PDA

View Full Version : Romney, The Anti Christ



Sid_Vicious
10-03-2012, 05:31 PM
It is beyond me, as a reborn Christian myself, how to understand that Mitt Romney, a cultist by any congrergation I ever visited(besides visiting a Mormom church)...these staunch American Christians will NOW evade God and the Christian Bible and vote for this guy just to NOT vote for a black Christian man! I don't know guys and gals, but I'd bet that God has a problem with a cultist being voted in by the even one of the reborn Christians here. HIS people, choosing to follow a Mormon, be it only a government election...but a biggie.

The rest of you Christians here(professed anyway) give me the willys. May God take pity on your souls. In my opinion??? you are all denying Christ if you vote for Romney. You are sad suckers, and all gullible. Go read your Bibles again. sid

eg8r
10-03-2012, 08:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is beyond me, as a reborn Christian myself, how to understand that Mitt Romney, a cultist by any congrergation I ever visited(besides visiting a Mormom church)...these staunch American Christians will NOW evade God and the Christian Bible and vote for this guy just to NOT vote for a black Christian man!</div></div>Probably because Obama has such strong muslim roots.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The rest of you Christians here(professed anyway) give me the willys. May God take pity on your souls. In my opinion???</div></div>Besides llotter, can you name a single Christian on this forum that has said he would vote for Romney? Obama wanted to remove God from the DNC. How could you vote for a guy like that?

eg8r

hondo
10-03-2012, 09:31 PM
We've got one self-professed Christian on here who calls everyone stupid idiots, old bags and hillbilly hicks!
Christians just aren't what they used to be, Sid. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

cushioncrawler
10-03-2012, 11:51 PM
Duzz anyone ever read the The Holey Bible. How do u do it. Do u read a chapter at a time. How long duzz it take -- a week, a month. Do u understand any of it. Iz it fun reading it, or iz it a pain in the arse that u are happy to go throo. Do u make notes, praps underline good bits.

I had a read today in the waiting room for my blood sampling for blood testing. The receptionist sayd "reading the good book" and i sez "nah i just want to see how silly it iz" and she sez "are u a skeptik" and i sez "no mor than a skeptik" and she sez "i beleev it".

Jeez it iz hard work reading even one page. In fakt i dont think i even got throo one page. How kan u seriously read that shit. When i read anything i look for fakts etc and i list and arrange etc. When i read krapp with no facts or logik, my brain hurts. It iz hell. Hell iz trying to read the The Holey Bible.

So i ended up having a flick throo it.
What iz a holy God. Would God be ok if he twernt holy.
What iz the difference tween Lord and God.
Are blessings good. Iz it good to be blessed. What if u aint blessed.

Gee there are lots of chapters, and numbers, and headings. Are theze original?????
mac.

LWW
10-04-2012, 02:19 AM
Your desperation is amusing.

LWW
10-04-2012, 02:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We've got one self-professed Christian on here who calls everyone stupid idiots, old bags and hillbilly hicks!
Christians just aren't what they used to be, Sid. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif </div></div>

Ahem ...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are the scum of the earth.
The S**T-stain on roberts' undies.
You are the gas in dub's ass.
Why, johnny, why?
I'm not your sweetheart.
You are the trash in the trailer.
You are the decaying skunk in the middle of the road.
You are a bottom feeder.
I'm not your sweetheart, weasel.
You are Satan's spawn posing as a Christian.
You are Judas Iscariot.
You are a sewer rat.
I'm not your sweetheart, weasel.
You are the crap caked on my commode.
You were never in the service.
You are not black.
You are not a man of God.
You are the lowest of the low. Even lower than bobroberts.
I asm not your sweetheart, weasel.
You are possibly a closet homo-sexual.
You are not a man.
You are a coward who hides behind the anonymity of the keyboard.
I am not your sweetheart, weasel.

Have a nice night and may God bless you.
I am praying for your eternal soul.
I don't hate your soul, weasel.
I just loathe the scumbag inhabiting your current incarnation. </div></div>

hondo
10-04-2012, 07:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Duzz anyone ever read the The Holey Bible. How do u do it. Do u read a chapter at a time. How long duzz it take -- a week, a month. Do u understand any of it. Iz it fun reading it, or iz it a pain in the arse that u are happy to go throo. Do u make notes, praps underline good bits.

I had a read today in the waiting room for my blood sampling for blood testing. The receptionist sayd "reading the good book" and i sez "nah i just want to see how silly it iz" and she sez "are u a skeptik" and i sez "no mor than a skeptik" and she sez "i beleev it".

Jeez it iz hard work reading even one page. In fakt i dont think i even got throo one page. How kan u seriously read that shit. When i read anything i look for fakts etc and i list and arrange etc. When i read krapp with no facts or logik, my brain hurts. It iz hell. Hell iz trying to read the The Holey Bible.

So i ended up having a flick throo it.
What iz a holy God. Would God be ok if he twernt holy.
What iz the difference tween Lord and God.
Are blessings good. Iz it good to be blessed. What if u aint blessed.

Gee there are lots of chapters, and numbers, and headings. Are theze original?????
mac. </div></div>

I indeed have read the Bible. I read the NT first and then read the OT last as it is more difficult. I used The Jerusalem Bible ( a Catholic Bible) because it has excellent liner notes.
I have read every kind of background and history I can find about the Bible. Have also read Koran, Bhaga-Vad-Gita, Book of Mormon,Mary Baker Eddy, Yogananda, Krishamurti, Gurdieff, Vivekenanda, Jewish mysticism, Catholic mystics, Eastern Orthodox, Castenada,
Arica, Eckankar, Scientology, Baba Ram Dass, etc.
Plus, I attend church regularly and have been dragged into teaching adult Sunday School class. Thus, the change in my posting style in recent months.

