The Mark Vs Avolo Debate Thread
Lately, I’ve been cleaning up messes between Mark and Avalo that spill from one post to another. Rather than fight it, I’ve decided to redirect it.
So: Mark and Avalo — Have at it here. I’m going to copy over the last set of comments I tried to block to get you started. Anything goes, but on this thread only. Ad hominem. Whatever. All I ask is that whoever kills the other cleans up the mess and buries the body.
Note: There have been so many comments on this thread that it has overflowed to another page:
Page 1 with the first 250 comments here: http://ronaldweinland.info/falseprophet/2011/08/31/the-mark-vs-avolo-debate-thread/comment-page-1/
Page 2 starting with the 251st comment below:
MHO, It’s hypocritical to name yourself after a Buddhist deity yet reject any possibility of “gods” or even One God. You make a mockery of Buddhism too. (”I think Buddhism is nonsense too!”) Which just goes to show… Academic religious prowess and spiritual discernment are not related.
Buddhism is just another construct of a works-based religion, which shares many, many aspects with Weinland and all COGs. Orthodox Christianity is the *only* religion that doesn’t have man reaching up to God, but rather God reaching in. Ultimate love. To which your deity of compassion has no chance.
Furthermore, you don’t even realize your own illogical syllogisms and numerous logical fallacies. (for instance “But like I said, my inherent moral sense compels me to be HONEST.” is an irrelevant conclusion). Makes me doubt your self-professed supposed academic training.
Well, the framework for Ron’s beliefs (another way of defining ‘Weltanschauung’) is just as much to blame for his thoughts. If you are the kind of person that uses the Bible to framer your entire world view, then you won’t question anything outside of those parameters no matter how obvious and irrational, i.e. you will call the Atlantic Ocean a sandwich if the Bible says so. Ron has already begun to go this far, because “spiritualizing” everything is the only “rational” solution to what he believes is a rational belief in his own semi-divinity.
You can see this kind of “logic” at work in Mal and Mark’s critiques of my beliefs. Every one of their arguments starts from some dumb premise, such as ‘using a Buddhist tag is disingenuous because I am an atheist’, implying any and all uses of a Buddhist name must be tacit declarations of faith. Thus, if I enter ‘Avalokiteshvara’ as my name in a violent video game as my character name, it is not ironic humour. To them it is “hypocritical”. Also, Mark for example didn’t ask me whether Avalokiteshvara was a nickname. According to Mark’s logic, I am a hypocrite if someone nicknames me ‘Elvis’ because I love to sing. I am not literally Elvis, so I am somehow deceiving people.
Ronald Weinland is a real master of this kind of thinking. If you truly believe Asiatic Hordes are going to be running around the planet, then in your mind any answer is logical because ANY answer is a logical answer to an illogical question.
It is not illogical to respond to the (literal) question ” Why do carrots like to go water skiing?” with the answer “because if they don’t then how I be able to eat cheese in space?”!
That’s Ronald Weinland’s “theology” for you…
OPENING STATEMENT: First of all I want to thank Mike (DDTFA) for giving us this little space on the blog. It is VERY generous of him, and I am grateful for the gesture. It is an elegant solution to an ongoing issue. I summarize it this way.
1. Someone makes a statement like “God is loving”. to which I reply is illogical since Yahweh approves of slavery in the Bible, as well as my belief that God is imaginary.
2. The response is usually directed at me for saying that, NOT a criticism of the argument I put forth.
3. I point that fact out.
4. The responder gets angry, and still refuses to address my criticism.
5. The thread gets derailed because I defend my position.
6. Mike gets bored and annoyed, and I am sure you guys get tired of it too.
7. The thread gets locked.
8. Repeat.
So since Mike has hit the bell for Round One, I will begin by saying (that if you are reading this right now Mal, Mark, or ‘destroyer of the atheist mind’ I am ready if you are. Know this: I am not going to attack you ad hominem, because I don’t need to. I like to believe that my debating or arguing in itself will be convincing enough on its own to prove whatever point I am trying to make. And I invite you too Ronald Weinland to join in, as I would LOVE to take on a False Prophet!! Now you guys can’t hide…the rock has been lifted. Here comes the sunlight….
I found the comment where Avalo said: “But like I said, my inherent moral sense compels me to be HONEST”
I guess I’m stupid. Appears at the beginning of the comment. Doesn’t seem like any sort of conclusion. Relevant, irrelevant, or what-have-you. Someone help me out here. Heeeellllppp!
1. MARK said: “MHO, It’s hypocritical to name yourself after a Buddhist deity yet reject any possibility of “gods” or even One God.” Fine. Then IMHO I think it is hypocritical of you to be named ‘Mark’ after a Disciple of Christ yet reject answering my questions. When Christ and his disciples were tested they didn’t go silent and say that there is diarrhea coming out of their mouth, like you described me.
2. MARK said: “You make a mockery of Buddhism too.” Once again Mark doesn’t actually answer my response to his original question. After reading my lengthy posts on Buddhist theology, it is CLEAR I do not “mock” Buddhism through my words or naming myself “Avalokiteshvara”. If that were so then WHY did I recommend several Buddhist books to Kirily to read for her enjoyment? I also have stated that I am a Soto Zen Buddhist practitioner even though I don;t believe any of the theology of Soto. Once again you just made up shit. You say things without PROVING any of it.
3. Then MARK said: “Which just goes to show…Academic religious prowess and spiritual discernment are not related.” That is an ad hominem attack, albeit a pretty weak one. You clearly think that you are in a position to judgement ‘spiritual discernment”? What part of “Diarrhea coming out of his mouth” is the spiritual discernment. And how exactly do you measure “spiritual discernment” in an ATHEIST? Apparently you measure it compared to your own. How is that Christian, when the Bible says “Judge not lest ye be judged, for as much as you judge it shall be judged against you.”
4. And you said that academic religious prowess is not related to spiritual discernment, which you clearly meant in reference to me. Yet earlier you said that you doubted whether I had such training. So how exactly can you say that my training is doubtful but my “academic religious prowess” is not the same as my apparent lack of spiritual discernment?
Now here is the debate part (and I will rescind my refusal to ‘ad hominem attack’ for a moment if I may):
MARK: ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. Stop being (IMHO) a cowardly self-righteous asshat and face me like a man. If you and your stupid imaginary God are so great, PROVE. IT.
MIKE (DDTFA): Thank you for finding that. It helps prove my point. READ THE POST MARK.
1. In this one instance I was DEFENDING Yahweh’s use of what may have been a form of capital punishment if He was real.
2. MARK said: “Furthermore, you don’t even realize your own illogical syllogisms and numerous logical fallacies. (for instance “But like I said, my inherent moral sense compels me to be HONEST.” is an irrelevant conclusion). Makes me doubt your self-professed supposed academic training.”.
First of all, WHAT syllogisms are you referring to? Can you give me any PROOF? Of course you can’t. WHICH “numerous” logical fallacies? If there are so many, why don;t you point them out and PROVE you point? Because. You. Can’t.
3. I said about myself: “My inherent moral sense compels me to be HONEST.” and YOU said that was an “irrelevant conclusion”. In what Universe is that an irrelevant conclusion? What part of that evades you? That one can’t have an inherent moral sense that compels them to be honest? That an atheist can’t have a moral sense? It also was a SUBJECTIVE statement, not a statement of objective truth, that “all people’s inherent moral sense compels them to be honest.”
4.MARK said: “Makes me doubt your self-professed supposed academic training.” Yes Mark. What a deep insight into my comments. In what Universe can you doubt that I don;t have academic training. The fact that I speak German (first language), English, Japanese, Hebrew, and Vietnamese? The fact that I am debating you in my SECOND language? The fact that I gave Kirrily a list of academic books about Buddhism? The fact that I have pointed out in a couple of threads erroneous translations of Hebrew into Greek and English?
MARK, once again, take off you asshat and answer my questions…because I doubt your “self-professed supposed understanding” of anything I say.
Let me give you an example of how this all works:
YOU said: “Theravada Buddhism is a better way than Mahayana Buddhism. Skinny Buddha shows more asceticism than fat Buddha.”
THEN I SAID (August 30, 2011 at 20:33): Skinny Buddha is the “real” Buddha image. The “fat” Buddha is not “Buddha”. He is Hotei, a Chinese God of Fortune who was included into the Buddhist pantheon when Buddhism came to China and became syncretized. The reason he is assumed to be a Buddha by most is the fact that Hotei has fat earlobes, a symbol of his prosperity. His earlobes resemble the long, stretched out lobes of the Buddha, which became that way from the heavy, jewel encrusted earrings he wore when he was Prince Siddartha.
This proves that I DO indeed have academic training. How many people on the street know any of this stuff? This is the result of my having studied Chinese culture, Buddhiost statuary, Chinese Budhist history, and Indian Buddhist history. But you said my post(s) were loaded with “fallacies”.
Question Number One: POINT OUT MY “NUMEROUS” FALLICIES. And not with an IMHO. Saying my posts are fallacious is not an OPINION. It is an argument. Here’s the difference: (Once again I will temporarily use an ad hominem phrase as an example):
OPINION; You, Mark, are a cowardly asshat.
ARGUMENT: You don’t understand the first thing about Buddhism, Theravadan or otherwise.
tick tock tick tock……
I personally get very tired of Christians who say people like me ended up in a cult because we didn’t read the bible.
I never read that stupid book more than when I was in Amstrongism. I get sick of being told ‘no one knows the day/time of christs return, only the father’.
But then….
‘God does nothing without first revealing it to his prophets’
Hello – could that be, no surely not, a CONTRADICTION?
PKG members DO read their Bible – just like Seventh Day Adventists, JW’s, Catholics, and the thousands of variations of Pentecostals.
I NOW believe it is the height of arrogance for ANY Christian to think THEY understand that effing stupid book, and ALL other Christians are wrong and STUPID for not understanding the bible.
Gems like ‘the Word interprets itself’ makes that book full of baloney an offense to the intellect – and forces EVERY Christian to think they have understanding when no one else does, because of their FAITH.
Oh yeah, Pentecostals say it’s all about Jesus and your personal relationship with him – a relationship born out of what we read about him and supposedly what he said in that damn book.
So every Christian has their own ideas – WHO IS THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION again?
Let me say this – I FELT like I had never understood that stupid book UNTIL I came to Armstrongism. That was the straw that broke my back, finding out that that too was FALSE, when I thought after looking for the TRUTH in many different religions (eg brought up an SDA, JW for a year, Pentecostal for 10 years) was too much.
Result? How the f&@k can a book that results in THOUSANDS of belief systems, and interpretations be of a loving God? Answer me that!
Oh yeah, don’t worry about answering, because ‘narrow is the path, and FEW there be that FIND it’. Well, I looked for 30 odd years – so to a Christian I am not reading my bible, or too stupid to understand it, or am not called.
I no longer care to look for the ‘truth’ and THIS truth, has set me free.
If there is a God, and he declined to reveal himself to me, then sends me to hell or lake of fire, would just prove what an asshole he is.
I have Christian and Athiest friends, always have – I value both. Treat me right, you will have my respect.
People with differing beliefs – it can be a problem, IF you allow it. I do my best to not allow religious views to ruin a perfectly good friendship. Funny, it’s usually the believer that gives up on me – giving me that sad look when they believe I am going to hell.
Real nice belief system!
Ahh, I knew you would show up Kirrily!!! Great to have you on this thread. You always bring that Kirrily “flavor” here that makes things good!
MARK: Read this line by Kirrily. “I personally get very tired of Christians who say people like me ended up in a cult because we didn’t read the bible.”
1. She then actually points out a contradiction. She PROVES that there are actual paradoxical sayings in the Bible. You can debate the meaning of each scripture and their relationship, but she uses an ACTUAL example. That is what I mean when I ask you such things like “stop being an asshat and answer my questions”.
2. Here also is an example of an illogical assertion in the form of a non-sequitur: ‘reading the Bible prevents people from entering cults’. There is NO WAY you can make a generalized universal claim like that unless you are uninformed. It is about as “brilliant” as saying ‘reading the Bible keeps you from not being an asshat’.
Tick tock tick tock…
I just think it’s pretty funny that Christians say Satan is the author of confusion (as in what the bible says), yet more confusion comes out of that book more than any other book I have ever heard of.
At least there is no confusion in Athiesm! Lol.
Seems to me Jesus and God are the ones who are confused – they either can’t write a simple book, or they are incompetent in creating humans in their likeness without the ability to understand it!
Let me tell you something about atheism. There is NOTHING more beautiful than:
1. watching the sun go down over the ocean and not having to praise anyone for it!
2. Having a bad fever and not having to wonder why God doesn’t hear your prayers for sinus relief.
3. Knowing that no matter how good or bad life is, it ends in unconscious peace and silence, and your body replenishes the ground.
4. knowing you don;t have to fear Hell.
5. Knowing that you can succeed in life and not have to beg Yahweh for it.
6. Going to a good restaurant every Sunday INSTEAD of church, not after it.
7. etcetera
There is ALSO nothing more beautiful than:
8. The bond between those who know that none of us are no more or less special than anyone else on the planet.
9. the knowledge that women are EQUAL to men and are not guilty of causing Man’s downfall with a piece of fruit.
10. knowing that a mutually pleasing exploration of an S&M fetish with a partner WON’T make Jesus cry.
11. knowing that a mutually pleasing exploration of an S&M fetish WILL scare and offend Christians.
And might I add there is also nothing more beautiful than:
12. Kirrily having a baby who won’t have to believe in Ronald Weinland.
13. Knowing Mike (DDTFA) will not die of a curse pronounced on him by a man speaking on behalf of “GOD”.
14. Seeing Chacha open her eyes and start trying to stand up for her own feelings and beliefs, even though she is uncomfortable doing so.
15. Watching my own daughters going to ballet and taking piano lessons with my “tithe money”.
16. marrying the love of my life without needing to ask God if he approves of her Buddhist faith, her ethnicity, or her views on gay marriage or abortion.
17. Realising your thoughts are your own, and not thoughts implanted by either God trying to ‘teach’ you something, or the Devil trying to get you to sin.
18. Having questions that you can’t answer, rather than having answers you can’t question.
19. Knowing that Christians aren’t going to Heaven either.
20. To live the best you can, without guilt – or hype that felt real but wasn’t.
21. That consequences of your actions are just those.
22. Live without fear of being displeasing to God.
23. Freedom.
# 18 – particularly true. Hadn’t thought of it that way before:..
20. Having lunch with my Christian neighbour without having to wonder if Allah, Vishnu, Jehovah, Guru Nanak, Amaterasu O-mikami, or even Richard Dawkins approves of it.
21. Reading the wisdom of the Jewish Proverbs without having to understand them “properly”.
22. Not having to explain why God approves of selling your daughter (Exodus 21:7).
oops! Sorry Kirrily. I should have waited to let you post in numerical order.
24. Not having to repent for accidently jumping forward on the list.
25. Eating a giant BBQ-ed shrimp and bacon burger covered in lobster sauce…on the Sabbath.
26. Being in awe of your own reflection when wearing an imaginary cape (until the real one arrives)
26. being free to worship the REAL God, who in Her wisdom has chosen a wise and fertile Australian avatar through which Her glory has been revealed. Brethren, let’s thank Kirrily today for Her goodness, and let us pray that in humility and repentance we may bow down with a righteous spirit before Her, to sing to Her a new song in our hearts, through which She may receive Her proper glory…
Once again Oops! Let me try the number thing again…
27. Lifting our voices on high to praise Almighty Kirrily, who washes away our sins, and prepares us for Paradise. So let us sing together to Her in one voice now….Hymn #73…’Paradise’…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P8qIiHXVp4&feature=related
Hey Kirr, do you know that marvellous quote from Marcus Aurelius?
“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
“Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back”
25. Eating a giant BBQ-ed shrimp and bacon burger covered in lobster sauce
That sounds delicious. What about Alaskan King Crab? I know it’s expensive, but it is delicious.
I enjoy life from the moment I wake in the morning to the time I go to sleep at night. What business is it of a “preacher” if I eat bacon or seafood? Or both at the same time?
The brats are on me
“And how exactly do you measure “spiritual discernment” in an ATHEIST?”
You can’t. That’s my point.
My main point, which seems to have eluded Mike, is that I don’t have a need to defend my faith with atheists on this board.
Avalo continually tries to bait any commentator which has a belief other than his own on this blog into a debate on Christianity versus atheism. In the past, Mike smelled it and put it to rest but for whatever reason he recently decided to allow and even defend the atheists “right” to debate on here. There’s a difference between making a statement of what you believe (as I often do) and actively trying to start a debate on atheism v. Christianity, which is fruitless and steers the threads into all directions. It’s an old debate which is never answered on these blogs, yet the atheists (and it is usually ALWAYS the atheists) who want to start the debate and stay on it like a dog in heat. Since this blog is now mostly about atheism v. Christianity (from the sheer number of posts from one commentator), I don’t have a desire to post here.
Maybe Weinland’s curse is about this blog, not a person. It’s dying slowly from the inside out.
Avalo, I have learned so much from reading what you post. I am not “offended” by them. I have no reason to be. I can discern the spirit in with it is written…(and I don’t mean that in a “biblical” sense, lol)
Some of my favs from your list:
18. Having questions that you can’t answer, rather than having answers you can’t question.
Kirrily Xpkg says:
September 1, 2011 at 03:15
20. To live the best you can, without guilt – or hype that felt real but wasn’t.
21. That consequences of your actions are just those.
22. Live without fear of being displeasing to God.
23. Freedom.
Ahhh what does THAT smell like? It has been a while. The smell of fear still hangs close by…
It is very annoying. I want to “move on” but I can’t…yet. “What-if…” keeps me in her firm grasp.
Just for giggles, I asked hubby when he thought we could stop with the “stockpiling” and get on with life…he said May 27th.
I’m sad. I don’t like that we are not on the same page. I am not going to push him. he is not pushing me…but then, I don’t feel I can tell him what I really feel. That does not feel good.
Thanks guys for your help.
I want some ice cream
and a cape.
and
a sausage and pepperoni pizza
*oink*
and a nap.
With my teddy bear…in my jammies…
and peace of MIND!
Chacha
MARK said: “My main point, which seems to have eluded Mike, is that I don’t have a need to defend my faith with atheists on this board.”
1. You didn’t even address ONE of my questions, which have nothing to do with your faith. You didn’t answer them and you won;t answer them.
2. This argument was about your criticism of my use of the term ‘Avalokiteshvara’, not atheism vs. Christianity you stupid asshat.
3. Your main point, which has eluded Mike? Mike has nothing to do with your criticism of my use of the name ‘Avalokiteshvara’.
4.”Maybe Weinland’s curse is about this blog, not a person. It’s dying slowly from the inside out.” Spoken like a true asshat.
5. I said: “And how exactly do you measure “spiritual discernment” in an ATHEIST?” to which you said “You can’t. That’s my point.”
