On 2008-04-25 07:09:08 +0100, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> said:

That has no relevance with regard to the argument here, though. The
point is that, contrary to the OP Christ makes no such demand.

Yes it is so easy to get lost trying to follow nebulous
religious claims, which are dedicated to the frustrating
task of proving the existence of a god that is believed in
and which, at same time does nothing, but nothing, to prove
that it exists.

Which verbiage means very little.

So we simple folks cannot be blamed for taking religion on
face value, like worshippers kneeling down to pray, even
though their god's son didn't demand them to do so. So what
? What is the point here?

It's entirely the point. The OP insisted that Jesus made such a demand
and that such a demand would not be in keeping with love. As the former
is untrue, the latter falls.


Please help out this simple fella struggling to understand
religions. Please note I say 'religions' I do not refer
just to your particular brand.

A poster mentions that Jesus does not require anyone to
worship Him. well I forget most of my Biblical teachings
but i feel quite confident He certainly did encourage people
to worship his father. Which brings me to my next pont.

Strange isn't it how christianity is structured so closely
to the family group, it's desires and it;s needs,
confirming, of course to atheists such as I that it was all
made up by man in the first place.

Inevitably human beings interpret God to some degree in human terms.
All such terms, though, should be regarded as analogy rather than
analytical fact.

Finally some one who is admitting to the conspiracy that religion is.
The concept that christian churches teach today is an evolution.

Well of course it is! Thinking evolves and changes. Anything else would
be blind unreasoning cant. A 21st Century Christian understands the
Bible differently from an 11th Century Christian in EXACTLY the same
way that a 21st Century scientist understands the world differently
from an 11th Century scientist. That's inevitable - for faith to be
something other than a statement belief it has to be owned and personal.


That is where you are wrong. The only thing different in today's
christian from a medieval christian is that today churches are shying
from scientific teachings.

The reason is clear. The average person has now a better grasp as to
science than in medieval times.

Religions had to make a change or loose its grip on society. You ask
any christian today on the street, what is hell. If you go there will
you live for ever in torment. The answer will always be hell is a place
of torment of ever burning fires, you will spend eternity in that
place. That is what is being taught period.

That is how it has been taught, and if history proves itself out again
will be taught. That in it self shows that no one is being led by
prayer, if that were the case there would only be one religion, one
church.

The bible is no more divine word of god than the book scarlet letter.

It is made up in mans mind and used by man to control man. It is not
the infallible proof of a god.

It is not an historical account of world history or creation.

It is fiction period and should be used for that purpose only.

If there is a god, that god would not be using this book or any
concepts in this book to manifest it's self to humankind. That is
obvious. That is why I reject your god.

Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but
the righteous into life eternal.

Which verbiage means very little.

It draws attention to the vacillating lunacy of following
non existent gods and THAT is quite a lot, looked at from a
psychological viewpoint.

It gets people posting comments like yours above. Think
about it

I hadn't realised you were trained in psychology.

http://HeartMDPhD.com/CrazySockPuppets
http://HeartMDPhD.com/CrazySatan



http://HeartMDPhD.com/TruthBeatssatan
http://HeartMDPhD.com/StupidSatan

On 2008-04-26 07:01:06 +0100, "Fred Jones" <supportsystem@juno.com> said:

Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the
righteous into life eternal.

No reference to physical torment. Exile, perhaps?

It shows you the contradiction.

Simply take a moment to think about the following statement:
"Hello, my name is Jesus. I love you deeply. I have loved you since you
were
conceived in the womb and I will love you for all eternity. I died for you
on
the cross because I love you so much. I long to have a loving personal
relationship with you. I will answer all of your prayers through my love.
But if
you do not get down on your knees and worship me, and if you do not EAT MY
BODY
and DRINK MY BLOOD, then I WILL INCINERATE YOU WITH UNIMAGINABLY TORTUOUS
PAIN
IN THE FIRES OF HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!!"

On 2008-04-26 10:01:01 +0100, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> said:

Which verbiage means very little.

It draws attention to the vacillating lunacy of following
non existent gods and THAT is quite a lot, looked at from a
psychological viewpoint.

I hadn't realised you were trained in psychology.

It gets people posting comments like yours above. Think
about it

satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted:

It draws attention to the vacillating lunacy of following
non existent gods and THAT is quite a lot, looked at from a
psychological viewpoint.

I hadn't realised you were trained in psychology.

'Psychology' n. The study of the human mind, a treatise on
or a system of it [P.O.D.]

I realised you understood the word. I simply had no idea you had spent
any time studying the subject.

It draws attention to the vacillating lunacy of following
non existent gods and THAT is quite a lot, looked at from a
psychological viewpoint.

I hadn't realised you were trained in psychology.


'Psychology' n. The study of the human mind, a treatise on
or a system of it [P.O.D.]

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/Lovelesssatan

Lying is satins native language?

Religion speaks it quite well also.