I chose to answer your post seriously even though I know you were just mocking my beliefs.
In the end there are several possibilities, Mac.
1. We both rot with our consciousness obliterated.
2. You do and my awareness survives in some form.
3. Both of our souls (if we have one) survive, and we pay the piper.
There are other possibilities but that's enough for now. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

hondo
10-04-2012, 07:29 AM
Ahem! as I have said numerous times and you choose to ignore- check the dates of those posts.
Of course, you keep attacking Byrd for something from 60 years ago.
If you are for real, you are the least forgiving Christian I have ever seen.

Larry, I think I'll take a break from you for a while. Your constant shit-stirring and shameless lies wear on my soul.
Lie away, Larry. dig up old posts, defend bigots like yugo, Fat Johnny, and Bamadog vehemently, twist and mock.
I'll play your little games at a later date. I always do come back to you, honey, don't I? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

LWW
10-04-2012, 08:14 AM
What difference does the date make?

Soflasnapper
10-04-2012, 11:35 AM
I know what you mean, and that the LDS org is a cult goes without question from me at least, but don't entirely agree with your conclusion.

Would you also refuse to vote for a practicing Jew, or Moslem, on the equivalent notion that their practice is bad in the eyes of God and leads them to eternal damnation, unless they convert to Christianity? (I might tend to vote against a practicing Jew on the theory that we need more distance from Israel and her crimes, rather than greater closeness, but that's not a religious critique per se. And if that candidate were more aligned with the Israeli peace movement, I'd have about no objection.)

Soflasnapper
10-04-2012, 11:37 AM
That's an interesting reading list you had, and mine over the years substantially overlaps that.

Throwing in considerably more new age material than you mentioned (although most of what you did mention).

Gayle in MD
10-04-2012, 11:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is beyond me, as a reborn Christian myself, how to understand that Mitt Romney, a cultist by any congrergation I ever visited(besides visiting a Mormom church)...these staunch American Christians will NOW evade God and the Christian Bible and vote for this guy just to NOT vote for a black Christian man! I don't know guys and gals, but I'd bet that God has a problem with a cultist being voted in by the even one of the reborn Christians here. HIS people, choosing to follow a Mormon, be it only a government election...but a biggie.

The rest of you Christians here(professed anyway) give me the willys. May God take pity on your souls. In my opinion??? you are all denying Christ if you vote for Romney. You are sad suckers, and all gullible. Go read your Bibles again. sid </div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">October 4, 2012,
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Romney’s Sick Joke,
Paul krugman</span>

OK, so Obama did a terrible job in the debate, and Romney did well. But in the end, this isn’t or shouldn’t be about theater criticism, it should be about substance. And the fact is that everything Obama said was basically true, while much of what Romney said was either outright false or so misleading as to be the moral equivalent of a lie.



Above all, there’s this:

MR. ROMNEY: Let — well, actually — actually it’s — it’s — it’s a lengthy description, but number one, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.

No, they aren’t. Romney’s advisers have conceded as much in the past; last night they did it again.

I guess you could say that Romney’s claim wasn’t exactly a lie, since some people with preexisting conditions would retain coverage. But as I said, it’s the moral equivalent of a lie; if you think he promised something real, you’re the butt of a sick joke.

And we’re talking about a lot of people left out in the cold — 89 million, to be precise.

Furthermore, all of this should be taken in the context of Romney’s plan not just to repeal Obamacare but to drastically cut Medicaid.

So enough with the theater criticism; Romney needs to be held accountable for dishonesty on a huge scale.
</div></div>

Nothing changed last night.

Romney is still a pathological LIAR, who is going to take from the Middle Class, and give more to the wealthy, who stole everything FROM the Middle Class.

The top one percent, are NOT&lt; by and large, Job Creators!

that is one of Romny'e biggest lies, along with loads of other lies.

Then he sights five other organizations that are all RW organizations, aleigned with Repiglicans, as proof of his lies!

What a con artist!

He's repulsive.

As for the Religious right, if they're so Godly, why are they always on the side of the liars and crooks?

Total BS. Nothing "Christian" about The Right, at all!
G.

eg8r
10-04-2012, 12:38 PM
LOL, he doesn't own a mirror. He forgets when he bragged about sleeping around with women other than his wife also. For the 47% in this country that can't spell hypocrisy just teach them honduh.

eg8r

llotter
10-04-2012, 03:11 PM
Hey, I never said I would vote for Romney! In fact I am almost 100% certain that I will not.

hondo
10-04-2012, 04:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's an interesting reading list you had, and mine over the years substantially overlaps that.

Throwing in considerably more new age material than you mentioned (although most of what you did mention). </div></div>

I've read quite a bit more than I mentioned. Nice to see we've been on the same path at times. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif

hondo
10-04-2012, 04:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> He forgets when he bragged about sleeping around with women other than his wife also.

eg8r </div></div>

Still another lie. I HAVE NEVER said that I don't sleep with my wife. BTW, did your hero PM you and explain to you what Jim Crow is?
Keep calling all of us idiots, genius. LMFAO!

hondo
10-04-2012, 04:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> For the 47% in this country that can't spell hypocrisy just teach them honduh.

eg8r </div></div>

Let me get this straight, Christian. You believe that all disabled veterans, retirees, and folks who have had strokes or bad heart attacks or cancer are too stupid to spell " hypocrisy"?
Don't spin this. These folks more than likely fall into that 47% Romney was sneering at.
You fit right in with yugo, Larry Wilson, and Bamadog.
You disgust me. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/mad.gif

I'm through with you too.You four are not fit to be on the same page as decent folks like Gayle and Fats and Sofla and me.
One more post to you and I'm through with you. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/sick.gif

LWW
10-04-2012, 04:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> He forgets when he bragged about sleeping around with women other than his wife also.

eg8r </div></div>

Still another lie. I HAVE NEVER said that I don't sleep with my wife. BTW, did your hero PM you and explain to you what Jim Crow is?
Keep calling all of us idiots, genius. LMFAO! </div></div>