That was NOT your point, and you clearly don;t understand the question. I am asking you ‘how do YOU measure the spiritual discernment of an atheist?’ not the rhetorical question ‘how do you measure spiritual discernment in an ATHEIST?’.
SUMMARY: You haven;t answered any of my questions. If this isn’t a clear WIN in our “debate”, then you are even a bigger asshat than I imagined.
Thank you ladies and gentlemen for showing up for the debate. I personally would like to thank Kirrily for the amazing strength and faith she divinely granted me while I spoke out against the MONUMENTAL STUPIDITY that is the average Old Testament Christian. And I pray to you oh Kirrily that you will lead your people into your Wisdom and Understanding so I don’t have to savagely beat down any and all testicle-free asshats that don’t have the guts to actually attempt to prove me wrong when I defend my own hard won thoughts and conclusions that I didn’t blindly receive from some random charlatan. In Mike (DDTFA)’s name I pray…
Amen…
CHACHA: I hope you enjoyed the whole thing, and also felt encouraged to speak your mind as well. And if one day you felt like engaging me in a debate and prove me wrong, it would be my HONOUR to have you call ME an asshat! LOL! Tell you what. I’ll even sweeten the deal. If that day happens, I might even fly my entire family to where you live, we’ll have a big old fashioned BBQ (paid for entirely by me), and I’ll mown your lawn wearing a bridal gown and your husband’s underwear on my head!
DEAL!!
HA.
no…i feel no need to debate you. But the BBQ is ON!
Thanks for helping me…truly.
“Since this blog is now mostly about atheism v. Christianity”
We’re running out things to talk about when it comes to Ron since he’s not doing anything as a final witness, prophet or apostle,….just saying!
“This argument was about your criticism of my use of the term ‘Avalokiteshvara’, not atheism vs. Christianity you stupid asshat.”
And there you go. It obviously eluded you that I was steering you away from a debate on Christianity v. atheism.
Carry on Avalo. Yes, you win.
So….what kind of beer do you like?
(there’s a non sequitur for ya…)
Cha cha Cha Mark…keep on dancin!
Can I come to the BBQ? I wanna see Avalo mowing the lawn in a bridal gown with Chacha’s husband’s underwear on his head – not because of winning or losing anything, but just for the h3!! of it. Wouldn’t that be cute? I’ll even bring my camera to video it. And then I’ll put it on YouTube. LOL Oh, and I absolutely LOVE BBQed ribs. Mmmmm-mmmmm!!! I can bring some beer if you like.
With all the tithes I will soon be receiving, I’ll fly over to the USA too for that BBQ! I’ll bring the VB, XXXX and of course Bundy Rum! Not to mention ACDC to Rock on, and Barnsey and Farnsey to croon over…..
And here is a photo of the gown I will be wearing.
http://hycfashion.com/2011/07/20/luxury-wedding-gown-designs-2/wedding-gown-designs-3/
Speaking of marriage, I just found some footage of my wife and I on our honeymoon. I am relaxing on the hood of a safari car, and she joins me for a little afternoon recreation. Ah! There is nothing like young love…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlGwMH75JYU&feature=related
This is what I will be wearing …… Oh so sexy….
http://www.google.com.au/m/search?site=images&gl=au&client=safari&source=mog&hl=en&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g1-k0d0t0&fkt=1037&fsdt=9431&cqt=&rst=&htf=&his=&maction=&q=aussie+yobbo+bbq#i=21
Lmao Avo!!!
Mark said: “And there you go. It obviously eluded you that I was steering you away from a debate on Christianity v. atheism. ”
Well ……. duh!!!!
I go away for a little while, and this is what I come back to:
o Most importantly, Kirrily is pregnant! CONGRATULATIONS
o We are joined by the charming Chacha, who still has some Ronnie tentacles grasping at her. Welcome Chacha, its great to have you here.
o Avalokiteshvara is strong as ever in his atheistic convictions, yet shows incredible tenderness, especially towards Chacha, that should embarrass most Christians
o Mark, amongst some others, is still as strong as ever with his Christian convictions, and are trying to help the former Weinland followers be redeemed from the false prophet with a more stable faith.
o Mal is still on the fence.
Did I miss anything?
I really like this thread, as it lets some opinions be shared that otherwise would be improper.
Mark, I would sincerely encourage you to engage Avalo in a debate, as that’s a valid way to express your faith. Jesus did it, Paul did it, Peter did it, as well as many others. I truly think that if you engage Avalo with a reasoned defense of your beliefs, instead of taking exception to his atheistic ones, you would be surprised by what comes out of it. “Come, let us reason together”.
Hell, I’m willing to argue either side, should anyone really be interested. But I think this thread is more for clearing the air between Avalo and Mark, and less to do with whether or not Christianity is the (or “a”) true way. But the debate is interesting regardless, and can garner respect between all parties.
Anyhows, I did miss on thing: Ronald Weinland is still a lying false prophet “Ass-hat”. I kinda’ like the new addition to his already impressive list of titles!
And since there are so many YouTube songs being proffered, I extend this Beatles tune, Sexy Sadie. Not a dance tune, but pertinent. Allegedly written after the Beatles became disillusioned with Maharishi in India because he made a pass at one of the other female members who was there. According to Wikipedia, the original lyrics were “Maharishi, you little twat/Who the f___ do you think you are?/Who the f___ do you think you are?/Oh, you c___.” That can cover some other religious teachers with the initials RW too. (Mike, feel free to edit if you think the language is too strong).[Yes I did. And I did. Mike]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSDFkjwMwes
oh and speaking of me:
UPDATE: I stated at some pint here on the blog that Islam was the first religion to fully espouse ‘Hell’ as we know it today. I was WRONG. So strike that. Upon further research, the Apocalypse of Peter (200 AD) is a detailed account by Jesus of Hell and how it ‘works’. This PREDATES Islam by anywhere from roughly 150 – 250 years. The Apocalypse of Peter was rejected by most orthodox Christians, but in some Syrian and Armenian New Testaments it WAS included. So this could be used by Christians to justify their views on Hell, or at least accuse the Roman Catholic Church of altering the Word of ‘God’.
BBBBUUUTTTT…there is a good reason that they wouldn’t or won’t use it. BECAUSE there is a section in it where Jesus says that:
“My Father will give unto them all the life, the glory, and the kingdom that passeth not away, … It is because of them that have believed in me that I am come. It is also because of them that have believed in me, that, at their word, I shall have pity on men… “. SINNERS WILL BE SAVED FROM HELL because the righteous will pray for their deliverance! Then Peter, the author, tells his son not to tell anyone this since God told him to keep it secret!!
So what this means is that Peter, the Founder of the Roman Catholic Church, the most powerful Church on the Planet, has told his son that no-one should know that JESUS CHRIST said ALL sinners will be saved from HELL.
Whether you believe any of it or not is up to you or me or anyone. BUT, The Apocalypse of Peter is a REAL, AUTHENTIC book discussed by 2nd century writers but not actually discovered until 1886 by a monk in a cave. And the books states that all sinners will be saved from Hell.
How’s that for a surprise?
1. I admitted I was wrong!
2. There is a real Christian document stating that ALL sinners will be saved from Hell.
Avalo, I moved this comment from the other post. Let’s keep your mess in your room, OK?
Hi Ron (no, not THAT Ron).
You’ve pretty much got the idea as to what’s going on. I doubt that Mark will take your advice, he seems pretty prideful in his own way. As in believe-me-because-I-say-so (remind you of anyone?)
Avalo
i LOVE the gown.
Atrocious and Kirrliy can come of COURSE. I think we should ALL wear gowns and call ourselves “The Brides of Freedom”
We only have a short time to wait Avalo, to see if you will even need to mow the lawn. It may be all burnt up…or…did that already…um…
yeah. Wait, that was some OTHER kind of “grass”. Right?
Hey Ron…(not that one) Hi!
Mike(DDTFA): aaaaaaaaw Dad…..do we HAAAVE ta?
oops…break is over…back to work.
peace.
But…but…DAAaaadd! I don’t wanna clean my room! I’ve got my Star Wars action figures all set up the way I like. LOL!
Chacha: I like to think that the ruffles will bring out the silvery highlights of my long, flowing shoulder and back hair. The off-the-shoulder design will frame my “I LOVE SATAN” tattoo nicely as well. And as for your husband’s underwear, I prefer boxer-briefs. I find they don’t dig into my scalp!
Avalo, you don’t have to clean your room. But you have to contain the mess there — so long as no smells, bugs, noise etc leaks out
Maybe he wears a chippendale thong avalo. lol
Ay-ay Cap-i-tan Mike!
Red: Chippendale thong? That’s alright. I can put the little triangle part over my nose and pretend I am Bane from the Bat man comics.
I have no moral or Christian duty (or interest) to debate an atheist on his or her beliefs on an Internet blog. You call it pride, I call it discernment.
But, you used to shut down this type of debate- meaning the antagonistic comments from the atheist harassing believers and wanting to debate a mono-theistic world view. Now you encourage it. You are no longer a neutral party.
But, it’s your blog. Have at it. There are other sources for Weinland news.
This debate is being encouraged on THIS thread so you all can get it out of your systems and other posts can stay on topic. I’m not saying you have to debate here in this thread, but if you feel you have to debate these issues on my blog here on this thread’s the place to do it. No one is forcing you to comment here or even read my blog.
MARK said: “I have no moral or Christian duty (or interest) to debate an atheist on his or her beliefs on an Internet blog. You call it pride, I call it discernment.”
Um, MARK? Why don;t you go dig your Bible out of your garage, blow the dust off of it, and read Luke 7:37. Jesus Christ not only talked to a prostitute, but allowed her to wash his feet with her hair.
You clearly think you are more discerning than Christ if you think that you have no moral/Christian duty or interest in the act of discussing God with an atheist. Christ doesn’t even call non-believers “sinners”. He referred to them continually as lost sheep whom he came to save as their ‘Shepherd’.
Since Mike (DDTFA) is allowing ad hominem attacks on this thread, I will take this opportunity to say that your “discernment” is nothing more than a massively arrogant, hypocritical, brain-dead attempt at tearing down others so you can feel superior to them. You know nothing about Buddhism, you know nothing about Jesus, you know nothing about Mike (DDTFA). You are a human being, capable of reason, creativity, love, justice, wisdom, and mercy.
But until you utilize these powers and stop worshipping yourself, you will remain the giant shit-stain in the underwear of Life that you currently are.
(asshat!)
Acts 9: 1-6:
1 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
Summary:
1. Saul threatens and persecutes Christians.
2. Saul is amazed and falls down afraid as light envelopes him and Jesus speaks.
3. Christ does not threaten or kill Saul in retaliation, rather asks Saul a question.
4. Saul is blinded temporarily, but has his sight relieved when he finally understands Jesus’ mission and his role in it.
5. Saul, now ‘Paul’ becomes the the most important Apostle in Christian history, suffering untold miseries in joy and thankfulness for Christ’s mercy.
Your ‘discernment’ Mark is living witness to the spirit of Anti-Christ.
Luke 18:9-14:
“Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men–extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
I dare you to take me on Mark…
Oops, I should have used my more common posting name in my previous post . . .
Mark, I guess the issue I have with your statement that you have “no moral or Christian duty (or interest) to debate an atheist on his or her beliefs on an Internet blog”, is that you repeatedly make Christian statements as if they were accepted facts, and then when challenged, you roll into a ball and effectively say “God said it, I believe it, that settles it”. And its that very attitude that the likes of Ronnie Weinland take advantage of – don’t think, don’t use reason, just believe. In that limited respect, you really are no different that what Ronnie demands of his followers.
Yet if one thinks, uses the reason that God (whatever God you choose, or none) gives you, then it makes it much more difficult for the Ronnies of the world to get followers. Paul was the master at using reason to not only dispute entrenched Judaic thoughts, but also turn gentiles into believers in a religion they had little to no contact with before. All because of his ability to use reason. Paul’s letters are full of reasoned arguments about various issues. In fact, that is the dominant trait of his letters.
Now Avalo is prolific, sometime uses ad-hominem, and can occasionally be a bit rude, but he also states facts and lays out reasons for his positions. Frankly, I think that’s why you perceive yourself as being attacked here, while you think Avalo gets off easy. It’s because he actually states reasons for his beliefs, and you seem to think that just because you said it, that is good enough. If you perceive the Bible as backing up what you say, then everyone else should just fall in line.
As pointed out by many others in the previous discussions, the Bible can be interpreted hundreds of different ways. If you want some respect for your stated opinions, lay out your reasons for holding those opinions. Frankly, every crack-pot preacher out there says the Bible backs him up. So when you say your opinions are from the Bible, yet provide no other reason to accept those opinions, you are merely like those crack-pots.
Chacha: Notice how this debate started over Mark’s criticism of my use of the name ‘Avalokiteshvara’. Then he refuse to answer my questions or respond at all. Then he said he had purposely criticized my name to steer “the debate” away from atheism vs. Christianity, which had NOTHING to do with it. So he admitted he was using deceit to try and keep me from discussing my views, which breaks the Commandment “Thou shalt not lie”. Now he states that his refusal answer me is because he is discerning and has no moral duty or interest in engaging me, which goes against Christ’s teachings on being a light to the world, judge not, preach the gospel, forgive thine “enemies”, turn the other cheek, etc.
The reason I mention this is that this kind of behaviour has been used against you to keep you afraid of questioning Ronald Weinland. Ron gives himself complete freedom to interpret Scripture at will but allows NO discussion of his doctrines, and REFUSES to answer any and all questions about it, as he even stated in his last sermon(!) about how he is moving on from his ‘Tiome of jacob’s Troubles’ sermon, as once he has spoken it it needs not be spoken again or reviewed.
This is the exact OPPOSITE of Christ. Jesus used many parables for many kinds of people. And he answered the disciples questions. He even “made lunch” (fishes and loaves) for the masses who came to hear him. When was the last time Ronald Weinland made you a tuna sandwich and sat down with you to listen to your concerns?
So in watching me take on Mark (whenever he decides to enter the word ‘Male’ on his passport and face me) try and see if there is anything that might help you feel more confident in exploring issues and ideas that Ron forbids you to think about or discuss. Not to merely to reject Ron at face value, but see if there is any truth about what he says (or we say) about himself and us here at the blog.
The Truth = freedom, not slavery.
Let me put it this way: which do you all think is more rude?
1. Calling Mark a shit-stain (me)
2. Telling me that my daughters are going to be be raped and tortured for eternity by God (Christianity).
Apostle Paul was rude too. But he wasn’t a coward who ran up to the top of Mars Hill, told the Areopagites that they neither understood Buddhism nor had any obvious academic training, then ran crying down the hill when they said “Bullshit! Prove us wrong you stupid asshat!”
Well, since there’s nothing more interesting going on right now, I’ll address this.
Your “which do you all think is more rude” question is a red herring. I stated matter-of-factly that you can be rude. You implicitly confirmed that you agree. The comparison between you and Christianity is meaningless.
However, I don’t recall Mark or anyone else stating that your daughters would be “raped” for eternity “by God”. “Tortured”, perhaps. If Mark believes in biblical descriptions of hell, then “wailing and gnashing of teeth”, “lake of fire”, darkness and torments are what are used to describe a state we interpret as hell. But since I have not seen any evidence that Mark or anyone else condemning your daughters to rape and torture, I will call this red herring argument a straw man as well.
Could Paul be rude? I really don’t know. Probably. But our concept of rudeness today would be totally different than what first century middle-easterners considered rude. Since I have no clue what on that historical perception of rudeness, I cannot judge if any of Paul’s actions could be considered rude.
So we come back to the original point. You can be rude, and you agree that is true.
If we use the dictionary definition of a red herring (diverting attention away from something important), I would disagree on the grounds that this (being a red herring) is an issue of semantics rather than using my statement to avoid answering or responding to an issue of importance. In that particular instance I would certainly be guilty of (as you stated) using a Straw Man fallacy. But you are absolutely correct in the sense that the comparison of my rudeness and Christian rudeness and Hell and daughters (as a matter of degree) is completely irrelevant, which would seem like a red herring. I didn’t even notice it.
Thanks for pointing that out. I guess that makes me an asshat too! LOL!
And that was also a really good point about measuring degrees of Paul’s rudeness. He used sarcasm in one of his letters in one instance. But rather than being rude, I suppose you could justify it as verbal self-defense. If I remember correctly he was accused of stealing or ‘abusing’ the money he had gathered from the churches to support the work of the original disciples of Christ back in Jerusalem, and wrote a chastising letter to those who suspected or believed he was guilty of wrong doing. Once again, you have raised a good point about my rhetoric.
I’m off to the library to read Bart D. Ehrman’s works!
Avalo, you’ve acquitted yourself quite well against Mark. But then he’s a rather soft target with his misplaced arrogance and all.
Ron (not THAT Ron) is a bit different story. I’m going to pile on a bit and ask about the whole “slavery” thing you bring up. Christianity isn’t monolithic, with 10s of thousands of sects and scisms. Most of which don’t claim the Old Testament and even the Armstrongists who do pick and choose within it. Whatever Ron’s (yes, THAT Ron) faults, which are numerous, I’ve never heard him preach that slavery is OK. So why keep bringing it up? Isn’t there plenty else of which he inarguably is guilty to accuse him?
Excellent question Mike! And I don’t think you are piling on about questioning my arguments against Christianity from the basis of the Old and New Testament slavery. Rather, I think you are showing WISDOM to hold me accountable for my words and/or taking me to task for something I make explicit in my arguments.
1. You said that Christianity isn’t monolithic. Agreed. The (entire) history of Christianity is a study in multiplicity,especially in post-New Testament Christianity with the Ebionites (who believed you must be converted to Judaism to follow Christ), and the Marcionites (who believed that Christianity was/should be divorced from all Judaic connections). So we are agreed.
2. Neither Ronald Weinland nor Herbert W. Armstrong maintain(ed) pro-slavery views. I did personally hear HWA say that the races should be separated, BUT that is not slavery. So once again we are agreed.
3. So we will be debating (?) or at least discussing (1) why I bring it up, and (2) why not go after Ron for ‘other stuff’?
You are correct in suggesting, in reference to my second point, that since this a Ronald Weinland blog that my repetition of the slavery issue is non-productive in terms of critiquing Ron specifically. So I humbly concede on that point. So having said that, I will stick to the the first question “why do I bring slavery up” if (2) it is unproductive in discussion of Ronald Weinland’s theology. This will be what I defend.
I hope you don;t think I am being patronizing, that I am assuming you didn’t already know this. I just want to be absolutely clear about what exactly I will focus on, in case I myself lose track of what I am saying!
Before I make my point, I will define what I mean by Old Testament slavery, so we don’t debate from conflicting definitions of slavery, which would then not be a debate about my opinions, but rather (as ‘a different Ron’ rightfully pointed out) would be a series of red herrings and straw-men (most likely on my part!).
1. Enslavement of one’s enemies was permissible if the slaves were captured by warfare. It was NOT legitimate if those slaves were Israelites (the penalty for which was death). I call this hypocritical, as I think both acts of enslavement are wrong.
