seem to stand.

People don't come to your aid or support because you seem to argue your own case pretty well on your own...
;-) Nowt wrong with that.

Thank you, archergirl, for answering this post. You said the following (my coments in parenthesis):

I rather expect you aren't exactly alone; I wouldn't call myself a 'Christian' but neither am I a non-believer. (Hmm - really? I don't understand how you can say that, but...okay.) Jude and I had a conversation about this, and I believe that I would actually fall somewhere in the category of a pantheist-humanist. (Since you refer to yourself as a "so-called" pantheistic humanist, I would certainly not be able to add you to any Christian list, as you have stated.) It has more flair than simply 'Christian', which is an awful big umbrella (Not so big as you might suspect, in my opinion. I might even be able to prove that if I could just find a substantial amount of believers here.)under which several incompatible factions seem to stand. (Which incompatible factions? Can you give me an example?)

People don't come to your aid or support because you seem to argue your own case pretty well on your own...
;-) Nowt wrong with that. (Well, frankly, I don't think I do argue my case as well as it could be argued if others could add theirs to mind.)

Again, thank you for your post.

I am (kind of) a Christian. Born and raised a Roman Catholic, but haven't gone to church on a regular basis since I was in elementary school.

I wouldn't claim to be a Christian if you threatened to feed to me a lion. Everyone knows religion is a big steaming pile of turd -- anyone who doesn't is an idiot. Harsh but true.

As for Christ? Not such a bad geyser. Bit misunderstood. Had some nice ideas.

Don't get me started on "pantheism". What a load of old muff. It basically says, "everything is God". Which means nothing. It's for atheists who get the jitters about there not being a God:

"I don't believe in organised religion and the traditional idea of God because that obviously stinks, so I'll strip the word God of all meaning and say all that stuff atheists believe IS God."

Are you so desperate to use the word God, and find some common ground?

IMO, you're an atheist. Or you ain't.

Pantheism. Hold that nose and make that flushing gesture.

http://naptime500.blogspot.com

So Jesus was a geyser - did he gush?

"Don't get me started on "pantheism". What a load of old muff. It basically says, "everything is God". Which means nothing. It's for atheists who get the jitters about there not being a God"

Then you've got pantheism completely wrong, BV. Sorry, mate. I'm no atheist, either, but there's no point explaining it to you since you would misunderstand *that* as well.

Styx, nice one! Heh heh. I thought of that, too. You got there first. x

Many people who were brought up as Christians don`t feel comfortable with every aspect of organised Christanity (say for example celibacy for Catholic priests or condemning birth control), but agree in general with Christ`s basic teaching.
IMO, a person can lead a well-rounded life without following any of the major religions. Having said that,if someone draws strength from prayer or any form of worship and it has no adverse effect on others, then good luck to them.
I think you would have more luck finding vestial virgins on this site, mon ami.

Or bestial virgins, for that matter...

Nice one AG. We'll have to form a mutual appreciation society. You'll have to bring that blanket and the jam rolls though. Contact me at stixbroox@yahoo.co.uk

They're all commies and lefties I swear Paul. They all smoke pipes have beards, they all wear sandals with socks and have smelly old sweaters knitted from yoghurt. You'll get trepanned with an ice-pick just like that Lennon geezer. Mind you he became a geyser after the trepanning.

creme fraiche, yoghurt's so 80's.

Juliet

I've always thought of Jesus as the world's first Socialist. Top bloke. Shame about the dickheads that claim to speak for him these days.

Agree with AG about the Big-Umbrella-Ness of Christianity. There are so many different "versions" of Christianity nowadays that one has to ask: what does it all boil down to? Paul... I know such a question is probably going to incite groans a-plenty, but... how do you define "Christian"? In the context of your own personal beliefs, that is.

I am a Christian. I believe Christ existed, I believe in his moral teachings and I believe, in some sense, he was the "Son" of "God." I definitely believe he had a divine essence, but then I believe all humans have a divine essence. I don't believe in many of the ways Christianity has manifested since Christ first walked the Earth, and I believe that Christ himself wouldn't either. Just one example... didn't he say we should worship in humble surroundings? Two words... Vatican City. I am a Christian, but I believe that its definition has been so corrupted and perverted over the last two thousand years that to follow Christ means something entirely different now to how it was intended.

pe
ps
oid

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

Just noticed your other thread, "What are you leftists trying to do"? Clearly you class "leftist" as a perjorative term, with no comprehension of how christians have fought for "lefty" things like fair trade, rights to join trade unions, universal health care and education. Many mission organisations are also trying to reach out to the Arab/Muslim world but are being hampered by "rightists", mostly from your country, who seem to shout loud for Israel and pour millions of dollars their way on some cobbled-together end-times doctrine which few christians worldwide actually believe, but as US christians hardly travel they think Bible interpretation begins and ends at their own borders. And the ten little letters GEORGE BUSH has probably hardened tens of millions away from the Saviour he claims to follow.