At this point, I don't even believe that you passed a HS English class, muss less taught one.

hondo
10-04-2012, 04:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, he doesn't own a mirror. He forgets when he bragged about sleeping around with women other than his wife also. For the 47% in this country that can't spell hypocrisy just teach them honduh.

eg8r </div></div>

This is my last post to you until you grow up and start acting like the Christian you brag about being.
When I got home from the war I was pretty screwed up. I did a lot of things I'm not proud of. Thank God I had a wonderful woman who stood by me and I'm a better man now than I was.
I know you are incapable of understanding anything I just said to you but I thought I would try.
I've tried to explain the same things to Larry but it doesn't fit his agenda to try and understand.
You two have never been in combat so you are clueless. At least I stayed away from the hard stuff.
I imagine yugo knows what I'm talking about. Look how screwed up he is. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

cushioncrawler
10-04-2012, 05:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I indeed have read the Bible. I read the NT first and then read the OT last as it is more difficult. I used The Jerusalem Bible ( a Catholic Bible) because it has excellent liner notes. I have read every kind of background and history I can find about the Bible. Have also read Koran, Bhaga-Vad-Gita, Book of Mormon,Mary Baker Eddy, Yogananda, Krishamurti, Gurdieff, Vivekenanda, Jewish mysticism, Catholic mystics, Eastern Orthodox, Castenada, Arica, Eckankar, Scientology, Baba Ram Dass, etc. Plus, I attend church regularly and have been dragged into teaching adult Sunday School class. Thus, the change in my posting style in recent months.

I chose to answer your post seriously even though I know you were just mocking my beliefs. In the end there are several possibilities, Mac.
1. We both rot with our consciousness obliterated.
2. You do and my awareness survives in some form.
3. Both of our souls (if we have one) survive, and we pay the piper.
There are other possibilities but that's enough for now...</div></div>If u google the historicity of jesus (and the historicity of muhamad) u will find that Jesus Christ didnt exist. So No1 wins.

I kan provide links to articles if u or anyone are interested.

God iz of course an impossibility, even if gods are a possibility (which they aint).
mac.

cushioncrawler
10-04-2012, 05:11 PM
An Anti-Christ iz someone who iz Christ's righthandman(woman) and who carrys out the duties of Christ while Christ iz on holidays (vacation).

Anti-Christ duznt meen someone oppozed to Christ. Praps it meens oppozed nowadays koz most peeple are ignorant, but if u are referring to oldendays usage then Anti-Christ might be a slur suggesting that that person thort that they were the next best thing to Christ, it didnt meen that they oppozed Christ.
mac.

cushioncrawler
10-04-2012, 05:13 PM
Duzz Christ hav holidays. I suppoze that every day iz a holiday in Heaven. In fakt, in Heaven, every day iz Xmas.
mac.

It's Christmas in Heaven
All the children sing
It's Christmas in Heaven
Hark, hark, those church bells ring

It's Christmas in Heaven
The snow falls from the sky
But it's nice and warm, and everyone
Looks smart and wears a tie

It's Christmas in Heaven
There's great films on TV
'The sound of music' twice an hour
And 'Jaws' one, two, and three

There's gifts for all the family
There's toiletries and trains
There's Sony Walkman headphone sets
And the latest video games

It's Christmas
It's Christmas in Heaven
Hip hip hip hip hip hooray
Every single day
Is Christmas day

It's Christmas
It's Christmas in Heaven
Hip hip hip hip hip hooray
Every single day
Is Christmas day

It's Christmas
It's Christmas
It's Christmas in Heaven
Hip hip hip hip hip hip hooray
Every single day
Is Christmas day

It's Christmas
It's Christmas
It's Christmas in Heaven
Hip hip hip hip hip hip hooray
Every single day
Is Christmas day

cushioncrawler
10-04-2012, 06:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I indeed have read the Bible. I read the NT first and then read the OT last as it is more difficult. I used The Jerusalem Bible ( a Catholic Bible) because it has excellent liner notes. I have read every kind of background and history I can find about the Bible. Have also read Koran, Bhaga-Vad-Gita, Book of Mormon,Mary Baker Eddy, Yogananda, Krishamurti, Gurdieff, Vivekenanda, Jewish mysticism, Catholic mystics, Eastern Orthodox, Castenada, Arica, Eckankar, Scientology, Baba Ram Dass, etc......</div></div>I am thinking that reading bible etc stuff iz little different to reading james bond stuff, except that fleming didnt try to decieve.

And reading background stuff by nonsecular experts iz probly a waste of time too. Google the historicity of jesus and read stuff by real experts.

There are a number of science fiction clubs and societys in theusofa. U shood join them, they probly hav meetings on Sundays. Teknikly u kood introduce them to Jesus Christ and God i suppoze, but the "science" bit in "science fiktion" probly rules the bible stuff out koz there aint no science in it. Alltho miracles might qualify. Dunno. I will check and i will be back.
mac.

cushioncrawler
10-04-2012, 06:40 PM
Science fiction fandom or SF fandom is a community or "fandom" of people actively interested in science fiction and fantasy and in contact with one another based upon that interest. SF fandom has a life of its own, but not much in the way of formal organization (although clubs such as the Futurians [1937–1945], the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society [1934–present], and the National Fantasy Fan Federation [1941–present] are recognized features of fandom).

Most often called simply "fandom" within the community, it can be viewed as a distinct subculture,[1] with its own rituals and jargon; marriages and other relationships among fans are common, as are multi-generation fannish families.