2. If a slave got married the wife and children were the property of the slave’s owner.
3. In Exodus 21:7 God is revealed to have outlined the “proper” conditions for selling your daughter into slavery.
These are the “slaveries” I will be referring to , as I don’t know the Bible well enough to know of other circumstances of slavery unrelated to these ‘main’ three.
So let’s begin with Leviticus 25, and a couple of particular syllogisms.
Leviticus 25:44-46 (NLT): “However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.”
1. This verse is in the Bible, and the Bible is the source of authority of Christian doctrine. Thus Leviticus 25:44-46 is one of many sources of authority for Christians.
2. Ronald Weinland uses the Bible to support his theology, and the Bible contains Leviticus 25:44-46. Thus, Ronald Weinland preaches from a book that contains LV 25:44-46.
SUMMARY: I posit that because the Bible contains Leviticus 25:44-46, it is an evil book. This evil calls the entire Book into question. Anyone who preaches from this book is morally suspect. Ron preaches from this book. He is morally suspect. Thus by a transitive property, my discussion of OT slavery is an overt dismissal of the foundation of his theology, a God who approves of slavery and instructs the “righteous” in the proper distribution of humans as wealth.
So it is not that Ron preaches slavery. It is that Ron preaches from a book of this nature. One might say that ‘a little leaven, leavens the whole lump’.
So I have concluded thus far that Ron preaches from the Bible, and since I thinkt eh Bible is evil, Ron;s theology is evil. The evil stems from, amoung other things, Leviticus being present in the Bible. Not as a description of the evil of God’s enemies, but the evil of Yahweh as a God who approves of slavery.
So let’s continue further:
1. Jesus was born, lived, preached, and died as a Jew. He proclaimed he was a fulfillment of the Law. He proclaimed he was not here to abolish the Old Testament but to uphold it.
2. The Book of Revelation is the story of the Return of Christ, of which Ron proclaims he is a part of. Ron is clearly affiliated with Christ’s theology and derives his authority from the same God jesus Christ claims to be the Son of (“my father sent me”). Thus, Ron’s affiliation with Christ and Witness-ship is a direct link to the God of the Old testament, the God who approves of slavery.
SUMMARY: Ron worships the God who approves of slavery and considers himself an End Time of Apostle of this God, who he claims speaks DIRECTLY to him. Thus it is also justified to reject Ron through the rejection of slavery, as both Ron’s Witness-ship and slavery are part of God’s revelation of his will, whether Ron is the executor of OT approved slavery or Ron’s Witness-ship which is approved of by that same God.
POINT: The Bible (God’s word) condones slavery, and Ron states he takes his authority from God directly, ergo the critique of GOd is a critique of Ronald Weinland.
That is why I bring it up. It is completely relevant.
Go ahead Mike (DDTFA).
OK, this is somewhat relevant. But a few questions/comments:
Why Ron? I mean, why Ron in particular? Your arguments apply just as well to the local feel-good church that tells you that you’ll be saved so long as you just believe in Jeeeeezuuus. Have you mounted these arguments against any other religious figures or groups? Are you handing phamphlets outside the local Catholic/Methodist/Presbyterian/what-have-you church?
Do you think these arguments will sway any of Ron’s believers? I mean, here I am one of Ron’s most vocal critics and I’m like “So???”. Of the few people of whom I’m aware exiting PKG, none of them do it over theology. It’s failed prophecy, though in one case it was because the person became aware of the IRS criminal investigation.
Curious what makes Avalo tick. The equivalent of my own statements on my “About” page.
Actually I don’t think it is somewhat relevant. I think you would be right to call it directly relevant.
1. “Why Ron in particular?” It is Ron in this case because I am posting on this blog, which is dedicated to Ronald Weinland. If it was dedicated to HWA I would say the same thing.
2.”Your arguments apply just as well to the local feel-good church that tells you that you’ll be saved so long as you just believe in Jeeeeezuuus.”. Absolutely.
3.”Are you handing phamphlets outside the local Catholic/Methodist/Presbyterian/what-have-you church?”. Nope. I am not proselytizing for atheism. I think that is evident in my posts to Cha-cha, although maybe people are thinking that I am leading her on by pretending to be nice so I can later slowly start indoctrinating her into atheism. I assure you it is not the case. Proselytizing for atheism is as despicable as proselytizing for an imaginary God.
4.”Do you think these arguments will sway any of Ron’s believers?”. Nope. I don’t think anything I say should persuade anyone to either be an atheist at my word, or leave Ron because I believe his God doesn’t exist. I have always framed my statements as representative of my beliefs, apart from my attacks . And my attacks haven’t been ad hominem attacks in the dictionary sense because me calling Mark an asshat was personal. I wasn’t trying to take the debate off topic by attacking Mark. If I did it wasn’t intentional.
Having two daughters is so naturally sacred and special that I absolutely despise from the bottom of my being anything or anyone that would conspire to harm them. Attacking Judeo-Christian theology and anyone sick enough to believe it is my way of making it clear that I will not bow down to either an imaginary or real God that would kill any or all children for ANY reason. To praise Yahweh is to praise a serial killer.
1. I would never kill or torture a child for any reason.
2. God, as reported in the Bible HAS killed children, and WILL torture children in Hell.
3. In this one instance I am MORE moral than Yahweh.
4. I am an imperfect being.
5. God is proclaimed perfect.
How can a perfect God be less moral than me in ANY way? I cannot respector believe in a perfect God who kills children.
I think this entire argument is about the idea that if I say “God is imaginary” then I am attacking them directly. That is clearly not true. If someone gets mad at me for saying ‘God is a piece of shit’, what business is it of theirs to be mad at me? I am stating what I believe which is my right. I didn’t say the Pope is a piece of shit. I didn;t say Cha-cha is either. I didn;t say anyone here is a piece of shit. ‘God is a piece of shit is between me and (imaginary) God. I am openly defying this (fake) God, and if God is so damn great he can come down here and tell me I’m wrong.
I HAVE said however that ‘OT Christians are monumentally stupid. You can absolutely call me on the carpet for that if you want, as that statement is indeed a tacit jab at any and all Christians. But I anm NOT saying you are an idiot for no particular reason. It is not a random insult. It directly related to my belief that Yahweh is evil. So I think that my attacks have been mislabelled, but once again that is not my problem. And I am no hypocrite either. I have also apologized as much as I have “attacked”, and I have defended my views with FACTS from the Bible.
If you think that is unfair, I am f____g Sesame Street compared to Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens.
“It is not what you call a man, it is what he responds to…”
Exodus 32:26-27 (NASB):
“Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, “Whoever is for the LORD, come to me!” And all the sons of Levi gathered together to him. He said to them, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘Every man of you put his sword upon his thigh, and go back and forth from gate to gate in the camp, and kill every man his brother, and every man his friend, and every man his neighbor’.'”
Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf”:
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
1. Hitler killed Jews.
2. YAHWEH killed Jews.
3. YAWEH and Hitler have something in common.
Christians believe in the OT God…draw your own conclusions…
Ronald Weinland “2008- God’s Final Witness
“The most notable deaths early on, which are yet to come to pass, will be the two remaining television presenters in the Living Church of God.The sound of this thunder will be intensified by the early deaths of the leaders of the Philadelphia Church of God, the Restored Church of God and the Church of the Great God. Then, those in the largest scattered group, who think they have escaped, will be lifted up to believe that God is with them because they are so filled with pride. But, when that happens, the deaths of many in the United Church of God will begin.”
Genesis 38: 6 -10
Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death. Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.
1. Ron calls out a prophesy of death.
2. God kills Onan for not getting his dead brother’s wife pregnant because he committed the “sin” of not wanting to.
God and Ron have both uttered death threats, with Yahweh acting upon it.
Draw your own conclusions…
Adolf Hitler:
“What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race…so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe…Peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence.”
Prophet Joseph Smith:
“Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species…”(History of the Church, v. 5, pp. 21-218).
Deuteronomy 7: 1-3, 6-7.
“When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations-the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you. And when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.”
1. Yahweh (and Hitler and Joseph Smith) thinks his people are so special that other ethnicities must be purged from among them.
2. Yahweh is the God of the Bible whom ALL Christians call their One, True God.
Draw your own conclusions.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14.
“As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.”
United States Penal Code Section 261:a (2)
261. (a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a
person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following
circumstances: (2) Where it is accomplished against a person’s will by means of
force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful
bodily injury on the person or another.
1. average sentence for USA convicted rapists: 11.8 years
2. average sentence for raping the wives and children of those who do not worship Yahweh: 0 years
Draw your own conclusions…
But do you comment on blogs about other religious figures? Or participate in any other forum, on-line or real-life, about religions or religious figures? What brings you to this blog in particular?
Hello Avalokiteshvara.
Just a couple of things I would like to address
Well that would not be technically true. What we have is the author of the Gospel of Matthew claiming that Jesus said this, so this is no really Jesus words. Now since the author does not give or indicate how he come to get this information (what sources, documents, oral tradition) and we do not have documents earlier then the Gospel of Matthew that has Jesus say this, then we can’t say that this is what Jesus actually said. Also there is a general idea in scholarship that the author of the Gospel of Matthew had theology reasons for having Jesus say this and that would be to show that the Law was not done away with (which would of been a big issue at the time) so who ever wrote and from whatever sources they got there information from added words to show that Jesus did not teach that the Law was done away and that the Law was still in force.
Well no book of the Bible ever states that it is God’s word. The description of the Books of the Hebrew Scriptures and Greek New Testament as God’s word separately or collectively and that the words came by God directly speaking to the authors telling them what to write word for word was a much later idea. It was believed by some that scriptures contained the words of God but that not everything in it came from God or was right. The idea everything in the Hebrew Scriptures or Greek New Testament comes from God was not the majority idea when a lot of these books were written and many people after them did not have that idea. For instance the book of Jeremiah has it stated that God never command sacrifices after Israel left Egypt. This disagrees with what is written in the Torah (of our day at least), so if it was the same in Jeremiah’s day then he did not believe that everything in the Torah came from God. Also as was reported later about some Ebionites “For the scriptures have had joined to them many falsehoods against God on this account,”Homilies 2.18; “And neither do they receive the whole Pentateuch of Moses, but cast out certain passages” (Panarion 30.18.7).
So how does this tie in with what you said about Ronald. Well it would be through Ron’s view of the Bible that everything in it is inspired of God or was given by God word for word (if that is not Ronald’s view then please correct me), that would lead to the conclusion that worships God who condoned slavery. If that fundamentalist view was taken away and it was accept that the words in the Bible (in most cases) don’t come from directly from God, and God told the writer every single word to write then you can argue that the false things got introduced into the Hebrew Scriptures like slavery (which was the common practice at the time and culture when these things were written) and if you reject them as being false then Ron’s God would not of condoned slavery.
William, are you saying that part of the Bible is God’s word and part isn’t? If so, how do you decide which is God’s word and which isn’t?
Maybe you decide which parts you like, and those that you don’t like aren’t God’s word? Actually, I think Avalo does the same thing
So much for the great compassion from the atheist that supposedly puts the Christians to shame. Foul-mouthed vitriol is all I see. The compassionate thing to do is to leave him alone before he blows a gasket.
Mark, if you truly can’t see more than “foul-mouthed vitriol”, then that explains a lot about you. But if you can see more, and this is the best you can respond, that explains a lot about you also.
Either way.
What?
Mark, I’ve been trying to help you in this debate, but I’m beginning to see that you are one of those people who has never seriously examined his faith. You have accepted your beliefs for whatever reason, but you have no foundation for those beliefs. Most likely, you believe because you were told the “truth” ™, and you never questioned it.
I’ll give you an assignment to start you off: Who decided what books would be included in the Bible, and when did that occur? Just looking into that issue should awaken you to some realities.
Just look at your last statement. It’s illogical. For example, what constitutes ” Foul-mouthed vitriol” and what standard are you judging that by. Just saying it is does not make it so. Even if there is some basis to your assertion, then how does it logically follow that “Foul-mouthed vitriol” precludes one from being compassionate? You actually are making that claim, and you expect everyone to just agree with you because you said so.
I sincerely encourage you to examine your beliefs from a reason-based point of view, instead of just insisting that faith in Jesus is the only requirement.
Mike (DDTFA): You are absolutely right. I do pick and choose which parts I like and which I don’t from the Bible (in the same way I choose “Jude the Obscure” over “Far from the Madding Crowd” from amongst Thomas Hardy’s works). But I don’t think what I like is God’s TRUE word. And you are correct to ask William what parts then are true if not everyone accepts all parts. The argument that ‘not all people accept all parts of the Bible is a non-answer to my arguments. I explicitly stated that even though Ron doesn’t believe in slavery, he believes the parts he likes from the SAME book that condones it.
Imagine you go to Walmart and they sell soup made out of children, as well as soup that was made BY God. I would never shop at Walmart as my grocery money would going to support the creation, shipping, and processing of children as food (Soylent ‘Light’ Green?). I would also launch an FBI raid and criminal investigation immediately.
In this scenario, the Christian who says “Well I don’t support the killing of children, but I do like that God soup. So I just go there to buy that.” is implicated in Walmart’s evil.
Picking and choosing what “God” said is negating the entire idea of a Holy Book.
MARK said: “So much for the great compassion from the atheist that supposedly puts the Christians to shame. Foul-mouthed vitriol is all I see. The compassionate thing to do is to leave him alone before he blows a gasket.”
What a brilliant, well thought out answer to all my questions…
Ron Dean said: I’ll give you an assignment to start you off: Who decided what books would be included in the Bible, and when did that occur? Just looking into that issue should awaken you to some realities.”
I’ll give some hints Mark: Ebionites, Marcion, the ‘Apocalypse of Peter’, Athanasius, 367 AD, Muratori/Milan 1740, Nicea, and Eusebius.
Hello Mike
I am saying that the Bible is made up of many books and that there is never any claim in it that it is the Word of God (that God spoke to the authors and gave them each and every word to write down or God took control of their bodies and made them write all these words), without error, infallibly. That is a much later idea that came after the books were written. While many people did consider it was authoritative in this time period there was never any claim that it was without error or that God spoke every single word. That is why people at the time could reject something in it and consider it to have been something false added to the text. I was not dealing with how these people decided how things were false in it or how people today do this but how Avalokiteshvara points dealt with a fundamentalist view of the Bible (that it is the Word of God that God dictated to the authors). That is a much later idea that comes after the documents were written.
As I said in my reply with Ron’s idea everything in it is inspired of God or was given by God word for word and it is one book then the slavery parts would have to be accepted at coming from God and the God Ron worships would condone slavery. I was pointing out in my reply that the idea that the Bible was consider have been written by God speaking to the authors and gave them each and every word to write down or God took control of their bodies and made them write all these words and that it is without error is a much later idea and as the examples I gave show people did consider parts of the Hebrew Scriptures to have had false things added to them and if Rona change his view and let go of the fundamentalist view he has of the writings in the Bible then he could reject the parts have God condoning slavery as false.
But the problem with that is that is a later idea that comes after a long time after the books were written and the only people to try to defend such a view today a fundamentalists who believe that the Bible is without error. At the time these books were written, there was an idea that they were authoritative and had messages from God in it but it was not consider to be without error and neither was it consider to have been delivered by God speaking every single word to the authors.
William: You haven;t addressed my point.
I am not saying everyone believes they are holy. I am saying they EXIST. I don;t believe in slavery (atheist) and you don’t believe in slavery (Christian?). The Bible for its entire 1300+ year history contains advice on the proper selling of one’s daughter (Exodus 21:7) slavery, regardless of your opinion.
2. You make a lot of claims without providing any statistical or literary support. i.e. “the only people to try to defend such a view today a fundamentalists who believe that the Bible is without error.” really? Prove it. Let;s see those statistics. let’s see some scriptures that support your claims. I have argued my points from European history, scholarly work on the New Testament, scripture, logic, and actual quotes from both Biblical and non-Biblical sources.
You have just said ‘some stuff’. I don’t mean to be rude by saying that. I am just pointing out the obvious. You, like Mark, just expect us to take your word for it. Thus, your arguments are not arguments at all, merely opinions. An opinion is “The Mets are the greatest team in the world”. An argument is “The Mets are the greatest team in the world and I have documented evidence that they are.”
“That is a later idea that comes after a long time after the books were written”. How do you know? Why should I take your word for it?
This is the common type of response I get when I challenge people on what they say to me.
The Bible is the word of God.
Then God is Ok with selling your daughter.
No, that part isn’t the Word of God.
But Moses said it was.
He got it wrong.
Then the Bible isn’t the Word of God.
Some parts are.
(So now we have gone from “The Bible is the Word of God to “Some parts are the Word of God”.)
So which part are?
The nice parts. Like what Jesus said.
But the Buddhists said nice things 400 years before Jesus.
Well, they said nice things but they believe in the wrong person/God.
Why?
Because God says in the Bible that you shall have no other Gods before Him.
And on and on it goes until…”Well, you just gotta have faith and God will show you the Bible is true.”
“THEN WHY EVEN HAVE A STUPID F____G BIBLE IF THE ONLY TRUE KNOWLEDGE COMES FROM GOD?!!!!”
“Because the Bible is the Word of God”…
“There’s a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza. There’s a hole in the bucket dear Lize, a hole. Then fix it…” That’s what your above comment brought to my mind, Avalo.
Hello again Avalokiteshvara. I don’t what the above has to do with what we are talking about. I never mentioned anything about believe being holy or claiming you said that.
I would probably be best described at this moment as an agnostic theist though that could change. Yes we both don’t believe in slavery.
My claims are based on two things.
1 The text of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek New Testament never claim they are they words of God (that God spoke to the authors and gave them each and every word to write down or God took control of their bodies and made them write all these words), that they are without error, that they are one book and that you must accept all that it says as being truth.
2 Critical Scholarship which shows how these ideas about the books that make up the Bible came about and these ideas are not found in the documents themselves.
Could you please point me to scholars who are not fundamentalists Christian who argue that at the time the books of the Bible were written, that they were considered a part of one book, were without error and the authors that wrote the books did it by God speaking every word to them. Also please provided quotes either from the Hebrew Scriptures or Greek New Testament that also makes this claim.
No I don’t expect to people take my word for it. You can look into what I am saying by investigating Biblical criticism, reading books that deal with the issue. You will see that the consensus in scholarship agrees with the claims I have made.
I would know it by the fact that none of books that are in the Bible say that they are without error and they were written by God speaking every single word to the authors. Also as I said in my first reply to you the book of Jeremiah has it stated that God never command sacrifices after Israel left Egypt. This disagrees with what is written in the Torah (of our day at least), so if it was the same in Jeremiah’s day then he did not believe that everything in the Torah came from God. Another way is by investigating what critical scholarship and history shown about this topic and the development of the cannon, people’s views on its inspiration and how Bible inerrancy developed. An of what is shown is that before the Reformation the Catholic Church accepted the infallibility of the Church, but did not assert the infallibility of the scriptures.