But you're right that you don't get too many flag-waving evangelicals on this site, or any other general writing site. One reason is that good writing tends to flow from ones experience of life, and the wider that experience the better, and from being original. But being original, or mingling with the sort of weirdos who frequent the writing world, or the world in general for that matter, is risky; far easier to stay within Fortress Church and write soulwinning treatises masquerading as literature, or safe little stories which sound like scripts from "Little House On The Prairie" and might sell in droves in christian bookshops but which nobody else would find readable.

You're sending out a call to "all Christians", but you only really want to find strident evangelicals like yourself with a specific right-wing world view. I don't think you'll find too many here.

I think people here are generally pretty thoughtful, intelligent and broad-minded, and unlikely to strongly attach themselves to any particular belief system, religion or doctrine. I include myself (although some may disagree!). If we weren't as we are, would we have such lengthy, complex debates about... ooh, plucking a topic out of thin air... the subtle uses of an ellipsis?

pe
ps
oid

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

pepsoid asked:

"...Paul... I know such a question is probably going to incite groans a-plenty, but... how do you define "Christian"? In the context of your own personal beliefs, that is."

Yes, I must confess, there were some 'groans-a-plenty', but it is probably good that you asked it because the question, it seems, is also on the minds of others.

What I mean by Christian is someone who has faith, believing that Jesus is the Christ (messiah - savior) and has accepted His gift (His death, burial and resurrection) as payment for our sins; and that his blood has won us our salvation. A Christian will believe that there is a Heaven and that he will go there when he dies.

As for organized religion, Salvation is of the Lord only. The church is not a building or an organization of rule makers or any such thing; it is the congrigation - the people are the church. I don't attend church services myself.

I don't, however, despise organized religion, in fact, I think it does a very good and Godly work. I think of it this way as far as the diverities of Christian Churchs go: It seems to me that no one can really complain that "the church" does not fit their 'standards' or 'liking' because if they don't like one denominations they can always attend another.

But at the core of all the denominations is believing that Jesus is the Savior. So any of the congrigations that believe this - can be called Christian.

In answer to Neilmc's post:

Oh, no doubt. Christians fought for all sorts of leftist causes, and rightly so I would say. The USSR was right-wing. Communism is right-wing – but it is the left that “today” is crying out, in your country and mine, for socialism – at least in part. The “leftist” and the “rightist” lines have switched on many fronts and have blurred on the fronts that have not down right switched.

But, of course, I am referring to the political arguments of today among our peoples. Today’s politics. If you really didn’t understand that (but I think you do understand – you just want to argue around the issue and were really not addressing the issue at all) then maybe you should have asked a question rather than bantered on that way. It really was quite silly.

You also wrote:

"You're sending out a call to "all Christians", but you only really want to find strident evangelicals like yourself with a specific right-wing world view. I don't think you'll find too many here."

No. I won't allow you to determine my motives. You don't know any of what you just stated there. That was an accusation without baring. I have stated my reason for this forum in my original post. It so stands - thank you very much.

Your definition of the spiritual/divine side of Christianity seems pretty clear (some vague questions come to mind re the specificities of such concepts as "messiah/saviour," "salvation," "Heaven," etc; but until I've got such questions clear in my own head, I won't trouble you with them! ;) )... but you don't speak of a moral dimension to Christianity. Is there, do you feel, a specific moral code that a Christian should abide by (in order to be able to call himself "Christian")?

pe
ps
oid

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

To pepsoid:

You seem to be implying that Christians are not open-minded. That isn’t entirely true. It is true that they are supposed to (as I read Col.3:17), in everything they say and do, let it be as a representative of the Lord Jesus. If you are a believer, you have certain beliefs that work their way out in your thinking and that guide you in your opinions. It’s only natural. Surely, you are not saying that you don’t have your own opinions and that you are not firmly grounded in them. It’s okay for you to be like that, evidently, but not a Christian.