[edit] Origins and history
Science fiction fandom started through the letter column of Hugo Gernsback's fiction magazines. Not only did fans write comments about the stories — they sent their addresses, and Gernsback published them. Soon, fans were writing letters directly to each other, and meeting in person when they lived close together, or when one of them could manage a trip. In New York City, David Lasser, Gernsback's managing editor, nurtured the birth of a small local club called the Scienceers, which held its first meeting in a Harlem apartment on December 11, 1929. Almost all the members were adolescent boys.[2] Around this time a few other small local groups began to spring up in metropolitan areas around the United States, many of them connecting with fellow enthusiasts via the Science Correspondence Club. In May 1930 the first science fiction fan magazine, The Comet, was produced by the Chicago branch of the Science Correspondence Club under the editorship of Raymond A. Palmer (later a noted, and notorious, sf magazine editor) and Walter Dennis.[3] In January 1932, the New York City circle, which by then included future comic book editors Julius Schwartz and Mort Weisinger, brought out the first issue of their own publication, The Time Traveller, with Forrest J Ackerman of the embryonic Los Angeles group as a contributing editor.

In 1934, Gernsback established a correspondence club for fans called the Science Fiction League, the first fannish organization. Local groups across the nation could join by filling out an application. LASFS (the Los Angeles Science Fiction Society) was founded at this time as a local branch of the SFL, while several competing local branches sprang up in New York City and immediately began feuding among themselves.

Soon after the fans started to communicate directly with each other came the creation of fanzines (see also science fiction fanzines). These amateur publications might or might not discuss science fiction and were generally traded rather than sold. They ranged from the utilitarian or inept to professional-quality printing and editing. In recent years, Usenet newsgroups such as rec.arts.sf.fandom, websites and blogs have somewhat supplanted printed fanzines as an outlet for expression in fandom, though many popular fanzines continue to be published. Science-fiction fans have been among the first users of computers, email, personal computers and the Internet.

Many professional science fiction authors started their interest in science fiction as fans, and some still publish their own fanzines or contribute to those published by others.

A widely regarded (though by no means error-free) history of fandom in the 1930s can be found in Sam Moskowitz's The Immortal Storm: A History of Science Fiction Fandom Hyperion Press 1988 ISBN 0-88355-131-4 (original edition The Atlanta Science Fiction Organization Press, Atlanta, Georgia 1954). Moskowitz was himself involved in some of the incidents chronicled and has his own point of view, which has often been criticized.

cushioncrawler
10-04-2012, 06:57 PM
AMAZING. THE HOLY BIBLE IZNT DIREKTLY MENTIONED IN SCIENCE FIKTION.
HONDO KOOD EEZYLY FILL THE VOID.
MAC.

List of religious ideas in science fiction -- WikiLeaks
[edit] God or Gods

Absolution Gap by Alastair Reynolds.

In the film Avatar, the Na'vi, an alien race, worship a goddess named Eywa.

In "For I Am a Jealous People" (1954) by Lester del Rey, Jehovah abandons humanity and sponsors an alien race in an invasion of Earth.

The video game Homeworld features a single god called Sajuuk.

In Lord of Light by Roger Zelazny, a nobleman re-creates a rival religious movement to dethrone a false pantheon of Hindu-inspired "Gods" on a world where magic and science coexist.

The Man Who Was Thursday (1908) by G. K. Chesterton.

Neverness (1988) by David Zindell.

Parable of the Sower (1993) by Octavia E. Butler features a religion called Earthseed, where "God is change".

In the TV series Stargate SG-1, and the 1994 Stargate film, the supposed ancient gods are revealed to be powerful, parasitic aliens posing as supernatural beings to exploit mankind.

In Star Trek: The Motion Picture, an alien force of incredible, God-like power enters Federation space, forcing the Enterprise crew to discover the meaning and purpose of its arrival.

In the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, "Who Watches the Watchers", a serious accident with a hidden scientific observation post starts a chain of events that leads to a primitive civilization becoming convinced that the Starfleet personnel are divine beings with Capt. Jean-Luc Picard being the supreme one. The crew of the Enterprise struggle to prevent the reestablishment of religion in the civilization.

In the Star Trek: The Original Series episode "Who Mourns for Adonais?", the Enterprise crew encounters an alien figure reminiscent of the ancient Greek god Apollo.

In Philip K. Dick's novel "VALIS", the protagonist faces an all-powerful God who subtly manipulates the actions and thoughts of humans in an effort to redeem humanity.

The protagonist of "The Worthing Saga" by Orson Scott Card keeps himself in hidden stasis over the years, and becomes the target of worship by the descendants of the very settlers that he delivered to a new world.

cushioncrawler
10-04-2012, 07:03 PM
Home » Science Fiction » Short Story Review
Lester DEL REY FOR
I Am a Jealous People

Published by Arthur Chappell, July 28, 2011
What if a priest discovered that God had abandoned humanity for an invading alien species?

SHORT SCIENCE FICTION STORY REVIEWS – LESTER DEL REY – FOR I AM A JEALOUS PEOPLE! 1954 The Mammoth Book Of Science Fiction Short Novels.

An amazing thought and soul-provoking novella with a very simple premise. What if God abandoned humanity for an alien race that had started trying to invade our World instead?

The first half of the story has a sincere Baptist preacher, Amos Strong subjected to a series of disaster’s that try his patience much in the way God and Satan put Job under fire. The World is being invaded by an alien race intent on our extermination. Despite the best efforts of the army, the invaders are winning. Strong tries to comfort his congregation, though an atheist friend taunts him with the view that the Bible makes no reference to life on other Worlds or how God might feel towards them.

Strong and his friend see several family members and friends die, which reinforces their belief systems until, escaping the aliens themselves, they find them in Strong’s Church, holding a strange tabernacle – an Ark of the Covenant. The aliens see theirs as a divinely ordained mission. Worse, Strong sees God clearly siding with the aliens assuring them he no longer protects humanity.

As human ingenuity starts a massive resistance stance, Strong vows to take the battle further, to find a way to fight even against God.