If you disagree can you please scripture that says the above claims and none fundamentalists Christian works by scholars that also say that the books of the Bible say this and was what people believed back them.
Could I ask how you found this quote? Because if you read what came before it we would see this
“They came into the world slaves, mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine off many of those they brush and wait on.”
Also the all quote from above is this “Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species and put them on a national equalization.”
Not quoting the whole thing would give false impression of what Smith thought and was thinking.
“Mark, if you truly can’t see more than “foul-mouthed vitriol”, then that explains a lot about you. But if you can see more, and this is the best you can respond, that explains a lot about you also.
Either way.”
What explains a lot about you, Mike, is that the best you can respond about your world-view is that you think people should “think for themselves”. News flash, what a revelation. I am sure that everyone on this earth could agree with that milquetoast statement. Come on. Have the cajonas to tell us what YOU believe, otherwise quit throwing your two cents in from the peanut gallery.
Mark, I believe you are a smug-without-justification narrow-minded pharisee.
And an asshat.
My God, can people not f___g READ? Noone is addressing what I actually SAID, other than Ron and Mike.
1. My quote of Joseph Smith has the source right at the end! That is why I put it there. Can’t you read?
2. The quote doesn’t need context. There is no nice, spiritual way of saying black people should stick with their own “species”!In what Universe am I giving improper context to Jospeh Smith calling black people a separate SPECIES than white people?!!
3. I am NOT saying that everyone everywhere is 100% unified on the Bible being the word of God. I am an atheist. I personally don;t think that all parts of the Bible are all the word of God. Neither does the Pope, and neither does Joseph Smith who wrote the Book of Mormon as an addition to the Bible.
4. All Jews and Christians believe that the 10 commandments are the word of God, delivered by God, and faithfully quoted by Moses. All Christians believe the Sermon on the Mount was delivered by the Son of God himself. So you are clearly incorrect that noone said any part of the Bible as the Word of God.
I could go on. But noone other than Mike, Ron Dean, ‘A Different Ron’ are actually addressing my main point. I even conceded a point to Mike because he was concisely pointed out that Ron doesn’t believe in slavery so I can;t critique him on Exodus 21:7 as if it was a personally held belief.
Well Mike, don’t expect me to engage in debate if you aren’t willing to put skin in the game.
Hi Avalokiteshvara
Yes I can read. My question what how you found the quote (i.e. do you have the book and quoted from it, did you get copy the quote including the source from another website). See how other sites use the same quote, without what was said before add and don’t quote in full, it would seem that this quote was copy from other website without you knowing the context of the quote. Now if I am wrong please tell me and could you also explain why you did included what was said before and not included the all quote?
Yes it does. To know what a person was saying and the thoughts and ideas behind it we need to know context. The quote I provided showed that Smith did not consider the black people and where inferior humans but that they has souls, could get salvation, and if given the right advantages could be just as smart as white people (he also ordained a Black man to the priesthood). Not including the rest of the quote and what came before it would (in the context of what you were using it in) would not give all the details of what Smith believed.
But I was not talking about everyone everywhere. I was talking about what the Books in the Bible say and what the people who lived when they were written believed. I said the books in the Bible never claims that in writing them that God spoke to the authors and gave them each and every word to write down or God took control of their bodies and made them write all these words and that is was without error. I also pointed out (as critical scholarship has shown) that this was also not the view that people had that the time the books were written either but is a later idea.
I asked you to please show me the quotes from the Books in the Bible that claims so these about itself and also to provided scholars who are not fundamental Christian who argue that the Books of the Bible say these things and that the people who lived at that time believed this. But you have not provided these things that you need to support your argument. I hope you will in your next reply.
That is a very big overstatement. While there is much more people who identify as Christian and Religious Jews, believe that the Ten Commandments are the word of God, others don’t (as could be seen by simply researching the vast many idea’s held by Christian’s and Religious Jews . Also for your second point, while again there is a great majority of people who identify themselves as Christian believe that the Sermon on the Mount was delivered by the Son of God himself that don’t.
In relation to your last point I think you have not understood what I was saying. I said that nowhere in the Books of the Bible is the claim the God gave the authors very simple were to write and that the written documents are the word of God and without error. I also said that this idea was not held by the people at the time the documents were written but comes later. You example above does not give any information nor supports your claim that the people at the time the documents were writing believed the things I listed above. Now for you to prove your claim you would have to show from the Books of the Bible and from writings at the same time period that the things listed above were being claimed for the documents. The above has not done this, but simple sates what a large number of Religious Jews and Christian today believe. Also believing that that the Ten Commandments are the Word of God or that Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount does not mean that all the others words are the Word of God. All it shows this that people consider these things are God’s or Jesus words without addressing if they believe everything else is there words or not.
I will late for you next reply to see if you provided the scriptural references and the Scholarship to support your claim.
Mark said: “Well Mike, don’t expect me to engage in debate if you aren’t willing to put skin in the game.” I put skin in the game and you won;t debate me. Why are you hypocritically calling Mike “unwilling?”. None of your posts mark are more than a few sentences long. Asshat.
WILLIAM: I don;t have to and WON’T get into a debate with you about who BELIEVES what. That NEVER was my point. I have already answered the questions, and provided sources for MY POINT.
Here is MY POINT: The Bible contains a scripture that I think is evil Exodus (21:7). Therefore a Holy Book of God is not HOLY at all if one letter, word, scripture, book, or Testament is unholy. That’s it. No more. I used both Biblical and non-Biblical sources which I documented, and was finished. This is one of many reasons why I reject Ronald Weinland, the Bible and Christianity. Everything you mentioned is a side issue, unrelated to MY POINT. This is my point and that is what Mike asked me to provide an answer. I did it. This is the Avalo vs. Mark thread. I have made my point(s). Mark hasn’t responded. The End.
Since MARK has challenged MIKE: I suggest He start an new thread entitled The MARK vs. MIKE (DDTFA) since Mark said: “Well Mike, don’t expect me to engage in debate if you aren’t willing to put skin in the game.”
I am sure everyone here who can actually focus, read, and think (Atrocious, Whisper, Kirrily, Chacha, Different Ron, Ron Dean, Red, Jack635, Martin Ortiz, etc) would love to see you MARK get pwned a second time, by Mike (DDTFA).
I call shenanigans on MARK…
I think I’m beginning to understand Mike’s impatience with you. This is easily the most ridiculous statement I’ve read on this thread.
Mike gave you a thread where you could debate to your heart’s content. You have steadfastly refused – even to the point of admitting that you were avoiding debate intentionally.
Avalo has raised many valid points, and backed them up with historical context or Biblical quotes. Again, you steadfastly refused to address a *single* point he made.
You then label Avalo “foul-mouthed”, and that because of this label, Avalo cannot be compassionate. Mike rightly points out that you completely ignored *everything else* that has been said in this thread. Your response: Silence. I point out that the whole statement you made to begin with is illogical. Your response. Silence.
In fact, your only response is to castigate Mike for not stating what he believes. But this whole thread is about you and Avalo’s clashes, and you have refused to answer even the simplest of Avalo’s assertions. And then you complain that Mike has “no skin in the game”? That just does not follow.
Right now it appears that your whole debate strategy is to call people names, and then never discuss what was actually stated. Yes, Avalo can also use name-calling when he gets frustrated. But at least he makes a case. You just engage in name calling and then. . … . *nothing*. This reminds me of 5th grade playground tactics.
Well, Mark. I was going to answer you. But Ron Dean has already taken care of it for me.
What Ron Dean said. Also …. asshat.
BTW, to avoid confusion, Ron Dean = Ron (a different Ron). I have posted from 2 different computers, and the auto-fill was different. Sorry for any confuston.
Sure can use “Like” button here. I like when statements are backed up by proof. I personally am learning things from this blog, things that I wasn’t taught and things that I don’t have patience to research. I appreciate everybodys knowledge on the postings on these matters. I’ve always liked proof and questioned hearsay. I’ve been “taught” too much BS in the past that didn’t live up to all their sayings. I’m really not knowledgable enough to jump in here except my opinions. so,..thx! keep it up.
I’m with you Red – same sentiments from me!
To me, there is nothing logical about every human being coming from Adam and Eve. The only people that listen to whispering enchanters (snakes) are druggies. Same goes for talking bushes.
It’s not possible for a virgin to have a baby.
If we all come from 2 people, why are there so many different colours and facial features in the human race?
Believing in God forces one to ignore logic – there is no room for logic in Faith.
Faith can only be measured by opinion – opinion based on an illogical book called the Bible.
After that it comes down to a personal relationship with Jesus – impossible to be measured, hence why Christians do not have a leg to stand on in a debate. You can’t effectively argue a point without logic – a belief in something that cannot be measures or explained by it’s very nature requires ignoring logic.
Faith is the evidence of things not seen says the Bible – yeah, that’s logical statement if ever I heard one! LMAO!!
So if God exists, he created us in his likeness (having a logical mind), yet expects us to ignore wonderful logic to believe in things that can not be measured or seen through Faith.
It’s all a bit stupid really.
Now, where did I leave my cape?…….
…..maybe the mothership will eventually show up, then we can see who’s driving! lol….sorry,..back to the debate.
But if you claim that the idea that the Books of the Bible are the Word of God (that God spoke to the authors and gave them each and every word to write down or God took control of their bodies and made them write all these words) without error, one book, and that people at the time period that they were written in believed this and was not a later idea (again the idea not something that you personally believe) then you would have to provided two things.
1 Quotes from the Books of the Bible that state these ideas
2 Work by scholars who are not fundamentalist Christian, that argue that the Books of the Bibe says this and that the people at the tie believed this.
These two things have not been done so unless you are planning to this then you would have to admit that the idea is wrong.
But that again would only be true if the Bible was one book and claimed that all of it was the Word of God, given word by word from God to the authors and it is without error. Without these things then the idea above that if one thing in one if the Books that make up the Bible is unholy it means that whole thing is unholy would be false because it is not one book, never claims to have been written by God speaking each word to the authors or that it is without error. So if a person who rejects the fundamentalist view of the Books of the Bible could say that the scriptures had false things added to it and was attributed to YHWH (just like the writer of Jeremiah would of reject the Torah bit about God commanding sacrifices, and how some Ebionites consider the scriptures to have had false hoods added to it). So one unholy thing would not disprove other books when people reject the idea about the Bible being God’s word that he spoke to authors very word that they were to write.
I pointed out that your claim needs the fundamentalist view of the Bible to be true and that it would need to have been said and taught in the Books of the Bible and also have been believed by people at the time the documents were written. I also pointed out that, that view of the Books of the Bible come later and when asked how I knew that and why you should believe me I gave you my reasons. So if you disagree with them would have to show quotes from the Bible that supports your claim and works by scholars that also back up the claim. It should be easy if my claim is wrong. I will wait and see what you do.
“My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.”—J. B. S. Haldane
William, which parts of the Bible do you believe to be divinely inspired and why?
For the last f____g time William: I am NOT talking about other people’s points. I am talking about MY POINT. I have always used “I think”, “I believe”, and then pointed out the Biblical source for MY belief.
What part of the HOLY Bible don;t you get? You are’t even an asshat! You are clearly smart, and reasonably well read. And you are only answering my statements, not my actual questions. Thus, I am finished.
If you say the Book is holy then Exodus 21:7 proves it ISN’T the Holy Bible, regardless of who believes what. If you want to call the entire collection of ‘Books’ contained in the Bible, then DON’T use the whole book. Take out Exodus 21:7, take out Exodus, take out the slaughter of the Canaanites, take out the vague references to Hell, take out what you don;t like. IThen call the remaining pamphlet the “Holy” Bible and store it in your wallet. My version of the the ‘Holy’ Bible is throwing the entire thing in the garbage, doing a couple of tequila body shots off my darling little wife’s *****, and playing (adapted Vietnamese) Scrabble with her stone drunk.
I CALL SHENANIGANS ON MARK. MIKE HAS CALLED YOU OUT. IT’S YOUR TURN TO RESPOND WITH AN ACTUAL ARGUMENT.
WAKE UP Christians.
Haven’t you noticed something happening ?
This blog is now going way beyond the issue of Ronald Weinland, and is being taken over by a spirit of antichrist.
“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1Jo 2:22).
Believers are under attack by this antichrist spirit, and Mark has had more than his fair share.
Classic Christian tactic MARK:
1. Say atheist is wrong because the Bible is right.
2. name call.
3. Run from argument.
4. Wait two days.
5. Repeat.
If this is the kind of person God wants in his flock, then I can think of no higher honour than to oppose Yahweh, which I don’t have to since he lives rent-free in Christian fantasy.
SHENANIGANS!!!!
Ron Dean said:
“Mark, I’ve been trying to help you in this debate, but I’m beginning to see that you are one of those people who has never seriously examined his faith. You have accepted your beliefs for whatever reason, but you have no foundation for those beliefs (REALLY? HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY KNOW THAT RON?)
I’ll give you an assignment to start you off (WHY WOULD HE NEED AN ASSIGNMENT FROM YOU RON ?)
“……what constitutes ” Foul-mouthed vitriol” and what standard are you judging that by (THAT’S PRETTY OBVIOUS I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT RON)”
In Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said,“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
Mal/Mark: This clearly refers to the Church of Christ suffering stomach pains after eating at the Olive garden ( a type of painful labor), which as you well know is made of Olives (why would they call it the Olive garden otherwise). Your desire will be for your husband (Rev. 13;12, Deut. 13:12, Genesis 1: 312, and 2nd Testicles 69:8). This is the EWord of God. Vlearly you have syphilis (a type of discernment, Matthew 4:26 pm). So MIke (as the fifth horn of the ninth head of the Beast Power (Chronicles of Narnia 32:18) is rising from the West to establish the New Jerusalem, which is located in the ancient city of Yo Mama (from “Yomah-a” the Hebrew word for ‘asshat’.
It is clear from the foul mouthed vitriol coming from your mouth that the Diet Sprite of the Anti-Christ is rising in the North not the North East. I can only hope and eat cheeseburgers that you will come top the knowledge of the Lord before it is too late.
Yours in Christ.
Avalokiteshvara
The contributor calling himself ‘Avalokiteshvara’ said on several of his posts on this thread “Draw your own conclusions”.
I have. Your posts are excruciatingly boring, repetitive, and taking up a lot of space.
You keep on with the same old twisted theme that God is ‘evil’ and that Christianity is ‘evil’. Maybe you think that if you beat people over the head with it enough that they might start to believe it.
You now seem well on the way to virtually taking over this blog with your atheist propaganda, and with the blog owner’s blessing it seems. You post so often here that this blog must be one of the major focuses of your life.
Hey Mike, maybe you would prefer to rename your blog ‘Don’t Drink the Flavor Aid of the Christian Faith’.
I agree with Mark. I find vulgarity and obscenities in many of your posts. Also a condescending and disrespectful attitude to others. But you are not the only one to use vulgarity and obscenities on this blog. Such a difference to the Ronald Weinland blog previously run by Citizen X.
Your continuous put-downs of God, Jesus Christ and the Christian faith in general are unlikely to sway mature Christians, but regretfully might adversely influence newer Christians. That, of course, is the object of the antichrist spirit.
Your original point made many months ago about God appearing to condone bloodletting, violence and other evil acts in the Old Testament is a fair one. The obvious question is ‘How can God disobey any of His own Ten Commandments?’ The answer is that He doesn’t. There is indeed evil occurring in the Old Testament, but it is not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ performing the evil or speaking the evil.
I have twice suggested a book to you (free download) which looks into that very subject you keep raising and comes up with an answer. You have never indicated that you have even bothered to read any of it because all you do is keep regurgitating the same tired old theme. Maybe you’re not interested in finding an answer, because you enjoy focusing your attention on disproving the validity of Christianity.
With regard to your Bible ‘knowledge’. It seems to me you have very little real understanding of the Holy Scriptures.
You appear to have no grasp of the concept of sin, asserting in one of your posts that ‘I am not a sinner’. It follows that you also have no grasp of what Jesus did for us all with his death and resurrection. That’s clear as you have stated that Jesus was nothing more than a carpenter from Nazareth.
You obviously do not see anything of the spiritual nature of the Old Testament. For example, the Israelites coming out of slavery in Egypt and their journey to the promised land being a picture of our own lives. Later, their failure to live God’s just and righteous way resulted first in the Assyrians taking the northern ten tribes into captivity, followed later by the Babylonians taking the remaining two tribes. Again, a picture of what can happen in our own lives.
Christians can see that the books of the Old Testament are full of references to Jesus Christ, both His first and his second coming.
Your assertion that Kirrily ‘proved’ a contradiction in Scripture is not proved at all. For the case she mentioned, I have an explanation which I find perfectly satisfactory.
How do we know what God the Father is really like ? The words and actions of Jesus Christ. Jesus said “Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father”. Anyone starting out on their Christian walk should start in the New Testament.
I have a suggestion Avalokiteshvara. Go take a holiday without web access.
Mal, surely you can’t be serious – you are a fence sitter – do you even know what you believe? Oh yeah, that’s right, you are waiting to see if Ron conforms to what you already believe or suspect. Don’t you think it’s time you got off that fence now?
Anti-Christ – whatever. *yawn*.
Don’t mean offense Mal, but it’s hard to respect someone who can’t even make up their own mind about whether Ron is wrong or not (thereby ignoring evidence), then coming on this blog sprouting your nonsense about us being Anti-Christ.
If the f____g Christ made it clear who the f____ he is and what he wanted, then people gathered against him, THAT would be anti-Christ.
You are base that comment on something spiritual – which cannot be measured, and requires ignoring logic. Spiritual spiritual spiritual, it’s all f___g spiritual isn’t it! Just join Ron’s f____g cult and be done with it!
Yeah I’m angry – Christians and their f____g superiority complex! Not just Christians, but any type of Godly belief system. The one thing they ALL have in common – PRIDE! (Yes, that was a sweeping statement I know…. You all know I have beautiful Christian friends, and I do respect all contributors here – but Mal, come on, it’s hard when you’ve been damn fence sitting for so long now!)
Mike (DDTFA) said:
“Mark, I believe you are a smug-without-justification narrow-minded pharisee.
And an asshat.”
Duh!!!!….Wot?…….That is a ridiculous comment.
The Bible is very contradictory – FACT.
If it wasn’t, there would be ONE united belief system. Der.
Kirrily
Your unladylike language does not impress.
Mal, you say that Avo has taken over this blog with Mikes blessing (to that effect) – what baloney.
Mike made this thread so these matters can be thrashed out.
I understand why Mark is here, but I’ve never understood what you are doing here.
Pretty piss weak God if all the new Christians can be swayed by an Athiest – then again, God seems to need so much help getting people to leave Satan. Um, I think Satan is winning – maybe you should switch sides!
That’s how us chicks roll in the land down under, lol.
If my language doesn’t impress, obviously my points didn’t either.
Isn’t there something in there about being lukewarm,…just saying.
So, Mike? When is this debate officially over? I have to admit that this thread has been thoroughly entertaining.