If a Christian is firmly grounded, he is said not to be a “free thinker”. Yet, your thinking is not of yourself either. You read certain writings – so do I, you listen to certain politicians – so do I. You even have a belief system that you use to make your points with. So you are a “free thinker”? Maybe to a degree – but not nearly the degree you would like others to believe. Far too many people are arguing your arguments, for you to claim authorship.

It is a strange world we live in today. It used to be, if a person lived long enough – he was considered wise, if he read and understood in a great way some subject and stood fast on his knowledge – he was said to be a wise man and bravely stood on his convictions. It used to be that to come to an opinion after study and reason was a good thing – to know - that was good. Not now. Today it’s the guy who doesn’t know anything for sure and proclaims it to the world – he is the one we should all admire and wish to emulate. How absurd.

I was once one of them. I changed my mind on things as I learned more and more about the subject. I changed because I was able to admit my mistakes and change. That is why I am the Christian that I am today; not because I learned it in a “church”. Not because I just heard someone say it and so said, “Dah…Oh, okay. If you say so.” I studied pepsoid. My questions where Biblical ones. They were about Christ and salvation and the differences between good and evil. Many of the same questions you have yourself, I would suspect. But, I found the answers that I needed, and learned all I needed to know to be able ask and answer the right questions about daily life. All of them. And it is because of that, that I am a Christian today.

Yes – I am dogmatic about the things I believe. I don’t happen to think that is a bad thing, but if you do – I’m sorry. But I have studied, and racked my brain, heart and soul for the answers that I have received. I came to where I am today by hard work and deep thought – and you or anyone else can’t take that away from me.

And by the way, I am old enough to have at least the same rights as you - to state my opinion and to argue my point in any public forum that will allow general discussion.

Just so you know - LOL

")... but you don't speak of a moral dimension to Christianity. Is there, do you feel, a specific moral code that a Christian should abide by (in order to be able to call himself "Christian")?"

Pepsoid - read my post. Reading is a good thing - you can learn things. That's a good boy.

pepsoid: Your definition of the spiritual/divine side of Christianity seems pretty clear (some vague questions come to mind re the specificities of such concepts as "messiah/saviour," "salvation," "Heaven," etc;

(Do these things really come to your mind pepsoid? I don’t believe you are being genuine.)

but until I've got such questions clear in my own head, I won't trouble you with them!

(thanks)

Is there, do you feel, a specific moral code that a Christian should abide by (in order to be able to call himself "Christian")?

(Your question is a very clever one. The answer is a faulty one, a trap. A believer is one who believes in Christ as his Savior. A man can call himself anything he wants, but if he believes this – he is a Christian. There is no need for you to try to complicate it by adding anything to it.)

Pepsoid - read my post. Reading is a good thing - you can learn things. That's a good boy.

Well, Mr K, I wouldn't think it is very Christian to be condescending or intolerant... :/

I read your posts - I perhaps didn't entirely understand them, but this may be indicative of your linguistic skills (or lack of) or my intelligence (or lack of) or a combination of both.

I was questioning your beliefs, asking you to clarify what you believe, because I am interested in them and I would like to work out what I personally believe about Christianity. I feel there are some deep and valuable truths in the life and teachings of Christ. Like I said, though, I do feel his message has been corrupted and confused since he lived his mortal existence. I would like to sift through the confusion and get to the real truth and what I believe to be true, because I don't want to be put off and have my own mind closed by the version(s) of Christianity I have been fed, subjected to and exposed myself to in the 34 years of my own mortal existence so far.

You don't seem close-minded, Paul, and I never meant to suggest that you were. You seem pretty erudite and for that reason I am interested to hear your thoughts! May I suggest, though, that when someone like myself asks you to explain and define your beliefs, that you don't get on the defensive and personal in a way that I would find insulting? Finding your spiritual centre and what you believe to be True is good. I truly believe this. I also believe you should share this with joy, acceptance, tolerance and love! Did Christ condescend...??

pe
ps
oid

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

Well pepsoid - you will have to want something more than that, I think. If you want to cling to your own understanding - then you will create your own truth and then you can, I suppose, go around telling everyone that you are a proud free thinker.

Or you can ask your questions and look in the Bible for them and then see how they fit as far as truth is concerned. If you think it is ‘true’, then I would suggest you go with it. If not – find truth somewhere else. The truth can be tested - it isn't blind faith that is required. There is more to it than other non-believers say.