The story is filled with Old Testament references and quotations but virtually no references to Christ, who Strong’s beliefs would have been more focussed upon, but it remains a powerful unforgettable read that never gets preachy or sermonizing even when that is central to its plot. Quite an achievement.
Arthur Chappell

Stretch
10-04-2012, 08:09 PM
MEDIC!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif St.

hondo
10-04-2012, 10:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I indeed have read the Bible. I read the NT first and then read the OT last as it is more difficult. I used The Jerusalem Bible ( a Catholic Bible) because it has excellent liner notes. I have read every kind of background and history I can find about the Bible. Have also read Koran, Bhaga-Vad-Gita, Book of Mormon,Mary Baker Eddy, Yogananda, Krishamurti, Gurdieff, Vivekenanda, Jewish mysticism, Catholic mystics, Eastern Orthodox, Castenada, Arica, Eckankar, Scientology, Baba Ram Dass, etc. Plus, I attend church regularly and have been dragged into teaching adult Sunday School class. Thus, the change in my posting style in recent months.

I chose to answer your post seriously even though I know you were just mocking my beliefs. In the end there are several possibilities, Mac.
1. We both rot with our consciousness obliterated.
2. You do and my awareness survives in some form.
3. Both of our souls (if we have one) survive, and we pay the piper.
There are other possibilities but that's enough for now...</div></div>If u google the historicity of jesus (and the historicity of muhamad) u will find that Jesus Christ didnt exist. So No1 wins.

I kan provide links to articles if u or anyone are interested.

God iz of course an impossibility, even if gods are a possibility (which they aint).
mac. </div></div>

I have done more than google, friend. I have read every book on the subject I could find.












and have not come to the same conclusion as you. sorry.

hondo
10-04-2012, 10:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">An Anti-Christ iz someone who iz Christ's righthandman(woman) and who carrys out the duties of Christ while Christ iz on holidays (vacation).

Anti-Christ duznt meen someone oppozed to Christ. Praps it meens oppozed nowadays koz most peeple are ignorant, but if u are referring to oldendays usage then Anti-Christ might be a slur suggesting that that person thort that they were the next best thing to Christ, it didnt meen that they oppozed Christ.
mac. </div></div>

You have admitted that you tried to read the Bible and couldn't understand it. Your post makes that painfully clear.
The anti-Christ is discussed in the Book of Revelations.
If you are interested , and I doubt that you are, I'll explain it to you tomorrow.

hondo
10-04-2012, 10:36 PM
Nope. No holidays. He's on call 24/7.

hondo
10-04-2012, 10:43 PM
There are more in-depth discussions of Christ than are found by a cursory glance at Google.
But I have found that this subject is futile to discuss.
I would have better luck convincing Larry that he is a liar or yugo that he is a bigot or Ed that he's far less intelligent than he imagines he is than convince an atheist of God. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

hondo
10-04-2012, 10:48 PM
It appears I've struck a nerve. Feel free to believe that at death you lose any concept of self and that you simply rot away.
Sounds like fun. But it does put an urgency on having fun.
Silly ole me. I believe I've got oodles of time.
I don't go door to door smacking people in the head with my Bible. We all have free will.
At least on the forums I've found that ATHEISTS PREACH FAR MORE THAN BELIEVERS.

LWW
10-05-2012, 04:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are more in-depth discussions of Christ than are found by a cursory glance at Google.
But I have found that this subject is futile to discuss.
I would have better luck convincing Larry that he is a liar or yugo that he is a bigot or Ed that he's far less intelligent than he imagines he is than convince an atheist of God. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

1 - You can't seem to follow the teachings of Christ r even one post.

2 - Atheists do not exist.

cushioncrawler
10-05-2012, 04:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It appears I've struck a nerve. Feel free to believe that at death you lose any concept of self and that you simply rot away. Sounds like fun. But it does put an urgency on having fun. Silly ole me. I believe I've got oodles of time. I don't go door to door smacking people in the head with my Bible. We all have free will. At least on the forums I've found that ATHEISTS PREACH FAR MORE THAN BELIEVERS.</div></div>MY FAVORIT ARTICLE ON THE JESUS CHRIST FIKTION IZ THE FOLLOWING.
MAC.

On the Historicity of Jesus Christ
Author: Prof. Ioannis Roussos

UNFORTUNATELY MANY OLD WRITINGS HAV BEEN LOST OR DESTROYED, AND WE KARNT GO BACK IN TIME TO RESEARCH THEM. BUT WE DONT HAV TO. MY FAVORIT BIT OF THAT ARTICLE IZ WHERE IT MENTIONS THAT FLAVIUS WOZ THERE, AND HE RESEARCHED, AND FOUND ZERO.
MAC.

We quote here the English translation of the whole paragraph 201 Ε - 206 Β in Julian's book Against the Galileans, by Loeb Classical Library, Volume ΙΙΙ, pages 374-377. We consider all elements exposed in this paragraph to be of particular importance and significance and they should be carefully studied and examined. We emphasize and underline some of them and you notice the rest of them.

&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;«But what great gift of this sort do the Hebrews boast of as bestowed on them by God, the Hebrews who have persuaded you to desert to them? If you had at any rate paid heed to their teachings, you would not have fared altogether ill, and though worse than you did before, when you were with us, still your condition would have been bearable and supportable. For you would be worshipping one god instead of many, not a man, or rather many wretched men. And though you would be following a law that is harsh and stern and contains much that is savage and barbarous, instead of our mild and humane laws, and would in other respects be inferior to us, yet you would be more holy and purer than now in your forms of worship. But now it has come to pass that like leeches you have sucked the worst blood from that source and left the purer. Yet Jesus, who won over the least worthy of you, has been known by name for but little more than three hundred years: and during his lifetime he accomplished nothing worth hearing of, unless anyone thinks that to heal crooked and blind men and to exorcise those who were possessed by evil demons in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany can be classed as a mighty achievement. As for purity of life you do not know whether he so much as mentioned it; but you emulate the rages and the bitterness of the Jews, overturning temples and altars, and you slaughtered not only those of us who remained true to the teachings of their fathers, but also men who were as much astray as yourselves, heretics, because they did not wail over the corpse in the same fashion as yourselves. But these are rather your own doings; for nowhere did either Jesus or Paul hand down to you such commands. The reason for this is that they never even hoped that you would one day attain to such power as you have; for they were content if they could delude maidservants and slaves, and through them the women, and men like Cornelius and Sergius. But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time, these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters. »&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