Mike you should leave this one (or a random one) open,…Ron don’t give much to talk about anymore without going off topic!
Mal said: “I have a suggestion Avalokiteshvara. Go take a holiday without web access.”
I have a suggestion Mal. Go sell your daughter into slavery, kill the Canaanites, and have sex with your brother’s wife/get killed by Yahweh after you give her a “pearl necklace”.
You know…a Christian holiday without sanity access.
Greetings Mal, and welcome. This specific comment is purely a judgment call on my part. How can I know that? Well, I’ve been around a while, I’ve seen many, including myself, accept that the Bible as truth (TM), and yet not have investigated its history, Christian history, the various Chritian sects and schisms, the many-fold and quite varied theological thoughts, and the like. Heck, just look at Gnosticism for example. When you read about Gnostic beliefs, it seems utterly insane. Yet this sect was considered to be one of the greatest threats, if not the single greatest threat, to the early Christian church. The orthodox church believes what it does today via an evolutionary process. Yet most Christians are not even aware of that process – they are only aware of the stated beliefs. And in my judgment, Mark comes off as one of those.
Would you deny Mark the opportunity to learn of the history of the Bible’s compilation? Are you trying to say that ignorance is better than knowledge when it comes to the Bible’s history? You are one who delves into the “hidden knowledge” of the Bible. Why would you wish to divert Mark from the opportunity to learn of that, and how the Bible actually came about?
Iron sharpens iron.
And that is exactly my point. What you or Mark or any other individual may consider “PRETTY OBVIOUS” may not be so “PRETTY OBVIOUS” to others. There has to be some measure as to what constitutes being “Foul-mouthed”. I was actually trying to see if he would use a Biblical basis or a societal basis for his definition of “Foul-mouthed”. That in-and-of-itself can generate a good soul-searching discussion.
Mal, asking someone to justify their faith on a public forum that they chose to participate in is not “anti-christ”. That label is a knee-jerk reaction for someone who feels their faith is threatened. If a believer can not justify why they believe what they do, or answer Avalo’s simple question of God supporting selling daughters into slavery, than that faith has no basis – thus my “no foundation” comment.
Or better yet, go take a holiday with “answer my damn questions” access…
Oh Ron. You are so right yet so wrong. You are correct to say that iron sharpens iron. But when you say that to Mal and mark it should read “asshats sharpen asshats”.
Did I say ‘sharpen’? That’s not the word…hmmm what is it…. ah! I got it!…”sodomize”.
Hmmm, I was actually on a quest to earn myself the title of “ass-hat”. But after this comment, I think I’ll end my quest . . .
I’ll leave you with this:
If you want to find God, look for Him. Ask Him to help you find Him. Faith like a mustard seed grows exponentially. You don’t need a lot, just the tiniest speck- like the mustard seed. As they say, a little goes a long way.
Also, stop trying to find the “one true church”, because you never will. ALL have errors. But God is working in many different churches. They aren’t perfect and their understanding isn’t perfect. Are any of us perfect?
Put your trust in Jesus, that’s all God has asked any of us. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
It’s also the one thing that has confounded the intellectuals, the humanists, the gnostics and others.
Sorry if I have offended anyone with caustic, sarcastic comments. I certainly don’t want to leave you with that impression. Life is just too short.
Peace to everyone.
Mark said:
1. “I’ll leave you with this…”. Running away without answering any questions from anyone, at all. “Jebus” must be very proud of you.
2. “Put your trust in Jesus, that’s all God has asked any of us.” What about the Ten Commandment you stupid asshat!
3. “It’s also the one thing that has confounded the intellectuals, the humanists, the gnostics and others.” Completely stupid, untrue, unsupported, and unnecessary. Just like the Bible.
debates: 2
answers from Mark: 0
relevant answers from William: 0
the appearance of the word ‘asshat’: 20 (aprox.)
appearances of the Vietnamese word for ‘cake’: 0
acts of Kirrily: 2
Posts by Avalokiteshvara: 243,717, 015
Now that’s what I call a thread!!
Oops! That is supposed to read “acts of Kirrily worship: 2″…
Now who wants a beer? Anyone?
Me atrocious! Cheers! *clink*
Now where did I leave my God, can’t find him anywhere…..
God, oh God…!! Wanna beer? *crickets*
Are you guys kidding me?! I’ m GERMAN-CANADIAN! LOL! I love beer, and would love to have a beer with you guys.
And while we’re drinking, let’s sing a good old fashioned song…about philosophy…
Ein prosit!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQycQ8DABvc
And for our first act in this evenings entertainment: Footage of Ronald Weinland busily preparing for May 2012.
It really is him!
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81760024/
That’s where I get it! I’m 1/4 German, Australian! Whoo hoo! Although, now I’m expecting, it’s juice and water for me!
For the record, Mike has never, ever, either on this blog or in private emails tried to steer me in ANY direction in my beliefs or otherwise.
I have always been astounded at this trait of his.
I know he believes Ron to be false, doesn’t think much of Herbie – apart from that, I don’t know!
He has always been there to LISTEN.
I’ll never forget the first email I sent to him, and the lovely response I got back. He indeed always has encouraged me to think for myself, and my opinion is that he has shown the same to others – latest being Chacha.
If we ‘know them by their fruits’ – then Mike has shown the best fruit to me. Funny that.
I’ll tell you one thing Mal – if I am Anti-Christ (and I don’t believe I am, cause how can I truly be anti something/one I don’t know) – then I’ll stay on this path and recieve:-
1. No fear.
2. Peace of mind.
3. Love.
4. Freedom.
5. Joy.
6. A child I would not be having if I had remained in that damn cult.
Call that whatever you want – I’ll simply call it – being ME.
I do want to put some limits on this thread. Please don’t use the “f”-word as I want to keep it family friendly at least that much. “Asshat” is OK. Mark and Mel will still consider this thread to be foul-mouthed vitriol even so, and even if I prohibited “asshat” as any questioning of their ideas can’t be tolerated.
Will let this thread continue. If Mark and Mal have problems with it, no one is pointing a gun at their heads making them read it.
If we know them by their fruits? Uh-oh…I haven’t done anything nice to anyone!
Yes indeed, let;s raise a glass to Mike (DDFTA)! Especially for his permission for me to spread my atheistic spirit of Anti-Christ all over the InterNets!! Now none of your Space-Book and Face-Tube accounts will Google anymore!!! Mua-Ha-ha-ha!!
Now if I could only get Laura Weinland to stop witnessing against me, as she demonstrates in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwugutICBc4
Mike (DDTFA) said: “Please don’t use the “f”-word”.
What a dictator! My rights have been violated! The Federal Laws of my country protect my right to say “Fungus” whenever I want!!
Sorry Mike….. I got angry, not like me.
I’ll try to laugh instead – thinking of Mal and his sore behind due to fence sitting….. As soon as I posted regretted the F bombs on your blog. In everyday language, I do use the word – an Aussie pastime. Probably not a good habit, and will be changing my habits before baby comes along.
I remember emailing Mike quite a long time ago now, that after a few months of being out of PKG, I started to get really rebellious (not just swearing!) – Mike listened to me, and in a really nice way suggested I was only hurting myself. I carried along that path for quite some months (the rebellious one) – and you know what? I did get hurt. I went through a period of such anger – at myself I believe.
A anyway, after a lot of pain caused by my rebellion, I’ve come out in one piece, and a better person for it. Only the swearing remains (again, us Aussies swear way too much) – that too, will pass.
I’ve said it before, but I don’t know what I would have done without this blog, and ALL (yes ALL) the contributors have given me (including Mark who has often said lovely things to me). But especially you Mike. Thank you.
Ava, Vodka is considered fruit here in Oz! Cut the head off a pineapple, inject with at least a bottle of Vodka – and enjoy!
Can I say “ass-helmet”?
Actually, speaking of cocktails, I have invented my own cocktail recipe. I call it a “Sabbath Sundown”. You need:
1 part Absolut New Orleans Vodka
1 part Creme de Bananes
2-3 parts orange juice
1 lime
1. Pour 1 oz. of creme de bananes into a highball glass. Add crushed ice.
2. Zest the lime and put a thin layer of the shavings on top of the creme de bananes.
3. Pour 20 oz. of vodka into a tumbler, and drink all of it.
4. Then add a handful of orange juice to the highball glass.
5. Then drink 10 oz. vodka straight out of the bottle and tell your wife she’s beautiful.
6. Then do your best Russell Crowe imitation for the family cat.
7. Vomit.
8. Then do that thing where you talk about that guy, and he said “No-ay” and you said ” Are you kidding?”
9. Then tell wife you love her as you vomit for the second time.
10. Collapse on the floor laughing and vomiting.
11. Then go to the bathroom and try to wash your face in the sink, and end up washing your face in the toilet instead.
12. Pass out.
Mark, I have done so since November of 1977. For a significant portion of that time, I believed similarly to you. However, I kept on seeking. And frankly, in ways that I can only call ironic, my seeking was answered.
And what have I learned in those 34 years? The most significant thing I learned is that I know nothing at all.
So I make the same challenge of you that you made of us: keep seeking. Because based on the evidence of your conversations in this thread, it appears you have settled. You no longer seek. That was my message to you in a couple of my replies – look into how the Bible was compiled, and how the church evolved. You will learn something, and that something can only make you better.
It is phrases like this that let me know you really have not sought that much. The “confound[ing] the intellectuals, the humanists, the gnostics and others” is something you heard from a preacher somewhere along the way, and you accepted it as truth(tm). Bur you have no basis for this statement. No proof. Provide any evidence that the Gnostics were “confounded” by this. Or intellectuals.
I’m sure it would be easy to find discussions on humanists web sites about how hard it is to get around that blasted John 3:16, since they are so confounded. “Geez George” they would say, “Just how do we get around that confounding Jesus dying with love stuff”. “I dunno’” would be the response. “I’m not sure we can. Let’s just ignore it or hide from it so we can continue to spread our evil humanistic thoughts to children worldwide”.
Mark, my message to you is to stop just believing something just because an authoritative Christian told you so, and actually research it yourself. Do your own homework. As I suggested, a good place to start is the history of how the Bible was compiled. Who decided which books would be included, and which should be left out. When and why did they decide this?
Ron (A Different Ron), I have a hypothetical question for you. Say you never believed (or maybe you don’t, most people don’t) in UFOs or extraterrestrials. As far as you’re concerned, they don’t exist. When somebody tells you that they believe that they DO exist, you say “give me proof” but they can’t. They can only tell you what they have learned from books, scholars, videos, documentation, etc. They might even claim that they have even SEEN a UFO or an alien. Ok. Then, hypothetically, you all of a sudden come face to face with an entity that isn’t human and you have an experience that isn’t “of this world” so to speak. You pass it off as a hallucination of some sort. But then you discover that something has change inside you. You can only attribute it to the “contact with the alien”. So then you do a little more research and you discover that others have experienced the same thing you have. And, (hypothetically, remember) you become a “believer” in UFOs and extraterrestrials.
There are a lot of people out there who have had personal experiences with the spirit world that cannot be explained other than that an intervention has occurred. I have had several personal experiences. Of course, my experiences are not proof to anyone else. I can’t prove that I’ve had those experiences, and people might even believe I’m one beer short of a six-pack (or maybe even two or three). But, to me, it’s proof enough.
I am not entering the debate here…just trying to explain where some people might be coming from.
“There are a lot of people out there who have had personal experiences with the spirit world that cannot be explained”.
1. That there is a spirit world is an assumption.
2. Having an experience you can’t explain is not proof of anything, nor is it proof of a causal link to anything including the spirit world.
3. Brain chemistry is complex and malleable. There could be a million other reasons for your experience.
4. Having a special feeling about God is not proof of anything.
5. Things can change inside of a person for a million reasons.
Not trying to shoot you down or anything. I am merely saying that what you mentioned is NO reason for anyone to then show up on my doorstep and tell my kids that Jesus is REAL because they saw his face in their soup that morning (or build a church, or hand out pamphlets, or sell holy water, or sell their daughter into slavery, or kill those who don;t believe, etc. )
“I am merely saying that what you mentioned is NO reason for anyone to then show up on my doorstep and tell my kids that Jesus is REAL because they saw his face in their soup that morning (or build a church, or hand out pamphlets, or sell holy water, or sell their daughter into slavery, or kill those who don;t believe, etc. )”
I agree with you there….I don’t believe in forcing my own beliefs down anybody’s throat. But my beliefs are MY beliefs – it’s something I CHOOSE to believe. Believing anything is a choice. Not believing is also a choice.
That’s all I’m sayin’.
peace.
And I would die on a battlefield with a bayonet through my heart to defend your freedom to believe things I don’t. It would be the right moral action on my part if such a sacrifice was the only way to make that defense.
Peace indeed!
Atrocious has a good point.
No matter the belief or non belief, we have a REASON for believing it.
That’s why I get so upset when people say things like ‘You didn’t read your bible enough’, or ‘You need to get closer to Jesus’ etc etc.
Been there, done that, don’t believe it.
Like I’ve said before, people can either live with each others differing beliefs with respect, or turn it into a problem.
At least athiests dont threaten hell fire on believers…… (generally speaking – not all Christians do this I know).
Hi Atrocious. Thanks for your response. Sorry, I’m taking your post out of the original order. There’s no reason why you can’t enter the debate. All views are welcome – at least in my opinion
BTW, after this response, I will take you up on the offer of a beer 
I am going to answer your hypothetical in a few ways. However, first let me state this: I don’t care what a person believes if it works for him/her. If they are happy with their beliefs, and it makes their life better, then more power to them. I don’t care that Mark and Mal hold Christian beliefs, or that Avalo holds atheistic ones. It works for them, so great.
If you will note, all of my comments in this thread challenge people who state as facts things that they provided no evidence for. I do not challenge what they believe; but I do challenge assertions without documentation. I have never said “give me proof”, because I am well aware that proof is a difficult construct. However, I have asked for a basis for their belief. “I don’t know” is an acceptable answer, as long as it is followed up by “I’ll look into that”.
Also, I do object to someone trying to push their beliefs on someone else when they don’t even understand the foundation of the faith they are pushing. This situation leads to Ronnie Weinland world. If people just believe something without understanding why, and push their beliefs on others, than a clever con man, such as Ronnie-boy, can take advantage of it.
In Christian speak, they need to be like the Bereans, and actually research out what they have been told.
So on to your hypothetical:
1) Let’s say this hypothetical person, whom I will arbitrarily call “Mark”, grew up in a society that believed in, and even revered, UFO visitations. I posit that Mark would be far more likely to believe in UFOs as well as be far more likely to experience an alien abduction, than others who did not live in such a society. Why do Christian nations stay Christian nations over centuries. And why do Buddhist nations stay Buddhist for centuries? Same for Islam, Taoism, etc. . . The common societal beliefs that a person is exposed to while in their cognitive years predisposes them to a particular belief system. And without examination as to why they believe what they believe (or a conquering force which can also cause abrupt faith changes), it will remain that way forever.
2) Avalo stole my thunder for this one. As he rightly pointed out, the brain is a complex swamp of chemical reactions and electrical connections. Things can and do happen in the brain that cause an illusion of something. Schizophrenia is an example of what happens when these things go wrong. Perceptions of things that do not exist can and do happen. Even a healthy stable brain is subject to its surroundings and will react accordingly. I think good evidence of this is something called the . The God helmet subjects people to external magnetic fields from devices embedded in a football helmet-like device. According to one researcher using this device, up to 80% of the people subjected to this helmet felt a mystical “presence”. Does this prove that God does not exist? Absolutely not. But it does show a possible mechanism by which the brain may perceive a god (or an alien).
3) Your hypothetical person actually researches answers for their condition. According to your hypothetical, he asks around and looks for evidence to understand what is happening to him. I will extend this by saying that your hypothetical also looks to see if he might just be crazy, listens to and examines negative statements about alien abductions, and also searches the history of alien abductions. This person, who is continuing to search is NOT like the Christians who say “I know the truth(TM), Jesus is the truth(TM), and therefore nothing else matters”. People of rabid faith have a curious tendency to NOT seek the unbiased roots for their beliefs. They seem to be happy with accepting the authoritative statements of someone without examination. I further posit that this attitude is against biblical philosophy as I already pointed out with the Bereans.
I’ll end this here, since this is too long already. But a good question, and I appreciate it Atrocious. Now, about that beer. . . .
Ron has raised great points. I wish I could have said it like that!
I am always dumbfounded that many Christians are/seemed scared of knowing anything about the Bible that doesn’t come from the Bible. If you watch the DVD series “The Bible Unearthed”, you witness CLEAR archeological evidence that the Old Testament is incorrect about times, dates, events and such. And the work is done by both Christians and non-Christians. All the Christians I have met so far have ignored, or tried to explain away the evidence (rather badly). What is really dumbfounding is their conclusion that if the Bible is wrong then there is no reason to live or that they have to stop being a Christian!
IMHO: It is ALSO possible that there is a Yahweh and he has been COMPLETELY misrepresented, that all the killing and slavery were lies told about him. This might explain why he seems to have a change of heart in the New Testament. The New Testament God could be the actual one. This is merely a hypothesis and I don’t believe it one bit. But “The Bible Unearthed” in proving the inaccuracy of the OT, actually GIVES Christians a chance to believe in a loving God, not the “kill the Canaanites” God!
But instead of saying to themselves ” Wow! God might actually be the great Lord of the Universe who loves his people and showed love, etc” they run like cowards and accuse any and all of being of Satan, and try and have Harry Potter films banned, and blow up abortion clinics, and call atheists “confused” becuase they don’t have mystical feelings that tell them they are one of the Two Witnesses, and Jesus is returning on May 12 2012, YET is always “returning in our hearts” when he doesn’t arrive.
This is another reason why I hate Christianity. It creates an arrogance and narcissism in people that is dangerous. Good old Joe the Christian can feel superior to the most educated, intelligent (Christian and non-Christian) minds of history (Thomas a Kempis, Augustine, Sagan, Derrida, Gibran, Kant, Bell Hooks, Susan Faludi, Spivak) because he had an amazing feeling one day.
Hi Ron (A Different Ron). Thanks for your reply, and I understand what you are saying. And I appreciate your candor.
How ’bout a Bud Light? *clink* Here’s to ya! *gulp gulp gulp – aaaaaaaahhhhhh* Mmmmm, that was good. *smack smack*.
Throwing out the Bible doesn’t kill God, it makes space for the REAL Yahweh to appear.
Who do you think would be more ready to believe in this real Yahweh if they appeared? An theist who doesn’t believe in anything, or a Christian filled with preconceived notions of what God is because the Bible say X.Y.Z? In this particular case, an Atheist who doesn’t believe in anything has been a better “Christian” or “Jew” by not believing the lies of the Bible!