But so many people want to hold on to their “own thinking” and thereby fail to learn from certain sources. You seem to be afraid of the scriptures. I could be wrong, but many people are. But all you need do, to get the answers you want, is go to the Bible and look for them. I don’t mind answering your questions. But this forum may not be the place to do that.

You said:

I was questioning your beliefs, asking you to clarify what you believe, because I am interested in them and I would like to work out what I personally believe about Christianity. (Good - I didn't understand that - sorry. All I seem to get here is attack... so I reacted wrongly.) I feel there are some deep and valuable truths in the life and teachings of Christ. (That is a good start - but it is far greater than that.)Like I said, though, I do feel his message has been corrupted and confused since he lived his mortal existence. (Why would you believe that? Who told you that God is not able to keep his word from corruption? It hasn't been changed - not in any great way - not so that the message is not clear.) I would like to sift through the confusion and get to the real truth and what I believe to be true, because I don't want to be put off and have my own mind closed by the version(s) of Christianity I have been fed, subjected to and exposed myself to in the 34 years of my own mortal existence so far. (Reading this part tells me that you really are confussed. There is only confussion because you listen to the voices around you telling you one thing, mine - and another voice telling you another thing - thiers, and yet another voice telling you some different still. You are being tossed around like a wayward ship at sea. If you want to know if Christianity is truth - go to the source. That is what I did. I learned from the source. When I was confused by something I didn’t understand in the Bible – I went to another believer and asked them, and another and another until I got all the facts and made up my own mind. I didn’t go to non-believers to ask my questions. What good would that do? If I wanted to know their opinion about something – I’d ask them – but you can be sure it wasn’t anything about Christianity. What would they know about the faith? Get it? Read the Bible – don’t try to find out about Christianity. Try to learn the truth of salvation and about God and Jesus and you will know what a Christian is.

You went to the sorce?

Which sorce would that be exactly?

Was it the Bible? Which Bible? What translation was it? Do you know how many textural alterations have been made to it since it was created? Are you sure that it was exactly as it has always been?

What language was it in?

Cheers,

Mark

Mark says - (I reply)

You went to the sorce? (yes)

Which sorce would that be exactly? (the Bible)

Was it the Bible? (yes)Which Bible? (many of them - I compared the different translations and still do - but mainly KJV) What translation was it? Do you know how many textural alterations have been made to it since it was created? (Do you?) Are you sure that it was exactly as it has always been? (Yes. But maybe you could educate me. You might like to tell me where it is wrong and where it is right. I will wait for your very educational reply. Please, enlighten me.)

So let's get this straight, the book you claim to be the source is a variety of translations?

Are all of them the direct word of God? Or have a number of people been involved in the process along the way?

I couldn't begin to tell you where any translation of the Bible was 'wrong' or 'right'. I was suggesting that there may be differences though, between editions, translations and versions. Are all of them the direct word of god?

Ducking questions by directing back at the person who poses them doesn't strengthen your argument particularly.

Cheers,

Mark

I couldn't begin to tell you where any translation of the Bible was 'wrong' or 'right'. (I thought so, but we should, of course, throw the Bible out, because it can't be trusted. Oh we can keep other books from that time and earlier, histories, philosophies, just not the Bible because it just might not be exactly as the original.) I was suggesting that there may be differences though, between editions, translations and versions. Are all of them the direct word of god? (No - only the Bible I read is the right one.)

Ducking questions by directing back at the person who poses them doesn't strengthen your argument particularly. (What argument?)

(It is interesting though that the book of Ruth is one of those dead sea scrolls. It was a complete work dating back to the days of the writers. Possibly an original. It proved that the book of Ruth that is in our Bible today is correct to this dead sea scroll. The integrity of the text was upheld. You might say, "But that doesn't prove that all the books in the Bible are correct?" To this I would say, "You are right. It doesn't prove that all the rest of the books are correct, but it sure does lend to that argument in a big way. There are very many ways of knowing that the Bible is the truth. It isn't as you try to make it out to be; that we can not know God's Word is true.)

I wasn't suggesting that anyone should throw anything out.

What I was questioning was your position that the Bible is the literal word of god, to be obey as such by the letter.

I wondering that if it is more a question of interpretation, with the sense lying with the interpreter rather than the text?

Cheers,

Mark

No. It is not a matter of interpretation. That is an old argument - and oh, so tiring. Some people interpret some passages of scripture differently. But that doesn't mean that it is up to what ever interpretation you wish to put on it. It means that only one of those interpretations are correct.