These words and challenges are written by Julian the great who was a man of integrity, educated, researcher, and philosopher. As Emperor, he had the records and the sources of the Empire at his disposal. By directly re*ferring to the reign of Tiberius, Julian includes the action years of the putative Jesus, to whom he also directly refers in this paragraph. He also includes the initial years of the Apostle Paul, to whom he also directly refers in the same paragraph and moreover Sergius (Paulus) is referred to by the Christians only in relation to the Apostle Paul, in the book of Acts 13: 6-12. Cornelius and his conversion have to do with Peter as the book of Acts 10: 1-43 narrates. So, Julian brings up to a very well historically documented period during which, as it is supposed, these persons lived and acted. Conse*quent*ly, Jesus and the others are NOT by definition historical persons, because historical persons are specifically those that are found and referenced in the appropriate sources.

cushioncrawler
10-05-2012, 04:12 PM
THIS IZ A BIT OF AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE HISTORICITY OF MOHAMMED. U KAN GOOGLE THE REST.
MAC.

What do we actually know about Mohammed?
Patricia Crone , 10 June 2008 About the author
Patricia Crone is professor of Islamic history at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton.

It is notoriously difficult to know anything for sure about the founder of a world religion. Just as one shrine after the other obliterates the contours of the localities in which he was active, so one doctrine after another reshapes him as a figure for veneration and imitation for a vast number of people in times and places that he never knew.

In the case of Mohammed, Muslim literary sources for his life only begin around 750-800 CE (common era), some four to five generations after his death, and few Islamicists (specialists in the history and study of Islam) these days assume them to be straightforward historical accounts. For all that, we probably know more about Mohammed than we do about Jesus (let alone Moses or the Buddha), and we certainly have the potential to know a great deal more.

There is no doubt that Mohammed existed, occasional attempts to deny it notwithstanding. His neighbours in Byzantine Syria got to hear of him within two years of his death at the latest; a Greek text written during the Arab invasion of Syria between 632 and 634 mentions that "a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens" and dismisses him as an impostor on the ground that prophets do not come "with sword and chariot". It thus conveys the impression that he was actually leading the invasions.

Mohammed's death is normally placed in 632, but the possibility that it should be placed two or three years later cannot be completely excluded. The Muslim calendar was instituted after Mohammed's death, with a starting-point of his emigration (hijra) to Medina (then Yathrib) ten years earlier. Some Muslims, however, seem to have correlated this point of origin with the year which came to span 624-5 in the Gregorian calendar rather than the canonical year of 622.

If such a revised date is accurate, the evidence of the Greek text would mean that Mohammed is the only founder of a world religion who is attested in a contemporary source. But in any case, this source gives us pretty irrefutable evidence that he was an historical figure. Moreover, an Armenian document probably written shortly after 661 identifies him by name and gives a recognisable account of his monotheist preaching.

GOOD STUFF HERE.
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/qurarch.htm

hondo
10-05-2012, 10:36 PM
The great plot.
A bunch of nobodies get together and decide to create this character named Jesus, loosely based on prophecy fron Jewish texts. Only they decided to make him completely different from what the Jews were expecting.
And they said, listen , guys, we ain't gonna profit from this.
If fact, we'll probably die horrible deaths for just stirring up this shit.
So they go all over what they knew of the world starting churches and telling everybody that the Jews had it all wrong and the Romans are even more screwed up.
Now they knew that they would be executed for starting all this horseshit but they figured that somewhere down the line , the Romans , who they despised, would make a shitpot full of money by embracing this horse manure.
Peter and the guys chuckled to themselves, " Man, even they we're going to be stoned to death, this is going to be a riot, perpetrating this hoax on millions of peopl;e in the future. Har, har"

Still, the public relations department sucked.
They needed a smart guy, a non-believer, to convert and explain to future generations what this shit really meant.
What about Paul? He's a smart guy and he hates these moronic, silly Christians.
So Paul jumps on the bandwagon. He makes up some nonsense about an Angel turning him blind for a while.
So Paul gives up everything he had going for him. Still thinking, man, the Romans are going to get stinkin rich on this scam. Of course I'll end up rotting in a prison, but, hey, it'll still be worth it 2000 years down the road. Laughing at these idiots.
One little problem. Peter, who started this hoax in the first place, just for shits and giggles , and to make the Romans rich,
really thinks this is just a Jewish thing. Paul says, nah, that won't work. We gotta make this for EVERYBODY. Peter says, "Whatever, dude."
So, all these churches have popped up , 20 to 30 years after the imaginary Christ dies.Man, they're everywhere! Galatia, Corinth, Rome. Rome, WTF!
So all these goofballs, now calling themselves Christians, after some imaginary guy that a bunch of drunken retards went all over the Eastern world forming churches and getting their asses stoned to death, are doing the same thing.
Fighting lions in the Colosseum no less. Score at halftime- Lions 14, Christians 0.
Finally, one of the Emporers, although knowing this is malarkey, is starting to believe these wingnuts aren't going away, says we'll declare this the main Roman religion. We can surely turn a fast buck on this and when it dies down , it dies down.
2000 years later...

cushioncrawler
10-06-2012, 12:29 AM
That ref i showed u explains that it woz all written and rewritten many years after -- so your 2000 yrs iz bullshit -- change it to 1700.

And that ref explains that the jesus thing woz going strong 200 yrs before 1AD. So your 20 yrs iz bullshit. Lots of (early) Christians, lots of messiahs, lots of (much later) crucifixions.