Spirit of Anti-Christ…pphhhfft! Kiss my asshat, Mal…
Oh, and Avalo, didn’t mean to pass you by. I read your responses, and I understand where you are coming from too. I agree that MOST Christians are Unchristian in their attitude and self-righteous behavior. But there are a few out there who really ARE “Christ-like”. To me, THOSE people are the ones who do not tout their “christianity” and express judgment towards others, create Pharisaical Rules to follow, command others to do as they do, etc. The few people I’m talking about are those who exemplify compassion, kindness, love, etc. without giving a reason why. They are the ones who visit the sick, help the needy (if they can), uplift the depressed just by being who they are. No preaching, no condemnation, none of that stuff. They don’t do it because they feel they HAVE to do it to please their God, they do it because they WANT to. It’s in their hearts.
In my view, if anyone condones slavery, taking away freedom of choice, causing fear, hurt, pain, confusion, etc., they are NOT Christian in any way, shape, or form.
Anyway, cheers.
I’ve had a theory for a while now ….. What if there was a creator being, who created this world on their deathbed?
This being wanted to leave something behind – us!
That sure would explain the silence! The God is dead, and we are what is left!
Ava – quick, get a pen – my first truth!!
Atrocious: Absolutely! You’ll never hear me complain about “acting-like- Jesus” Christians, even if I hate their God. I hate in theory, love in Reality.
Kirrily: That is a REALLY interesting idea!!! No joke. Another take on the whole “alien race leaves behind a message to the future” kind of scenario. Wow! And a beautiful scenario too. The final wish of a benevolent mortal “God”…
Kirrily 1:1: In the Beginning was The Divine One. She couldn’t stick around so She created Mankind, the vessel of Her love.
“IMHO: It is ALSO possible that there is a Yahweh and he has been COMPLETELY misrepresented, that all the killing and slavery were lies told about him. This might explain why he seems to have a change of heart in the New Testament. The New Testament God could be the actual one.”
Hey Avalokiteshvara – Did you really write that? A chink of light perhaps? Maybe you actually did take a look at the book I recommended?
You also stated:
“If you watch the DVD series “The Bible Unearthed”, you witness CLEAR archeological evidence that the Old Testament is incorrect about times, dates, events and such.”
I have a 450 page book entitled “The Bible as History – a CONFIRMATION of the Book of Books” by Werner Keller. The summary page states “Evidence that CONFIRMS some of the most monumental and controversial events in the Bible – including the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah”
Mal:
Nope. There is no God-light at the end of my tunnel, neither do I want one. God doesn’t exist, and I am fine with it. I am saying that for those who must believe in the God of Abraham, throwing out the OT is a good start. As for me, the Bible is most useful as toilet paper on a camping trip, cleaning up dog poop in the park, and roasting marshmallows with.
Oh andBTW: Werner Keller is NOT an archeologist or historian and doesn’t cite references. Also, he was not personally present at the sites he discusses. He has arguments based on other people’s ideas. Merely an unschooled, amateur archeologist who wants to get some attention.
Nice try Mal…
Oh! Werner Keller said the Bible is true so it must be. So is that how scholarship works? OK then here is the REAL truth about the Bible.
JESUS WAS A MUSHROOM.
Read “The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross” by John Marco Allegro. He says Jesus was a mushroom. It is in print. It MUST be true according to your logic.
Your attempts at debating me are laughable, Mal.
Also Mal:
1. You said “SOME of the most monumental and controversial events in the Bible.” How can the Holy Word of God get SOME right?
2. Jericho was destroyed by the Egyptians with fire 100 years before the Bible says the Israelites did it with magic trumpets! What this story and the Bible have in common is that Jericho actually exists, which we CONFIRMED through archeology, NOT by trusting the Bible. Just because the existence and destruction of Jericho is a FACT doesn’t mean the Bible is right about God existing.
1. Jericho exists.
2. The Bible exists.
3. Therefore God is real!!
Try again Mal…
Phew! Go away for a few days…I’m still not done reading…
Just a quick comment…then back to the game
Red says:
September 3, 2011 at 19:11
…..maybe the mothership will eventually show up, then we can see who’s driving!
Ron (W) would say: “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain…”
And Avalo, ever read Judges 19? Ick. I hate that story. Never had any satisfactory explanation to what this is supposed to “teach” us…if everything in the bible is supposed to “teach” us something. Also, Lot offered his daughters to thugs also…but Ron (THAT Ron) said in a sermon that Lot knew they wouldn’t take him up on his offer. (huh? Really? So WHY DO IT?)
So far…Avalo has done nothing BUT make interesting points. Always an education, Avalo.
I’ll have a James Ready please, or a Molson would be fine.
Chachacha!
Ok, let’s dismiss Werner Keller’s well-known book “The Bible as History”, which has sold over 10 million copies, just because Avalokiteshvara says so shall we?
A summary of the book describes it as a collection of scientifically established results of investigations by American, English, French and German scholars, digging in the Middle East, Mesopotamia, Palestine and Egypt. The book is a compilation of the results of learned works by archaeologists such as Professors Parrot and Schaeffer, Paul-Emile Botta and others.
In Palestine, places and towns frequently mentioned in the Bible have been found which look exactly as the Bible describes them and are exactly where the Bible locates them.
On ancient inscriptions and monuments scholars encountered more and more characters from the Old and New Testaments.
Scholars awakened from its ancient slumber, the notorious tower of Babel. In the Nile Delta archaeologists found the cities of Pithom and Raamses, where the Hebrews toiled as slaves. They have laid bare strata which tell of the flames and destruction which accompanied the children of Israel on their conquering march into Canaan. In Gibeah they found King Saul’s mountain stronghold. At Megiddo they came upon the vast stables of King Solomon, who had 12,000 horsemen. etc etc.
Missing something Mal. How is what you’ve said any different from what Avalo said at 5:09?
Yeash. Mal, read what Avalo actually said, instead of making things up. Let’s read Avalo’s comment again, shall we?
Avalo did not ask you to dismiss this “just because [he] says so”. I see three specific criticisms in his response:
1) The author, Werner Keller, is not an archeologist or historian.
2) The author never visited the sites he mentions.
3) The author does not cite references for his source materials.
Those look like specific, valid arguments, and is not just saying “because I said so”.
For me, I think Avalo is wrong about 1 and 2. I really don’t care if an author is a professional scientist. Many discoveries are made by amateur scientists, and these amateurs are vastly undervalued. Frankly I think the secular version of just-having-faith-in-what-your-preacher-says is dismissing someone just because they did not have formal education. The slavish belief in a scientist merely because of their PhD is a mistake IMO.
For point 2, many, if not the majority, of studies are actually the re-evaluation data that was collected in previous studies. So for Keller to use previous data an provide his own analysis is consistent with the scientific method as practiced today. So I disagree with Avalo that this is a valid criticism to dismiss the work.
However, point 3 is a fatal flaw. Not providing citations means the reader has no way to validate what the author wrote. One must be able to look at the original work to see if the author’s interpretations are sound, or if the data he presents is actually what exists. Without that, this book is nothing more than a bathroom break read, and deserves no real consideration.
Mike
My post was a response to Avalokiteshvara’s statements:
“If you watch the DVD series “The Bible Unearthed”, you witness CLEAR archeological evidence that the Old Testament is incorrect about times, dates, events and such.”
AND
“Werner Keller is NOT an archeologist or historian and doesn’t cite references. Also, he was not personally present at the sites he discusses. He has arguments based on other people’s ideas. Merely an unschooled, amateur archeologist who wants to get some attention.”
Ron
I think you’re splitting hairs. The bottom line was that Avalokiteshvara was dismissive of the book, for whatever reasons he said. You yourself disagree with Avalokiteshvara on Points 1 and 2.
As for Point 3 being in your words “a fatal flaw” in the book, let’s look more closely at Point 3.
Avalokiteshvara’s Point 3 is “The author does not cite references for his source materials”.
The following para is typical of the style in which the book is written:
“PROFESSOR CLAUDE F. A. SCHAEFFER had incredible luck with his excavations on the “Head of Fennel”. For here at last the long-sought information about the religions of Canaan came to light. Between two temples, one of them dedicated to the God Baal and the other to the God Dagon, he found among the houses of rich merchants the house of the High Priest of Ugarit, who owned a handsome library, as is clear from the large number of inscribed tablets which were found there.
Schaeffer’s trained eye recognized at once that the writer must have been using a hitherto unknown Phoenician alphabet. It was surprisingly quickly deciphered in 1930 by three scholars – PROFESSOR H. BAUER, OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HALLE, GERMANY, and C. VIROLLEAUD and E. DHORME OF FRANCE.”
At the back of Werner Keller’s book is a very extensive Bibliography of his sources. This includes the books written by PROFESSOR CLAUDE F. A. SCHAEFFER and PROFESSOR H. BAUER.
Ron (A Different Ron) said: “For me, I think Avalo is wrong about 1 and 2. I really don’t care if an author is a professional scientist. Many discoveries are made by amateur scientists, and these amateurs are vastly undervalued. Frankly I think the secular version of just-having-faith-in-what-your-preacher-says is dismissing someone just because they did not have formal education. The slavish belief in a scientist merely because of their PhD is a mistake IMO.”
I agree with you. One shouldn’t take a scientist’s word for it, and visiting an archeological site doesn’t guarantee any truth per se. I guess I should have explained what I meant by not being professional trained. I personally have a doctoral degree. So let’s pretend it is in archeology. If I publish a paper it is reviewed “peer-reviewed” by a panel of fellow archeologists who are editors of that journal. If that paper is flawed they won;t publish it. Being a professional archeologist means you must prove to other archeologists you know the field. Being an amateur archeologist is fine. Many do get published because their work stands up to scrutiny (citations of other peer-reviewed journals, good arguments, etc).Many non-professionals have done great work. But that is no reason to just automatically trust them or any professional anthropologist per se.
Given the choice between trusting Werner Keller, and the work of any number of world class archeologists, I will trust the pros. They are held to higher standards.
Mal, both you and Avalo seem to be saying that the Bible discusses ancient cities.
Avalo’s point is that even if these ancient cities can be proven to exist, it doesn’t prove other claims of the Bible. What about that?
Are you joking? Please tell me you are joking. Because the only reason I can think of why you would defend something you implicitly agree is false, is you lied. And I really don’t want to call you a liar.
You made a statement. I pointed out your statement was false. Instead of saying “I was wrong”, you defend it.
Mal, what do you call someone who defends a statement he knows is false? A liar.
You know, earlier in this thread, I pointed out to Avalo a statement that was false. His response: To acknowledge it (see response at Avalokiteshvara says: September 2, 2011 at 17:43).
So I point out a falsehood to an atheist, and he immediately corrects it.
I point out a falsehood to a Christian, and he immediately defends it.
What is the Biblical truth again Mal? And where do lies originate in the Bible?
You have a choice. You can convince me you were joking, or admit you were wrong and apologize, or keep on defending your falsehood. No response means you are defending your falsehood. Should you choose the third option, anytime I respond to your messages, I will refer to you as “the Liar Mal”, and point back to your falsehood.
How can anyone trust you if you say “Jesus is the truth®”, if you would knowingly engage in so simple a lie?
MAL:
1. I said REFERENCES. A BIBLIOGRAPHY is a list of books he read. REFERENCES point out what PAGE that info comes from. If I doubt Werner Keller, I would have to read the entire Bibliography to find what he is saying! That what a “CITATION” is. A line within the book, supported by the REFERENCE page.
2. I notice you haven’t mentioned the book about Jesus being a mushroom. Rather selective thinking on your part when you demand I read/look up whatever you say.
3. You said the bottom line was “Avalokiteshvara was dismissive of the book, for whatever reasons he said”. You mean I CANNOT disagree with that book for any reason? What kind of FASCIST statement is that? I can say anything I want as long as I don’t disagree with you?
That sounds a lot like the words of a certain power-hungry Austrian man gaining popularity in Germany in the late 1930s…
MAL: Here is the post Ron (A Different Ron) is referring to.
UPDATE: I stated at some pint here on the blog that Islam was the first religion to fully espouse ‘Hell’ as we know it today. I was WRONG. So strike that. Upon further research, the Apocalypse of Peter (200 AD) is a detailed account by Jesus of Hell and how it ‘works’. This PREDATES Islam by anywhere from roughly 150 – 250 years. The Apocalypse of Peter was rejected by most orthodox Christians, but in some Syrian and Armenian New Testaments it WAS included. So this could be used by Christians to justify their views on Hell, or at least accuse the Roman Catholic Church of altering the Word of ‘God’.
BBBBUUUTTTT…there is a good reason that they wouldn’t or won’t use it. BECAUSE there is a section in it where Jesus says that:
“My Father will give unto them all the life, the glory, and the kingdom that passeth not away, … It is because of them that have believed in me that I am come. It is also because of them that have believed in me, that, at their word, I shall have pity on men… “. SINNERS WILL BE SAVED FROM HELL because the righteous will pray for their deliverance! Then Peter, the author, tells his son not to tell anyone this since God told him to keep it secret!!
So what this means is that Peter, the Founder of the Roman Catholic Church, the most powerful Church on the Planet, has told his son that no-one should know that JESUS CHRIST said ALL sinners will be saved from HELL.
Whether you believe any of it or not is up to you or me or anyone. BUT, The Apocalypse of Peter is a REAL, AUTHENTIC book discussed by 2nd century writers but not actually discovered until 1886 by a monk in a cave. And the books states that all sinners will be saved from Hell.
How’s that for a surprise?
1. I admitted I was wrong!
2. There is a real Christian document stating that ALL sinners will be saved from Hell.
I apologize Ron, and acknowledge that Avalokiteshvara did indeed come up with three reasons why he considered that Werner Keller’s best selling book “The Bible as History” should be dismissed.
I also acknowledge that you, Ron, consider the same best selling book by Werner Keller to be “fatally flawed” and “deserving of no real consideration”.
Mal, have you read Don D’s post? I’d love to hear your response…..(in the Fourth Picnic post)
Thank you Mal for your gracious response. I consider this matter closed, and will not mention it again, save to reiterate that you replied graciously.
As to my opinion of the book, of course is is just that: my opinion.
Thank you again.
Hi Kirrily,
Yes, I read Don D’s post. My response? I’ve seen it all before from Don (many times).
I had exchanges with Don on Citizen X’s blog. Our exchanges continued privately after he was politely asked to leave due to lengthy posts attempting to undermine Christian beliefs, including Christ’s divinity.
I’m sure many here will enjoy his posts. He will add to the growing atheist thrust of this blog.
Although our views on the Bible are radically different, I do respect the way Don keeps his arguments civil.
Ah. Here we go again, MALadjusted:
1. Mike (DDTFA) is not an atheist. HIs blog is merely against Ronald Weinland. I’M the atheist and MY posts are “atheistic”. Come after me and stop blaming Mike (DDTFA) for what he is NOT responsible for.
2. “Attempting to undermine Christian beliefs and Christ’s divinity.” The Bible itself undermines it quite well without my or Don D’s help!
3. If this blog is so evil and atheistic, WHY DO YOU KEEP COMING BACK? You are pretty interested in this blog for a Christian who proclaims to be so sure of the “truth”.
Oh and…
4. The growing atheist thrust of this blog. Like the ‘thrust’ was Christian in the past and now it has been poisoned by ‘other’ views? That sounds like a complaint. Why don’t you ask Mike (DDTFA) to ‘politely’ return the blog to its original thrust and ask everyone here to make sure they don;t express any atheist views so you feel more comfortable? That sounds like the Christian thing to do.
Mal, whatever Don D has posted here does not rise to the level of atheism just because it doesn’t fit with your literal interpretation of the bible. The thrust of this blog is not atheistic. The thrust of this blog is that Ronald Weinland is a false prophet (and it would seem a few other things). I’ve allowed expressions of Christian sentiment on this blog, but suddenly because an atheist shows up and expresses different ideas — “Well, we can’t have that!!!!!”
1 Thessalonians 5:21: “Test ALL things; hold fast to what is good.”
I have spent decades testing Scripture.You cry about atheists.
…and as for the divinity of Christ, I guess he isn’t powerful enough to save his disciples, thus he instructs them to buy SWORDS (Luke 22:35-38). So much for yours and Ronald Weinland’s peaceful Messiah. And yes, blah, blah, blah he told Peter not to use his, and yes, “those who live by the the sword…”. But Christ telling his disciples to buy swords when he has come to bring peace? Doesn’t sound very divine to me. Sounds more like the words of a carpenter pretending to be God…
*hic*
Chacha, I never knew one word could make me laugh so hard, but your *hic* did it for me. I’m still giggling.
Hang in there, lady. You have friends here.
MAL:
If Jesus is divine then why doesn’t he heal Christian amputees: Here are nine examples of one of Christ’s statements:
1) And Jesus answered and said to them, “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen. “And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.” (Matthew 21:21-22 NAS)
2) Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8 NAB)
3) Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst. (Matthew 18:19-20 NAS)
4) Amen, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it shall be done for him. Therefore I tell you, all that you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours. (Mark 11:24-25 NAB)
5) And I tell you, ask and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Luke 11:9-13 NAB)
6) And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14 NAB)
7) If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you. (John 15:7 NAB)
9) On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. Until now you have not asked anything in my name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. (John 16:23-24 NAB)
JESUS CHRIST IS A LIAR…
OR…
Matthew 15:24: (Jesus) “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of lsrael…”. He is the JEWISH Messiah as confirmed by Romans 16:17, Revelations 14:3-4 & John 10. Thus Paul’s preaching to the Gentiles and Christ’s command to teach all nations (Matt. 28:19) is a direct contradiction to his own words. Ronald Weinland is no different than Jesus in this regard. This is why I decry Christ’s self-theology, because it is Ron’s theology and vice versa.
Mal, you can make all the grand statements you want, but you can’t back any of it. And how arrogant of you to think that a rebuttal of your sloppy thinking is an attack on God. You are not God. An believing in God doesn’t make you special and above being called an” asshat” for trying to defend a lying 2000 year old carpenter who thought that his critics were evil and deserved to be destroyed.
You are the 2011 Nobel Asshat prize winner in Theology. Congratulations!
Chacha: Notice that in my posts that I use the BIBLE to support my atheism. I could mention atheist works, but I don;t need to. People like Mark and Mal are always saying that I am an atheist drawing on my own worldly wisdom and rejcting the words of God. Which is completely untrue. The Bible is my favorite source of material for these debates. Then when I use the Bible Mark and Mal run away.
Ask yourself why these two never answer any of my questions. They just pop up, decry atheism and leave…like clockwork. I on the other hand use the Bible, the very word they are so confident in, to back my arguments.
Who is more of an Anti-Christ? One who uses the Bible (me) to support his arguments, or a professed Christian (Mal/Mark) who REFUSES to use the Bible to support his arguments?
I always say that the Bible is a very versatile book: it can be used to support any position you want — even an atheistic one.
And yet the moral teachings of Christ are amazing! Why would people want to focus on the remaining crap when they could live a life of decency and wisdom on the strength of “love thine enemies”, or “forgive as I forgive you”.
Dumbfounding that I the atheist would be more in awe of Christ’s wisdom than Mal, who thinks Christ can’t stand on his own without attacking non-believers.