It is not so hard to determine the correct interpretation of most scriptures because they are repeated many times (I'm referring to preceps for example) and one can cross reference to discover the truth in most cases.

There really is very little argument amoung the differing denominations where it comes to scripture. There is some of course, but most of the differences come in the area of Church Tradition. This is one of the things I mean when I say that Christians don't stop being free thinkers. The Bible often imposes far more questions than the believer thought he was getting into when he started searching scripture. This causes a lot of thought and research to commence, if one is so inclined. It doesn't take long for the interested student to get knee deep in the scriptures very quickly. That is if someone is really seeking the truth.

Let me ask you something, Mark. Have you read the scriptures? Do you have a working knowledge of the Bible? I'm just wondering.

You could try spelling source correctly Paul.

Yes, thank you styx.

There's a lot of words he could try spelling correctly.

This is boring.

There're a lot of words. By criminy even the spell checker on this site is American. Or should that be 'are American.' Lets go for a coffee AG I'm bored too. Crikey, he's like one of those Morons in sharp suits from Salt Lake City who you mistakenly opened the door to, and fixes you with that messianic grin, and because you're British don't feel that you can slam the door on.

Ha! If you are talking about me, styx, I must say I've never been described that way before. Not sure I understand it - but pretty sure it's not good. LOL

Hmm... call me strange, but I'm not personally going to listen to Paul any more or less on the basis of his spelling proficiency... :/

Anyway... I do believe the Bible (the New Testament/the Scriptures) is a pretty good source of spiritual wisdom. However, it is not the only source, or even, necessarily, the most important or useful or relavent source. Even when it comes to Christianity. Wasn't there that little old thing called the Council of Nicaea, which determined which books should even go in the New Testament? And I'm sure such decisions weren't entirely based upon their spiritual veracity...

Personally, Paul, I've read the Scriptures - at least a couple of times - and I've also read a little modern compilation called the Gnostic Gospels, just to get a few more perspectives on the thoughts and histories of that time. There are truths in there and spiritual wisdom, but I think ultimately (as is a point you seem to be alluding to), one has to delve deep and listen to one's heart.

N'est-ce pas?

pe
ps
oid

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

roxette

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

Christians.

Best argument yet for keeping lions in captivity.

Roxette?

pe
ps
oid

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

Paul:
"It means that only one of those interpretations are correct."

And how do you know which one? Does Jesus whisper it in your ear or something? Because there's a rather large black hole where one might expect some kind of rational argument for your particular 'interpretation' of the scriptures.

Come on - explain how "Thou shalt not kill" actually means "Thou shalt not kill, except in special circumstances."

Whoops, there goes Tony's and Dubya's belief systems.

Thou shalt not kill, in the original text means – Thou shalt not murder. The scriptures also teach that there is a time for peace and a time for war.

And how do you know which one? Does Jesus whisper it in your ear or something? (Yeah, something like that.)

"Thou shalt not kill, in the original text means – Thou shalt not murder."

That's a very convenient piece of spin. I think the Jihadists have a similar bit of wordplay that allows them to kill innocent people and still go about with a clean conscience.

"The scriptures also teach that there is a time for peace and a time for war."

Yeah, I guess the time for war is when you can sit at home and watch it happening thousands of miles away.

I've heard that 'thou shalt not kill' = 'thou shalt not murder' shtick before from other lunatic far right Americans.

I can't help wondering why, in centuries of the bible being examined by very learned folk who knew a lot more than me (and I'm assuming, you) about ancient languages. Nobody thought to mention a rather vital mistranslation of a very well known and oft quoted passage until some Texan was asked how he justified the death penalty. You try finding a bible outside of the States that goes with the 'murder' interpretation.

Personally I think it's a rather obvious and desperate rationalization by people who want to call themselves Christians but aren't willing to alter their lives or value systems one iota.

From the little I know, Jesus himself was quite clearly a pacifist - "Resist not evil. If smitten on one cheek turn the other" and all that. Personally I'm with Ingersoll on that being a wholly irrational philosophy, but then I don't claim to be a Christian.

No, I don't suppose you would.

From what little you know, nothing can be considered clear.