Paul of course didnt hav anything good to say about Jesus Christ nor Christians. Paul woz all about God, not Jesus -- and all about Paul. Except that Paul didnt exist.

And Christians and Romans both hated the jews.

And christians being eaten by lions iz all bullshit (separat ref).

And that bunch of nobodys keeps kropping up all the time, everywhere, in all religions. Koz all religion iz by priests, about priests, for priests. Read "that bunch of priests".

A fast buck woz what they wanted, and got. Look attem now.
mac.

cushioncrawler
10-06-2012, 01:11 AM
Roman Prisons
Romans did not have prisons that relate to how we think of them in the modern world. Accused wealthy citizens were simply kept under house arrest, provided they behaved, until a trial could take place.

The poor generally found justice swift and usually fatal. Outside of the cities, a villa might have three areas to keep slaves, one for those who were well behaved, one for those to keep shackled and one for those allowed a bit more freedom.
Actual prisons in Rome truly served as a holding place for those condemned to die. Occasionally the accused might be detained to await trial, but usually those awaiting trial were encouraged to go into voluntary exile. Those awaiting trial were called "carcer" or "publica vincula."

The most famous Roman prison can still be visited today. It is located just outside the Forum Romanum buried at the foot of the Capitoline Hill. It was Ancus Marcius, the fourth king of Rome, who, sometime during his reign (640-616 BC) constructed this dark, damp and foreboding subterranean structure.

One enters the prison today by following steps down from the Capitoline. Looking ahead one sees, on a sunny day, the remains of the glistening white marble of the Forum. By contrast, a turn to the left and down a few more stairs finds the visitor at the entrance to the prison. It is a small room, with a hole in the floor. This was the entrance to the dungeon, constructed by the orders of the 6th king of Rome, Servius Tullius.

Sallust described it as about twelve feet deep into the ground. "Its appearance is disgusting and vile by reason of the filth, the darkness and the stench." It was into this room, 6 1/2 ft. high, thirty feet long and twenty-two feet wide, that prisoners who had been condemned to die either by strangulation or starvation were thrown. One attributes the phrase "to be cast into prison" had its origins here.

Even today one can see an iron door which opens to the Cloaca Maxima, then the main sewer of Rome which emptied into the Tiber. It is said that the dead were cast away through this door. Sometimes, the dead were displayed on the marble stairs before being sent into the Tiber.

Today one can visit the dungeon via a narrow staircase. It seems even smaller than the above mentioned size because there are so many visitors to this eerie dungeon. Among the famous who spent their last days here were the leader of the Gauls, Vercingetorix who had tried to rally the Gallic tribes into one union against Caesar and, obviously, did not meet success, Simon Bar Jioras, the defender of Jerusalem defeated by Titus in the sack of the city in A.D. 70, and St Paul.

cushioncrawler
10-06-2012, 01:33 AM
Two of the canonical epistles are written in the name of Peter. Since Peter is a mythical Chri*stian adaptation of the Egyptian pagan deity Petra, these epistles were certainly not written by him. The style and character of the First Epistle of Peter alone shows that it could not have been written ear*lier than c. 80 C.E. Even according to Christian legend, Peter was supposed to have died fol*lowing the persecutions instigated by Nero in c. 64 C.E. and so he could not have written the epi*stle. The author of Luke and Acts used all written sources he could get hold of and tended to use them indiscriminately, however he did not mention any epistles by Peter. This shows that the First Epi*stle of Peter was probably written after Luke and Acts (c. 100 C.E.). No references to Jesus in the First Epistle of Peter are taken from historical sources but instead reflect beliefs and super*sti*tion. The Second Epistle of Peter speaks out against the Marcionists and so it must have been writ*ten c. 150 C.E. It is thus clearly pseudepigraphic. The Second Epistle of Peter uses as sources: the story of Jesus' transfiguration found in Mark, Matthew and Luke, the Apocalypse of Peter and the Epistle of Jude. The non-canonical Apocalypse of Peter (written some time in the first quarter of the second century C.E.) is recognized as being non-historical even by fundamentalist Chri*stians. Thus the Second Epistle of Peter also does not use any legitimate historical sources.

hondo
10-06-2012, 06:46 AM
If you search around you can find some "ref" who agrees with you.
The Gospels were written between 60 and 110 A.D. Paul's letters are dated by most scholars as between 50 and 60 A.D.
Your 1700 years ago is sheer nonsense. Hell, the gnostics and the apochryphal (Sp?) writings were between 100 and 150 A.D.
AS FOR YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT PAUL, IT'S OBVIOUS THAT YOU HAVE NEVER READ ANY OF THE LETTERS OF PAUL.
Your ramblings are based on what you want to be true and not the facts.
If you want to be taken seriously don't make totally ridiculous statements like this; "Paul woz all about God, not Jesus -- and all about Paul." You forget that you are talking to someone who has actually read Paul. It's obvious you haven't.
Once I read that statement I knew you were just rambling off the cuff.

hondo
10-06-2012, 06:51 AM
You are correct about the nature of Roman prisons. Paul was a Roman citizen and his imprisonment was of a somewhat different nature.
Still, he died in prison. Steven and others were imprisoned and executed as it clearly states in the Book you admit you have never read.