I mean look at the Beatitudes: Jesus uplifted the poor, hungry, sorrowful, and the hated. I guess that isn’t good enough for Ronald Weinland and Mal…
Weinland is critical of charities. He wants the money so he can spend it on his fantasies.
Then Ron is anti-Jehovah and anti-Christ (Deut 15:7-11).
Matthew 7:16 : By their fruits shall ye know them…
What fruits can we know Ron by? He cursed you (Mike) to death, he has been wrong on ALL his prophecies, he allows no debate or interpretation other than his own, and has not done what he said he would do when 2008 turned out wrong…admit he is a false prophet.
Odd that I the atheist have not called for ANY deaths, as opposed to the most righteous Yahweh and Ronald Weinland, who have called for MANY deaths. How can an atheist be more moral than Yahweh and his Witness?
Unless…
Mike (DDTFA) says:
September 7, 2011 at 10:24
I always say that the Bible is a very versatile book: it can be used to support any position you want — even an atheistic one.
I thought I would add: you can use it if you are short and can’t reach the table…a kind of booster seat. My daughter did this long ago…
ice cream time!!!
peace
Hi Mal, unlike ALL other Weinland supporters who have visited this blog, who have spewed hatred (except actually both yourself and Weinland Observer who used to post a year or so ago) – you too have been civil at least.
I don’t understand why all of a sudden the view of the BLOG is athiestic – Mike has never said one way or the other his beliefs to my knowledge – so he has allowed Christians here for ages to state their beliefs (without preaching). So Ava turns up with the opposite view and the word Anti Christ is being sprouted around.
Again, each one of us believe what we believe for a reason – a well thought out and considered reason. You have been coming from a mindset of superiority, basically saying in many words that non believers are wrong and blind. Dont you understand that the reverse is also true – that you are thought of as wrong and blind. A fence sitter.
I ask the same question of Ava, and have asked you before – what is the purpose of your being here? I mean, you seem to have a problem with most things that are said here, you avoid answering a great deal of questions, you said you would make up your mind about Ron by January 2011 (from memory) – yet you are still on that fence.
Some one else here said something about being luke warm…..
I really don’t see what is so hard about making up your mind about Ron. He has made prophecies. They haven’t come to pass. What does your precious bible say to do? Or is that too simplified? Too childlike a view for you? Hurts your intellect with it’s simplicity? Don’t agree with coming to Christ as a child? How would a child react to Rons total and utter failure at prophecy?
I suppose your wisdom and knowledge surpases all the rest of us on this blog.
You should start your own church.
“He will add to the growing atheist thrust of this blog.”
You are right Mal. This blog has taken a definite turn.
Asshat.
I don;t know if you can read mark but this ENTIRE thread is based on you and I debating. You haven’t actually debated anything I have said. Why don’t we have another debate? I’ll start:
You are an fumbling dolt, asshat, a jack-a-ninny, foppish lout, and you pee your pants daily.
Mark, I can understand why it feels that way, but I really don’t think it has.
Christians posting here have always had room to give opinion, as long as they don’t preach (except for this thread which is for that purpose for both sides).
I haven’t shared my beliefs (disbelief) until now with any clarity, because Mike has allowed this particular thread.
I have good and well thought out considerations to come to the point that I have (it’s no light matter after all) – and sometimes I feel by what you say (although not directed at me) is I guess discounting my journey because of where I have chosen to end it – a non believer in ALL forms of Christianity. I still believe in a creator at this stage.
You see, I feel that Christians would feel sorry for me, angry at me, displeased for me that I ‘let the devil win’.
Whether that is true or not (that Christians feel that way) – that is how I perceive it.
While I disagree with your beliefs Mark, I’ve always valued the way you treated me when I first came to this blog. It’s just that I feel now that I have come to the place that I have, well, judged.
Again, I could be wrong, but it’s just how I feel.
I know I’m generalizing here (again!) – but that is how I believe most people feel when confronted by Christians – JUDGED. Really, what right do they have?
‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.”
Lukewarm post, that would be me. I said it because that used to really bother me. I felt that I was lukewarm for most of my years searching for truth yet doing some wild things in my day.
I used to feel bothered about that one too…… free of that now *sigh*
And by atheist turn you mean me showing up and expressing myself. Once again you blame Mike for what I say. Typical cowardly actions. Blame others. You say the BLOG has taken an atheistic turn. No it hasn’t. The COMMENTS take an atheistic turn whenever I show up and post. So don’t be an asshat and blame the innocent.
Atrocious, Kirrily, Chacha, Red, Randy Terlecki, Martin Ortiz, Whisper01, Mal, YOU yourself Mark, and Mike (ddfta) are not atheists. They make up the majority here. I am the only openly atheist poster here. Thus the “atheistic turn” is essentially what I say. So stop whining about Mike (DDTFA) and the blog. I am right here Mark and Mal. Take ME on. You want to turn this blog back to Jesus. The buck stops here. I am the source. I am who you must fight.
Stop peeing your collective pantaloons, go down to Walgreens and buy some testicles, and come after ME Mark/Mal!!
Nobody’s judging you Kirrily. You have a new freedom from a high-demand cult. Maybe one day you will see that God is still right there…and never left you.
Thank you Mark, I once again appreciate your kind words, as you have always had for me. I’ve always had a soft spot for you, because you too have been a shoulder for me to cry on here. I will never forget your kindness.
And several times I have said one should NOT be an atheist if they feel it is too extreme a view for their feelings or understanding of reality. I have expressed my joy at MY OWN atheism, like other here have expressed their joy at their theism.
Once again Mark: don’t like atheism? I am right here ready for you , Mal, and Ronald Weinland to take on. I OPENLY CHALLENGE all three of you to prove this blog is atheistic, or incorrect about Ronald Weinland, or whatever else.
Asshat!
Mark: How do you know God is right here?
I would like to know how you know this bit of magical wisdom that has evaded the greatest atheist and theist minds of human history.
Sometimes I think atheistic but it leaves me with feelings of emptiness and hopelessness but not in the extreme sense. It’s hard to describe. When I’m down or depressed lying in bed not able to sleep I still feel the need to talk/pray to god or creator or something and it seems to help those feelings of despair dicipate. Like I’ve said before, I’m not a much of a “religious” person but the incredible universe sure seems lonely without a creator. It’s hard for my to accept that atoms of matter can naturally come together and create life forms that eventually become self-aware and have a conscious with emotions. It’s beyond my understanding and comprehension.
And you have every right to feel that way. Atheism is not something that everyone feels comfortable with, and it does take much thought before committing to. I totally agree with and support your wariness and quasi-rejection of atheism. Clearly it is right for you to do so, whether I think it is the “truth” or not.
It is interesting that you feel hopeless, considering I feel the opposite when I think of the universe being Godless. Not that that is wrong, but I can’t relate to that feeling. I actually feel very happy knowing that there is so much room for expansion and possibility! And that incomprehensibility makes me feel alive and filled with wonder. I don;t mean to imply that you should feel how I feel Red. If atheism fills you with hopelessness, then you should not choose it. Your happiness and mental health are more important than the choice to be atheist, and you should seek what gives you hope, no matter what I or others say.
Personally I feel very cozy in this Universe. And what a great time to be alive, in a span of time containing Diet Coke, the rock band RUSH, Star Wars, philosophical pragmatism, JAZZ music (which I LOVE!!!), my beloved wife and kids, Monty Python’s Flying Circus, The Big Bang Theory, chess, ice hockey, sherry wood-aged single malt Scotch, Vietnamese food, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and so on.
But atheists or not, here we are in this mysterious world. Might as well have some fun…
And also don;t forget. A-theism means you don’t BELIEVE in God(s). It is NOT proof that God doesn’t exist. Atheism is at best a rejection of all Earthly proclamations of God.
Thus I am comfortable with there being a God out there. I just haven;t seen convincing evidence here on Earth yet. I too sometimes wonder what God(s) could exist and what she/he/they/it are up to. But until they reveal themselves or I die, I won’t know.
Then my gorgeous little wife come along and whispers (censored!) and (censored) while she (censored), and I immediate cease caring whether there is a God or not!
…I just want to emphasize that I’m not depressed or feeling hopeless in any extreme sense at all! I have a happy life and my grandson makes my world go around.
Good!
Atheism or Christianity should be a joyous affair, and you are obviously happy with your decision. Good on ya’ as they say.
Atheism actually gives me a lot of hope. I really enjoying knowing that I, a fragile human being, am more moral than Yahweh, who slaughtered, enslaved, and punished at every turn. And I am also proud of the fact that I have built a successful life/career on my own without any help from religion, God, HWA, Ronald Weinland, etc. My little empire is mine, and I built it brick by brick. I didn’t need Jesus to help me understand neither Vietnamese grammar, nor Immanuel Kant’s philosophy. I have had a WAYYY better life not praying or begging God for wisdom, when I can just go down to the library and work it out on my own.
Did you hear that Ronald Weinland? I don’t need you, neither does your flock. And you will be finding that out next May….
I can not be so presumptuous to tell anyone if there is a god(s) or not, but I can tell you there is a hell. I’ve seen hell. I’ve been at that brink. No, hell is not a place, and there is no devil. Hell is a condition we create. It is where we make our own sufferings. Sometimes conditions can bring hell to us, but it is up to us to stay there or not.
If Jesus frees you from hell, then that’s great. If atheism frees you, then that is just as great. Whatever frees you is good. The Weinland followers are in a hell of their own choosing – created by Ronnie but maintained by his followers. And if Jesus frees them then that is good. And if atheism frees them then that is good too. Or something else. As long as they are freed.
Else, it is their own decision to remain in that hell.
Hell is sitting through a Gerald Waterhouse sermon for four hours when you are seven years old…
Well said Ron.
I have certainly been there…done that…then back in and out again. *ick*
I guess what bothers me is WHY did I believe that this was “from God”. Was it just because “Ron said”? or is there something in me that “needs” to feel “special” although the thought of that makes me gag. What do I need /want etc in my life that is missing…so that I will not get sucked into this….spiral again?
Jedi powers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiloZd1H4ow
A cape?
Mo’ money?
Bunny slippers?
cuppa coffee….chased with a diet coke *buuuuurp* Aaaaaaah yes. HEAVEN!
LMAO!! Is that a chipmunk really? I’ve never seen one before. Kind of looks like what we call a Guinea Pig.
That’s interesting Chacha – I still have the same ‘type’ of question in a way. I still havent figures out why all the truths made soooo much sense. What was the power in them that like you say, made us think they were from God, and made so much sense that we could only conclude ‘God put them there’.
It is the one thing of all this I still don’t get.
Was it the case of us feeling special? Or other things mixed in?
In us, the force was strong. Fight against it, we did not!
I think the animal is a hamster. Maybe “Dramatic Chipmunk” sounds better than “dramatic Hamster”. *teehee*
Ah…and may the schwartz be with us all!
(“Spaceballs” love that movie)
Dark Helmet…hey…we could write a NEW version…with Ass*helmet as Supreme commander…
Here’s a chipmunk:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.njnwcoa.com/images/chipmunk.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.njnwcoa.com/chipmunk.html&h=402&w=500&sz=48&tbnid=i-XE_AsBnk_bVM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=106&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dchipmunk%2Bimages%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=chipmunk+images&docid=VrXj–tr9IeroM&sa=X&ei=hMpoTv7UGdDAgQeysLjnDA&ved=0CDAQ9QEwBw&dur=2562\
wow…crazy long bunch o’ stuff…sorry. Still gets to the image though…
The animal featured in the video is called a prairie dog, also known as a ‘gopher’. They are everywhere in the Canadian prairies.
The original clip of the prairie dog is from Japanese TV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTisy5gmP7I
Dramatic Gopher? Nnnnaaah…
Just doesn’t have the same “ring” to it.
Like….asshat…has a certain
anyway…still funny
Still lookin’ for da trooth!
Do prairie dogs aka gophers play hockey too?
Only the tall ones…the rest just lay around telling them how much better they could have done it…
Sounds like the “proof” everyone has been looking for for evolution!
HA
“I have no moral or Christian duty (or interest) to debate an atheist on his or her beliefs on an Internet blog. You call it pride, I call it discernment. ”
I call it: you have no chance of winning despite resorting to sophistry of the most elementary nature and having realized this, made the wise choice to avoid humiliation and fled, tail firmly tucked between your legs.
“But, you used to shut down this type of debate- meaning the antagonistic comments from the atheist harassing believers and wanting to debate a mono-theistic world view. Now you encourage it. You are no longer a neutral party.”
Translation: If you wont censor people to keep my overly-sensitive ass happy, I’m going to play in a different sandbox!
Great thread. No, *Epic* thread.
WARNING: This post contains atheistic views, un-Christian language, anti-Christian sentiments, and the word ‘retards’. If this scares and infuriates you, do not read it. It is bad for you and you might start thinking thoughts that are not pleasing to God. Run away. Hide. Go read ‘Northanger Abbey’ by Jane Austen. Go listen to Joel Osteen sermons online. These activities are nice, and make Jesus love you more.
Thank you very much Splintersurfer. I dedicate this thread to everyone who wants to feel good about life but is afraid to go against the teachings of cowardly narcissists (all religions, all believers) who can’t stomach a world that doesn’t privilege them.
I can think of no higher honour than to stand apart form these DROOLING RETARDS.
That’s right Ronald Weinland! I’m looking Right. At. You.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8Kyi0WNg40&feature=related
Laura Weinland, May 22nd 2012…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxxBWVMjsxA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
No problem Avalokiteshvara!
On another note, which “violent video game” are you talking about?
Is it the Call of Duty franchise? lol
Heya Kirrily, hope all is going well with the pregnancy!
All good splinter! 19 week scan yesterday – all perfect, and it’s a boy!
I actually wasn’t referring to any particular violent video game. Just the fact that being tagged “Avalokiteshvara” and then playing GTA III for example is humorous to me and not “hypocritical” as Mark stated. Personally I am not a fan of violent video games. Not that I care about the violence, but rather I find stupid cartoonish games way more fun. I grew up with arcade games, which wee all colourful and totally unrealistic. I actually have firearms training, and can go down to the local gun range when I want ‘first person shooting action’. I prefer the feel of a REAL .50 Desert Eagle, not the sight of it on a TV. What I really love is SuperMario Kart for N64. That and “StarWars: Shadows of the Empire”. I used to play those for 12 hour stretches at a time, seeing how many times I could go through the entire game before I got tired, or too drunk. Kids, there is NOTHING like sitting around naked on a hot afternoon with the air-conditioning on playing SuperMario Kart (with the RUSH album ‘Exit: Stage Left” blasting out of the stereo, eating freezing cold ramen, and drinking an entire bottle of Jim Beam (Black). That is TOTALLY badass…and I don;t f**king care what Jesus thinks of it. I would invite over for a session of ‘Kart (minus my nudity) if he were real.
But if I were to play a modern fighting game, I would prefer something like “Resistance III” with aliens and non-stop bloodshed! And Slayer blasting out my stereo! But since I now have kids, I play “Disney Princesses” on Wii with my daughters. It is really girly and easy, but I get such amazing joy from seeing them giggling and romping around on the couch. I love entertaining them, so I make up new names for the princesses, and make silly noises, and they have a ball. I have to admit though that one night my wife and I played Disney Princesses while drunk, with Slayer playing in the background. It was hilarious!! There is NOTHING like watching Snow White battle evil fairies with “Disciple” blasting away in the background!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS0mQ25ezq4
Oh and I forgot to mention what I think of RW, so I will let George Takei say it for me…
This is for you Ronnie Weinland…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_QDGdbg-QQ&feature=related
Hey Kirrily!
Great news!
Health and happiness in buckets for you and hubby!
I love babies….makes me feel all warm and squishy! *giggle*
Peace
Chacha
Thanks Chacha!!
“Thank you very much Splintersurfer. I dedicate this thread to everyone who wants to feel good about life but is afraid to go against the teachings of cowardly narcissists (all religions, all believers) who can’t stomach a world that doesn’t privilege them.”
“Try being openly atheist for one week Atrocious. Let’s see how much you like those attacks…”
Judging by the sheer number of posts on this blog, there appears to be only one narcissist. I think your overcompensation here is a cover. That’s OK, really. I find the Mike and Avalo blog amusing.
LOL! That’s the best you can do? Narcissist? Overcompensation?
Nice try.
How’s THIS for overcompensation? LOL!
Deuteronomy 22:11 – Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.
Genesis 9:20-27 – Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. He drank some of the wine and became drunk, and he lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, “Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.” He also said, “Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem; and let Canaan be his slave. May God make space for Japheth, and let him live in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave.”
Believe me. I am nowhere near as narcissistic as Noah…or Yahweh, the imaginary God you and Ronald Weinland are currently dating…
“I find the Mike and Avalo blog amusing.”
Glad to be source of amusement for you. Just doing a service.
Oh, and right back at ya’.
Wait a minute. Jesus said “Blessed are the merciful” (Matthew 5:7)
But YAHWEH says:
“Leave alive nothing that breathes. Show them no mercy.” (Deut. 7:2)
“The Lord hardened their hearts… that they might receive no mercy.” (Joshua 11:20)
“I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the Lord: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them. A curse on him who is lax in doing the Lord’s work! A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed.” (Jer. 13:14; 48:10).
Oh no, Mark. You worship the God of Overcompensating Narcissists. Whatever shall you do?!
Uh-oh Mark. Looks like there’s trouble in the family…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jack-watts/selfdeprecating-narcissis_b_843434.html
Here’s another little nugget featuring a God so self-centered that babies must be ripped from wombs because Yahweh didn’t get any attention:
Hosea 13:16 – “The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their women with child ripped open.”
You want to talk over-compensation and narcissism, Mark? Let’s have at it.
Exodus 20:3 = Sociopathic. Narcissistic. Dangerous.
C’mon Mark…let’s go. I am ready for more debating. And by that I mean me proving you completely wrong and you running away like a coward, showing up once every week and a half to call me names then run away again. I am openly calling you out and mocking you. I openly defy you and your/Ron’s God. You and Ronald Weinland are frauds and scumbags. You proclaim your righteousness then abandon you God when he is openly mocked. You call Jesus your Saviour then deny him when confronted. I am openly blaspheming your Lord and you won’t stand ready for him. I deny his existence and you deny his power. Your (imaginary) God is evil and I deny his Glory, His power and his Word.
BUT: I will praise His Holy and Righteous Name if you can give me ONE good reason to. I will seek forgiveness, repent of my blasphemy, and openly proclaim Christ as my Saviour on this very blog if you have ANY spiritual truth of which I cannot deny.
The burden is on you now Mark. I have openly asked you to reveal God to me. IF YOU REFUSE, you are accountable to God for not trying, and I come before his Throne as witness to your faith.
I DARE YOU TO NOT RESPOND…
Wow….this is a LOT better than that “sermon” I …listened to (?) today. I had a hard time not giggling. It was….something else. (don’t really know what, but it was something else.)