Maddan said:
I can't help wondering why, in centuries of the bible being examined by very learned folk (Paul: You mean like the great theologian William Tyndale) who knew a lot more than me and I'm assuming, you) about ancient languages. Nobody thought to mention a rather vital mistranslation of a very well known and oft quoted passage until some Texan was asked how he justified the death penalty. You try finding a bible outside of the States that goes with the 'murder' interpretation.

Paul replies:
You can find it (Exodus 20:13 - You must not murder)written as such in "The Living Bible" for one. The Living Bible, was translated by William Tyndale and was first printed in 1525.

The New International Version (NIV) reads... Thou shalt not murder. So does Young's Literal Translation Bible, The Amplified Bible, New American Standard Bible, and Holman Christian Standard Bible.

These are the ones I found. So one could hardly say that this is some "new" interpretation I just made up myself for "convenience" (as Jack Cade accuses).

I don't know how many other translations read "murder", but the ones I know that read "kill" are: The King James, American Standard Version, Darby Translation and Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition. If you know of others, I would be very happy to examine them.

If you look at all of what the Bible teaches, you MUST interpret "kill" as "murder". I have no idea how it could logically be interpreted any other way. "IF" you really wish to be logical, that is, and not just obstructive.

Maddan: From the little I know, Jesus himself was quite clearly a pacifist - "Resist not evil. If smitten on one cheek turn the other" and all that.

Paul: This is Matthew 5:39. This does not speak of war, but of fighting one person against another. You can't just lift out a verse and use it for your own purposes. This seems to be what you accuse me of. You have to look at it in context. As far as I know, Jesus did not speak personally about war. (I will investigate that further.)

andrewjames said:

Christians.

Best argument yet for keeping lions in captivity.

Paul replies:

Ha! I hope not, but with a name like yours, you had better be careful. LOL

The last five posts on here are all fresh ones by you paul k. You do know don't you, that you can add to your own post, if something occurs after you have published it?
Or are you just trying to keep it bumped to the top? Because it's really fucking annoying. It's like one loud man in a bar shouting when everyone else has buggered off with earache (or terminal boredom).

Charlton Heston definitely said 'kill'

Charlton Heston. Kill? Mmmmmmmmm.

Paul K - re my lions comment - I wasn't being flippant. I was being deadly serious. Religion causes such a significant proportion of the world's problems that to align oneself with any one particular doctrine is delusional at best, downright dangerous and stupid at worst.

Are you delusional, Paul?

Sure I am, andrew, if you define it the way you seem to. But under your definition I wonder how delusional you are.

Religion you say? Well not all of them, andrew. Do you see Christianity causing a lot of the worlds problems? You know, andrew, if all the people of the world would be Christian, we would all get along much better. But then again, if all of the world was Moslem it would get together just as good, maybe even better. Maybe you would prefer that.

But if the whole world were secular, I personally think it would be far worse because we would not have anything to anchor on to (that sounded dumb - but I think you get the point).

But since none of the above is ever going to happen, I suppose all we can do is speculate.

But can you tell me why you would call down the lions on "Christians" and no other religion. It was Christians that you referred to - not religion as a whole. But it was religion as a whole that you reffered to as the "problem" in your later post. Is it just Christianity that you hate? And if so, why do you hate it so? You don’t call down the lions on the radical Moslems or any of the terrorists religions – only Christians. Why is that?

sorry - double post

It's true, all them Christians in Northern Ireland are getting along famously now.

Yes, your right on that point.

'Do you see Christianity causing a lot of the worlds problems? '

Ahh, where's Missi when you need him eh?

Yes, your right on that point. But England didn't use lions - they tried to do something like that, but it seems the Christians won their fight, doesn't it.

Yes, your right on that point. But England didn't use lions - they tried to do something like that, but it seems the Christians won their fight, doesn't it? But I don't understand your point really. Are you saying that you think those Christians were wrong in there struggle? Please clearify. You really fell short of answering my questions in my previous post. Of course, I'm not saying you have to comment; don't get me wrong. I'm really sincere about those questions.

But England didn't use lions - they tried to do something like that, but it seems the Christians won their fight, doesn't it.

Ah that'll be cos English Lions are rubbish.

Sorry folks - I don't know why all my posts came up that way - I didn't mean to make so many partial posts. I think it might have been a tech error.

Yeah, english lions are rubbish. I chased one just the other day and gave it a right kicking.

Paul (he said, feeling wearysomne yet compelled to answer this deluded fool)....No, it's not just Christians...the lions thing was merely a reference based in history that may (or may not) have touched a wry, humourous nerve...clearly not, in your case, perhaps having no sense of "wry" and, cultarally, pretty little sense of history.