hondo
10-06-2012, 07:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two of the canonical epistles are written in the name of Peter. Since Peter is a mythical Chri*stian adaptation of the Egyptian pagan deity Petra, these epistles were certainly not written by him. The style and character of the First Epistle of Peter alone shows that it could not have been written ear*lier than c. 80 C.E. Even according to Christian legend, Peter was supposed to have died fol*lowing the persecutions instigated by Nero in c. 64 C.E. and so he could not have written the epi*stle. The author of Luke and Acts used all written sources he could get hold of and tended to use them indiscriminately, however he did not mention any epistles by Peter. This shows that the First Epi*stle of Peter was probably written after Luke and Acts (c. 100 C.E.). No references to Jesus in the First Epistle of Peter are taken from historical sources but instead reflect beliefs and super*sti*tion. The Second Epistle of Peter speaks out against the Marcionists and so it must have been writ*ten c. 150 C.E. It is thus clearly pseudepigraphic. The Second Epistle of Peter uses as sources: the story of Jesus' transfiguration found in Mark, Matthew and Luke, the Apocalypse of Peter and the Epistle of Jude. The non-canonical Apocalypse of Peter (written some time in the first quarter of the second century C.E.) is recognized as being non-historical even by fundamentalist Chri*stians. Thus the Second Epistle of Peter also does not use any legitimate historical sources. </div></div>

Anybody who studied Biblical scholarship knows that most of these books were not written by the stated author. Paul and possibly John are exceptions. Most scholars even agree that Hebrews was not written by Paul.
Other than the nonsense about Petra, and, yes, I've read that theory many times,everything you are saying is known by just about anybody who has studied the Bible and proves nothing.
If I was going to read all the literature that backs your theories I would start with the actual source that they are trying to dis-credit before posting what they said.
The non-believers swallow any source that supports their theory without checking the authenticity of their facts.

Reminds me of the Limberger and Hannity worshipers on here. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

hondo
10-06-2012, 07:10 AM
I find it interesting that all the wingnuts on here who profess to being such devout Christians are remaining silent.
Why.? Of course it's because that other than Larry they have absolutely no idea what either one of us is talking about. Either they don't go to church or they sit there day-dreaming about screwing Palin or popping pills and getting drunk with Limberger.

larry wilson could support much of what I am saying but he got his butt hurt spouting lies and mis-information about me. So he's mad at me and not defending his Christ.
Of course, when I asked his alter ego johnny to explain the New Covenant to eg, he ran, so perhaps I over-estimate his knowledge.

hondo
10-07-2012, 09:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two of the canonical epistles are written in the name of Peter. Since Peter is a mythical Chri*stian adaptation of the Egyptian pagan deity Petra, these epistles were certainly not written by him. The style and character of the First Epistle of Peter alone shows that it could not have been written ear*lier than c. 80 C.E. Even according to Christian legend, Peter was supposed to have died fol*lowing the persecutions instigated by Nero in c. 64 C.E. and so he could not have written the epi*stle. The author of Luke and Acts used all written sources he could get hold of and tended to use them indiscriminately, however he did not mention any epistles by Peter. This shows that the First Epi*stle of Peter was probably written after Luke and Acts (c. 100 C.E.). No references to Jesus in the First Epistle of Peter are taken from historical sources but instead reflect beliefs and super*sti*tion. The Second Epistle of Peter speaks out against the Marcionists and so it must have been writ*ten c. 150 C.E. It is thus clearly pseudepigraphic. The Second Epistle of Peter uses as sources: the story of Jesus' transfiguration found in Mark, Matthew and Luke, the Apocalypse of Peter and the Epistle of Jude. The non-canonical Apocalypse of Peter (written some time in the first quarter of the second century C.E.) is recognized as being non-historical even by fundamentalist Chri*stians. Thus the Second Epistle of Peter also does not use any legitimate historical sources. </div></div>

Anybody who studied Biblical scholarship knows that most of these books were not written by the stated author. Paul and possibly John are exceptions. Most scholars even agree that Hebrews was not written by Paul.
Other than the nonsense about Petra, and, yes, I've read that theory many times,everything you are saying is known by just about anybody who has studied the Bible and proves nothing.
If I was going to read all the literature that backs your theories I would start with the actual source that they are trying to dis-credit before posting what they said.
The non-believers swallow any source that supports their theory without checking the authenticity of their facts.

Reminds me of the Limberger and Hannity worshipers on here. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

LOL! Must take my posts a while to reach the land down under. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

hondo
10-07-2012, 09:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I find it interesting that all the wingnuts on here who profess to being such devout Christians are remaining silent.
Why.? Of course it's because that other than Larry they have absolutely no idea what either one of us is talking about. Either they don't go to church or they sit there day-dreaming about screwing Palin or popping pills and getting drunk with Limberger.

larry wilson could support much of what I am saying but he got his butt hurt spouting lies and mis-information about me. So he's mad at me and not defending his Christ.
Of course, when I asked his alter ego johnny to explain the New Covenant to eg, he ran, so perhaps I over-estimate his knowledge. </div></div>

Good. I take it that my responses to Mac must meet the approval of larry,eg, and lotter, the 3 devout Christians on here. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

hondo
10-08-2012, 01:24 PM
I win! I win! Everytime they're looking for that left, I catch em with the right. America's Klitchko.

LWW
10-08-2012, 03:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I find it interesting that all the wingnuts on here who profess to being such devout Christians are remaining silent.
Why.? Of course it's because that other than Larry they have absolutely no idea what either one of us is talking about. Either they don't go to church or they sit there day-dreaming about screwing Palin or popping pills and getting drunk with Limberger.

larry wilson could support much of what I am saying but he got his butt hurt spouting lies and mis-information about me. So he's mad at me and not defending his Christ.
Of course, when I asked his alter ego johnny to explain the New Covenant to eg, he ran, so perhaps I over-estimate his knowledge. </div></div>

Good. I take it that my responses to Mac must meet the approval of larry,eg, and lotter, the 3 devout Christians on here. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

Actually I haven't read this thread for awhile.

I like Mac ... he's a fascist that can admit it, which few will.

That being said, on this topic he is typical of every claimed atheist I have ever met ... desperate to convince himself of what he wants to believe, but can't.

Soflasnapper
10-08-2012, 06:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I win! I win! Everytime they're looking for that left, I catch em with the right. America's Klitchko. </div></div>

If the thunder don't get you, then the lightning will!

--John Barlow, probably