Thanks for making me think Avalo and others…it has been interesting. THAT is why there is so many posts on this blog Mark.
peace
Chacha
Cha Cha
When all the lights are turned on and pointed at Ron, you can see him in a different light. He’s not wearing any clothes.
CHACHA: I am glad you are enjoying this. Hopefully you will be able to see what I say in context. My desire is NOT to just randomly offend any theist that comes within ten feet of me, but rather demonstrate that the evil narcissists roaming the Earth telling everyone that their way is best are nothing to fear. That INCLUDES atheists like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others. You can even use my manner of reasoning to defend yourself against Ronald Weinland. My ‘atheist’ arguments are really polemics against those who would tell you and I our own thoughts and feelings are inconsequential. Also don’t forget that my “blasphemy” or “hate” would be NOTHING in the face of a real God. If we assume that Yahweh exists, then what possible threat am I to the Creator of the Universe? None whatsoever.
What I AM though is a threat to are preening douche-bags like Mark and Mal, who imagine an non-existent God’s glory as their own, and their social circle as carriers of a special knowledge (which is a good description of a FASCIST). Fascists see any opposition as ‘narcissism’ because their opponents refuse to think of them as Gods. They also must categorize resistance as overcompensation, so as to try and deflate any and all opposition to their fascism. Of course Mark thinks I am overcompensating and narcissistic. Because I refuse to bow down to him as a ‘special emissary’ of God’s wisdom. NEVER be scared of false Christians like Ronald Weinland Chacha. They are boasters and cowards, and blaspheme their own God by assuming they know the mind of God. As the comedian Emo Philips said: The only real blasphemers are those who accuse OTHERS of blasphemy!
MARK is now in serious religious trouble if he refuses to answer my (sincere) request to teach me about God’s Truth. His refusal to engage with me is to defy God’s command to preach the Gospel, the mark of a deceiver, a true enemy of Jesus Christ…
Avalo,
I don’t see that anything you say is a “threat”. It is like you said, if God is threatened by words…or us lowly peons…
You make people think. Some times we need to be reminded to use that 3 pound hunk of cheese between the ears instead of just as a place to rest a hat or grow some hair!
I feel like I am “coming out of fear”. Strange place to be…
Hey Jack635
“When all the lights are turned on and pointed at Ron, you can see him in a different light. He’s not wearing any clothes.”
All I can say is…….”Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew”
Avalo said:
I think Mark will take that dare. At least until he does his next drive-by.
You’d think that someone like Mark, so sure of God and his universal power, could take on an alleged “overcompensating narcissist” like myself. Therein (to me) lies the failure of religion. God is Omnipotent and Transcendental…and incapable of inspiring a Holy Book that is logical, consistent, non-contradictory, and morally sound. I honestly do not mind not knowing the answers to Life’s mysteries, but I will NOT be bullied by some random asshat that uses religion as a weapon rather than medicine for the human soul. I guess this is why I really admire people like Chacha. Knowing personally how hard it is to undo HWA/Weinland-style brainwashing, Chacha is doing it on her own…behind enemy lines.
If only we all had Chacha’s moral fortitude, we’d all be shining Bodhisattvas by now!
It must drive Ronald Weinland nuts on the inside when one of his ‘sheeple’ turns out to be a greater moral/intellectual being (Chacha) than he is. He is God’s End Time Witness, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and Elijah, and what-have-you, and yet Chacha is having true spiritual epiphanies without his consent!! The Light at the End of the World, the Bringer of 50 New Truths for the Salvation of Mankind is being out-wisdomed and out-truthed…by one of his congregation!!I am absolutely loving it! We have to come up with a new term for Ron. He has graduated from ‘asshat’ to a new level of asshat-ery that has yet to be named and studied.
Ass helmet?
How ’bout “Ass-Dunce-Cap”! Or “Arseduncecap”. Ar-si-dun-si-cap LOL
“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.”
“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”
So this is what passes for debate from Mark: aphorisms and insults. Contradictory ones at that.
Not contradictory. Narcissists can be fools as well.
The comments have overflowed the WordPress template. More comments on the following page
http://ronaldweinland.info/falseprophet/2011/08/31/the-mark-vs-avolo-debate-thread/comment-page-2/
Prior comments are on the following page:
http://ronaldweinland.info/falseprophet/2011/08/31/the-mark-vs-avolo-debate-thread/comment-page-1/
Avalo said, “BUT: I will praise His Holy and Righteous Name if you can give me ONE good reason to. I will seek forgiveness, repent of my blasphemy, and openly proclaim Christ as my Saviour on this very blog if you have ANY spiritual truth of which I cannot deny.
The burden is on you now Mark. I have openly asked you to reveal God to me. IF YOU REFUSE, you are accountable to God for not trying, and I come before his Throne as witness to your faith. “
Mark said, ““Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.”
“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.””
In other words, Mark, you’re saying, “Avalo, you are a fool and a conceited fool at that, and because of that, I’m not going to share with you spiritual truth that you cannot deny, because that “truth” is too good for you, a lowly swine and a dog.”
It’s interesting, Mark that the first one you quoted was from Proverbs 26 (Old Testament) and the second quote was from Mathew 7 (before the death of Jesus Christ, which changed everything, and the coming of the indwelling Holy Spirit) which shows that you are still stuck in old testament law.
Typical.
A close relative of mine was an atheist for quite a few years, and he gave me the same questions, statements, and research. I NEVER, EVER called him a dog or a swine or any such thing. I answered his questions the only way I could, with love, RESPECT, and conviction of my own beliefs.
Avalo, I told him that I could not prove the existence of God to him any more than he could PROVE the non-existence of God to me. It all had to do with personal experiences and personal beliefs stemming from said experiences. We are all human beings, the human race, and we all need to be respected for what we believe regardless of the outcome of said beliefs. That’s what freedom is all about.
I hate religion. Religion is different from spirituality. I’ve had personal experiences with both. I choose to believe what I believe. It’s a shame that when answers can’t be given, religion turns to personal attacks, name calling and disrespect.
So Mark, which is it:
– “Answer not a fool according to his folly”
– “Answer a fool according to his folly”
MARK said: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.”
1. So seeking GOD is spiritual folly, as that is what I asked of you, insight into truth. Mark, I am am atheist and yet even I wouldn’t call seeking God “folly”. Tell me who is more dangerous. The man who oesn;t believe in God, or the man who HIDES God/the ‘Truth’ away for himself?
MARK also said: “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”
2. You are a textbook sociopath. The Pope isn’t too good to preach the Gospel to the world. Billy Graham spoke on TV. The Dalai Lama, who is considered by his followers to be the 14th incarnation of Avalokiteshvara himself refuses to claim divinity and speaks as a common monk. Yet you Mark hold back your “great wisdom” from the world so that no one can know God and you can hoard all the riches of the Kingdom yourself.
Go ahead. Hoard away. If GOD is so special that a pig-dog like me doesn’t deserve to know God’s love, then once again I proclaim in front of you and every Christian on this website that I and the rest of the supposed pig-dogs of the world deny and oppose YAHWEH, and his sick, selfish “love”.
(WARNING: The next sentence is blasphemous. Do not read it if you love Jesus.)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Truth is a divine baby, and YAHWEH is the rotting afterbirth laying in the garbage being eaten by his maggot-followers like you.
Sounds like a great Bible study Mike.
Atrocious, “How ’bout “Ass-Dunce-Cap”! Or “Arseduncecap”. Ar-si-dun-si-cap LOL”. Now, who needs a lesson in RESPECT and love. Such a shame.
Avalo isn’t a seeker, he’s a baiter. He just wants to debate for his own ego. I do hope he comes to find God. I am not the one to bring him there now. He isn’t seeking. He baiting.
How do you know I am not seeking? Now you are the MORAL judge of who is sincere? And how is your running away from the debate NOT baiting?
You DO NOT hope I come to find God, as you could bring me to God RIGHT NOW if you would get down off your throne and tell me how to know God.
I guess I am not good enough to know Yahweh. So I will follow the Dalai Lama. He seems to like us pig-dogs…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXaYp7nwWXM
Rick Miller seems to agree with Avalo:
But Rick greatly offended Ron, so much that he fled.
Avalo, this is for you:
“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”
Where I stand:
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
What is faith?
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”
Hey Mark:
PROVE IT…
“Hey Mark:
PROVE IT…”
For anyone who doubts why I don’t debate Avalo, read the above.
Mike, you created this thread. If you want a debate, have at it with him. He’s not a seeker, but a baiter. I think we all can see now that this blog isn’t intended to glorify God in any way by the blog owner.
AND NOT ONCE have I ever “preached” atheism or told anyone to believ what I believe. I have made my position known and encouraged others to seek God if they feel they should. BUT if you get to use the Bible to tell me I am a pig-dog, then I reseve the right to now “preach” right back at you. This is the Mark/Avalo thread, and I am retaining my right to respond tit-for-tat.
WARNING: The following is a atheist website. DO NOT go there if you want to continue believing in Yahweh or Jesus, as the material contained there WILL make you feel MUCH LESS secure about your beliefs afterwards. And I will be openly deying God as well. Turn back if this idea does not make you feel safe and warm and sure of the world. Here we go Mark. I am now going to OPENLY PREACH against your false God Yahweh.
The God of Abraham is a psychopathic misogynist and thus everyone who believes in him is by a transient property a tacit psychopathic misogynist. Atheism is the purest path to knowledge and truth known to man, and does not infringe upon any human freedom, including theism. Religion has failed mankind so many times, it is now time to thank it for all the nice cathedrals and paintings, and dump God in the toilet forever. I encourage all of you to explore atheism and make this move yourself.
Start here,,,
http://www.evilbible.com/
The God of the Bible is fiction created by ancient peoples. There is no proof of his existence or presence in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
You will learn more actual; truth about Reality from this one website than all the holy books in the world…
http://www.samharris.org/
Mark said: “I think we all can see now that this blog isn’t intended to glorify God in any way by the blog owner.”
I never said that it was. I started this blog to — well, look at the name and figure it out. Since God is so great, he doesn’t need my blog to glorify him.
“WARNING: The following is a atheist website. DO NOT go there if you want to continue believing in Yahweh or Jesus, as the material contained there WILL make you feel MUCH LESS secure about your beliefs afterwards. And I will be openly deying God as well. Turn back if this idea does not make you feel safe and warm and sure of the world.”
Mike, maybe this should be on your homepage.
This blog has run its course. Actually, Weinland has run his course. Naturally, this blog follows. Its damp, dark and moldy in here. Time to get some fresh air.
Well. Mark. This just confirms that you’re so insecure in your own beliefs that you can’t withstand someone expressing another. No wonder you won’t debate Avalo. All you can do is cite platitudes. La, la, la, la, la, la.
Yes Mark. It is damp, dark and moldy from your point of view.
Try pulling your head out of your ass, that’ll help…
“This just confirms that you’re so insecure in your own beliefs that you can’t withstand someone expressing another.”
The double standards you hold is just lunacy.
Fascinating how you always say you are done here and that this blog is filled with the hate against Christians, YET you keep coming back. You are always ready with some random judgement about everyone here YET you refuse to address my questions.
How do you explain this to your imaginary God?
One question Mark: what are you smoking?
First, Avalo, I only comment on this thread and will continue to do so until I no longer want to, or, Mike shuts it down. I never said I was done here. What you infer shows me you only hear what you want. You already know why I don’t answer your questions, so you might as well quit askin’, cause it ain’t happenin’. You are smart enough to Google to find websites that support your beliefs, you can also Google to find the answers from a Christian perspective. The thing is, you don’t really want to know the answers or else you would have already done so. Even if you couldn’t get the answers somewhere else, this blog is a strange place for you to seek them out. Ergo, you don’t really want to know. You are a poser.
Mike, not smoking anything. It is obvious that Avalo can’t stand someone expressing a Christian belief on your blog, yet you don’t call him out on it. In fact, you allow it and encourage it… now. To the best of my recollection, I’ve never engaged Avalo in his Atheistic views until he made it a point to engage me. He pounces on every Christian post. I tended to just leave him alone because his rants are just off topic and not relevant to this blog. As you said, read your blog title.
Therefore, Mike, you have a double standard as a blog owner and moderator. I am sure seekers/potential Weinland converts will start to question the veracity of this blog due to comments from you and Avalo. That’s my take.
“It is obvious that Avalo can’t stand someone expressing a Christian belief on your blog”.
PROVE IT.
Avalo, why don’t you take every question that you have provided on this blog and answer the questions with the from a Christian perspective. Certainly you must be familiar with the counter arguments. A good debater could do it. Are you a good debater?
Mark: “Avalo, why don’t you take every question that you have provided on this blog and answer the questions with the from a Christian perspective. Certainly you must be familiar with the counter arguments. A good debater could do it. Are you a good debater?”
1. You would know if YOU ACTUALLY DEBATED ME.
2. You are a coward. You are asking me to debate MYSELF through the lens of Christianity? What the fuck do you think debating means?
3. I used THE BIBLE to back my points. You REFUSED to explain God to me.
4. You said you will NEVER debate me and yet you are asking me to continue “debating” in general?
The real question is are YOU a good debater?
Who cares if I am a good debater? You obviously are, so, debate. Debate. Debate. Debate.
I CHALLENGE YOU TO DEBATE! SHOW ME YOU CAN ARGUE THE OPPOSITE VIEWPOINT!
Or, are you unable to. That’s what I take away.
PROVE ME WRONG!
I don’t debate simple minds. PROVE to me you are worthy.
And as your stated goal is to get me and the blog off the topic of atheism, and you refuse to address me rationally, I will stoop your level, crawl down into the sewer, and speak directly to you:
asshat!
Prove I am worthy to debate YOU? LOL!
Talk about narcissism!
Tell you what. I WILL debate you. In Japanese!!
Anata no bakasa wa wakarahen, do-aho! Zettai, anata no okasan wa unchi desu. ‘Kasan no koumon kara umaretta.
Hoka ni, omae no chinchin wa hont ni o-manko desu. Mange kusai, to atama wa neko no fun ippai ippai. Dettekure.
Wow, Japanese. That is so awe inspiring. Please continue. Your words are just so enlightening.
Are you calling me a Jedi? Wow, I don’t know. Thanks?
Seriously though…
Now, stand on one foot and put your hand on your head while singing Santa Claus is Coming to Town.
Please type the lyrics so we know you are really doing it. Pictures optional.
Why don’t you get out your Japanese-English dictionary and find out what I said…
Better yet, ask Jesus to translate it for you. He promised he would if you asked…
John 14:13-14: And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask ANYTHING of me in my name, I will do it.
You really are a fickle fellow aren’t you?
Well? Ask Jesus to translate what I said. He MUST because he said so in the Bible and you are a Christian.
Why isn;t Jesus translating my words for you? Why oh why? He said h would, he is the Christ, the Bible says so. Your beloved Jesus/Bible/Yahweh can;t be wrong. He is the True God.
Unless…
Could it be that John 15:7, 15, and 23-24 are LIES?
1. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you. (John 15:7 NAB)
2. It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you. (John 15:16 NAB)
3. On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. Until now you have not asked anything in my name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. (John 16:23-24 NAB)
Go ahead Mark. I am waiting…
Better yet, why not ask him personally. He must be here on earth right now because he told his followers he would return in their lifetime…
Matthew 23:36 & 24:34
“Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.”
Asking for what you want is tempting God? LOL!
God will give you ANYTHING you ask for BUT don’t you dare ask for anything!
Sonna mitai no kami-sama wa koumon kara no zamen desu.
…to, kami-sama no kuchi de かすがなくなる!!!
Though I would give Jesus a little extra challenge of translating japanese out of both Romaji and hiragana.
私はベトナム語好き!
And one more in my 1st language…dear sweet mark: Sie sind ein Stück Scheiße.
I don’t ask God for foolish things. Your posts are foolishness.
και αποκριθεις αυτω ειπεν ο ιησους υπαγε οπισω μου σατανα γεγραπται γαρ προσκυνησεις κυριον τον θεον σου και αυτω μονω λατρευσεις
Ummm Mark? You PERSONALLY DID NOT say that. You copied it into Google translate, and then cut/pasted it! LOL! I ACTUALLY can speak German and Japanese!!
Look at that folks. Mark intentionally deceived you into thinking he can speak or write Greek in any form. How do I know? The quote is in Biblical Greek!!! No one would say it that way in 2011!
και αποκριθεις αυτω ειπεν ο ιησους υπαγε οπισω μου σατανα γεγραπται γαρ προσκυνησεις κυριον τον θεον σου και αυτω μονω λατρευσεις
“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”
MARK IS A DECEIVER AND A LIAR. And I caught hiM red-handed. THE 10 Commandments say thou shalt NOT lie” Mark.
You just sinned.
Prove to me you know Japanese.
Ready. Go.
Wait. Ready. Now.
Aren;t you forgetting something? I already did prove I speak Japanese by writing it out in Romaji (Roman alphabet). There is NO translator for Romaji! How would I know how to transliterate it?
Don’t try and change the subject. You LIED MARK. You lied and got caught. Challenging my Japanese doesn’t change that FACT.
MESSAGE TO ALL:
MARK JUST GOT CAUGHT LYING AND IS NOW TRYING TO EVADE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT. IS THAT THE CHRISTIAN THING TO DO?
I travel again for a bit, and yet again, things heat up. Glad to see this thread is still alive
Mark, it is ironic you chose to use Mathew 7:6 to defend your non-responses to Avalo. You failed to quote the entire passage. Take a look at the words prior to what you quoted:
It seems to me that you are judging Avalo by your statement, and the main thrust of the passages preceding your quote warn against exactly that! IMHO, you have a plank in your own eye.
It also seems to me that you you are calling your own words “sacred”. You mean to tell me that if you debate someone, your words should be proscribed as “sacred”? That’s a Ronnie Weinland tactic. Your words, should you actually engage in a debate, are not sacred. So you cannot be throwing something “sacred” before your adjudged “swine”.
As to your Proverbs quote, aside from the obvious contradiction, read what it says: “according to his folly”. If you use the power and force of the Word of God®, you are not answering him “according to his folly”. You are answering with the Word of God® which according to Hebrews is:
How can you lose?
So how about. Care to actually debate Avalo rather than using platitudes and insults?
Mark said:
Mark, you are really, really dense. Read the post introducing this thread. Read it 9 or 10 times, maybe the point will sink through your thick skull.
Mark said
So Mark, what should we infer from your refusal to debate along with statements such as:
And you area LIAR Mark. Let’s see how God feels about liars (proverbs 6:16-19):
oh look …God HATES “a lying tongue and a false witness that speaketh lies.”
You and Ronald Weinland…
So, Avalo, you REFUSE to prove that you know Japanese (Just go to http://www.romaji.org/ and anyone can translate) and you REFUSE to prove that you understand the mono-theistic perspective. You want me to prove something? Prove these things first to my satisfaction.
OK, Mike, I figured you’d say that. This is the “anything goes thread”. That’s your “out” for not moderating your blog.
Avalo, and if you don’t PROVE it to me, you are just like Ron Weinland. We should believe you because you say we should.