But a secular vision without anchor compels one to find such a touchpoint amongst one's fellows....a religious system under several touchponts leaves all clinging to individual posts...separately. There is no God. There might just be Santa and the Tooth Fairy, but God...? Naw.

As for your comment on my taking your lion comment seriously - I would refer back to your own reply post when I did, in fact, take it as a joke. You said that you were serious, so I merely commented on that, obviously understanding the history behind it. I understood from the beginning that you were joking.

Yes, yes, everyone understands clearly that you believe God to be a fairy tale. Is it okay with you if I disagree?

No. "He's" far less important than fairy tales... : )

As for your comment on my taking your lion comment seriously - I would refer back to your own reply post when I did, in fact, take it as a joke. You said that you were serious, so I merely commented on that, obviously understanding the history behind it. I understood from the beginning that you were joking.

Yes, yes, everyone understands clearly that you believe God to be a fairy tale. Is it okay with you if I disagree?

As for your comment... 'Paul (he said, feeling wearysomne yet compelled to answer this deluded fool)...' I think that it is hilarious that, more than likely, no one will call you down for this rude comment, yet when I did that, I was blasted for it, and rightly so. I know people here don't see eye to eye with me - but it is really funny that the rules don't apply equally across the board. It's okay though really, I'm okay with it, I just wanted to point it out, that's all.

As for your comment on my taking your lion comment seriously - I would refer back to your own reply post when I did, in fact, take it as a joke. You said that you were serious, so I merely commented on that, obviously understanding the history behind it. I understood from the beginning that you were joking.

Yes, yes, everyone understands clearly that you believe God to be a fairy tale. Is it okay with you if I disagree? And, do you really think that a secular world would ever come up with a consensus policy of anything but that there is no God?

As for your comment... 'Paul (he said, feeling wearysomne yet compelled to answer this deluded fool)...' I think that it is hilarious that, more than likely, no one will call you down for this rude comment, yet when I did that, I was blasted for it, and rightly so. I know people here don't see eye to eye with me - but it is really funny that the rules don't apply equally across the board. It's okay though really, I'm okay with it, I just wanted to point it out, that's all.

Oi Paul, you know what you said about how people should answer questions and all that? Well, I asked you a question but you didn't answer. Here it is again:

Whose side do you believe God was on during the American Civil War?

I am sorry, Enzo, I don’t see that posted question anywhere in this forum. I have been having a lot of partial and duplicated posts lately and I think that there may be some tech problems. I will be happy to answer your question now.

It is always dangerous, I think, to flatly state God’s opinion on anything that he has not directly commented on, so I can only state my opinion. I can’t say “which side” but I think that I can say that I believe God is not a great fan of slavery. If that is a help to you, I will just leave it at that, for now. If not, then ask me again, I guess. LOL

By the way folks, I just came to understand why there is so many partial and duplicated posts from me. I was wrong to think it was a tech problem. I did it myself. I understand what I was doing wrong and I apologize and promise that I won't do it again.

Which wars has God directly commented on?

None that I can be sure of. He has commented on the last one though, the one that has not yet occured, the one, I believe, we are swiftly headed for.

That would be America Vs Iran right?

no

I'm a christian and proud of it!!

I'm a christian and proud of it!!

I'm a christian and proud of it!!

It's the end times, isn't it Paul?

Cheers,

Mark

Ha! Mark, I guess you could tell that I was hoping that you would just let that answer stand. But, I really didn’t think you would. But since I have, sort of, committed myself to answer all questions posed to me, I will say this:

Yes, I am referring to the final battle on earth that is prophesied in the book of “The Revelation” in the Bible, the one that will culminate in what we refer to as the Battle of Armageddon. But, I really want to let it stand at that. Any further discussion may lead us off in a whole new direction and, I must confess, the details are far to sketchy for me to fully understand (since it is prophesy of things that have not yet occurred) and I am not really qualified to intelligently argue the details.

Well, I’m so glad to hear that, Tyler. Where have you been all this time?

By the way, maddan, you might be surprised to hear that if we went to war in Iran now, you and I would most likely be on the same side of that discussion. Maybe for different reasons, though.

Tyler, are you singing a hymn there?

Paul, I'm not a Christian, but I wrote a story about a girl who is:
http://www.abctales.com/story/johnshade/light-gods-love
I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on it.